Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/4/2005 1:58:16 PM EDT
I was discussing gun topics with a coworker the other day, including the expiration of the assault weapons ban. He mentioned that some of those weapons really should be banned. I explained that most of them were banned for looking scary, like having certain grips or stocks or bayonets. And that when it comes down to it, the bullets they fire down the range are the same as a very domestic looking hunting rifle.

He countered saying that some of the banned weapons can be easily modified to be full auto, in fact he even knew what specific part to change one one of them and it was easy (he was in the Guard and had some experience with firearms back then).

Is there any truth to this?

Let's save the whats-wrong-with-full-auto-anyway debate for another thread.
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 2:04:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2005 2:05:18 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
All women are equipped to be easily converted into prostitutes. Doesn't mean they will


All men are equipped to be rapists. Doesn't mean they will.


In America, we don't (shouldn't) ban things for what "might" happen.



My propane tank can be easily converted into a bomb. So can my gas cans. My chainsaw is ready for murdering as-is, no conversion necessary.
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 2:17:53 PM EDT
All very true. But I would also have to agree with those who say that a firearm is the easiest to use to harm other people. We don't hear a lot about people harming others with propane tanks or chainsaws or even intentionally runing over someone. But we do hear a lot about gun violence.

I would have liked to respond to him directly about the convertability of the weapons but I lacked the knowledge.
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 3:01:31 PM EDT
Let me guess, his methods including some, or all of the following

Paperclip
shoestring
f­ile down the firing pin
file down the disconnecter

All of them crap, either dangerous crap that will destroy your gun, or crap that won't work.
I'll be honest with you, okay?
Can some weapons be converted to full auto?
Yes, especially weapons based on a design that was originally full auto.

That said...converting those weapons will require significant effort, a good understanding of fabricating metal parts, and knowledge of said weapons.
These things are not something an actual criminal would have.

So no, no so-called "assault weapons" should be banned.
Then again, I believe that you should be able to walk into any gunstore and buy a machine gun over the counter, no paperwork, no background check, nothing.
Many here feel the same way - liberty has it's costs.


Also, food for thought.
Remember the North Hollywood bank robbery?
Those fellows had honest-to-god machine guns.
They expended more than 1,200 rounds
They killed not a single person.

Conversely, there was a young man named Alvin York, from the backcountry of Tennesse.
He was awarded the Medal of Honor during WW1 for his role in turning the tide of a battle.
In a matter of minutes, he had killed 25+ men, captured 132, and silenced 35 heavy machine guns.
He was armed only with a bolt action rifle and a pistol.
He fired one shot for each man he killed.

Now ask yourself - who was more dangerous?
Is it the tool that poses the danger, or the man using it?
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 3:06:42 PM EDT
I suppose an AR15 to M16 conversion is easy. If you are a machinist with a mill, the schematics and you already have the fire control group from an M16.
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 3:31:18 PM EDT
Ask me how long it takes to convert a 10/22 into FA without any modification of parts?

or garand

M1A

Mini14

Auto 5

or just about any semi pistol.....


no permanent modifications necessary, just ned a paper or wooden match for most (cotter pin for others)


never mind the whole shoelace option....


ANY repeatign firearm can be made Full auto, the Kiwis made Enfields FA (not that hard to do, though it is a scary conversion)


or the oh so fun Pedersen conversion for 1903 rifles, nagants, and Mausers....


The so called assault weapoins are not any harder or easier to convert than anythign else, if you know what you are doing...

Link Posted: 11/4/2005 3:49:09 PM EDT
Banning guns because of their capability is foolish at best and evil at worst.

The press hones in on "gun violence" but they totally miss the boat: it's violence regardless of what tool was used. People are killed every day with cars, bikes, bats and bodies of water. Shit happens. Gun laws are written and passed by people seeking to say "we're doing everything we can, please re-elect us". But the truth is, writing laws doesn't stop any type of violence.

I use this analogy to plant the seed of doubt into anti-gun folks: it takes people to commit violence whether it be with a fully automatic rifle or a rock. If a person has behaved in such a way that they are precluded from owning firearms then they should be in a cage. Most of the people who are hard on "guns" are usually soft on criminals and highly believe that violent criminals can be rehabilitated.
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 4:02:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zirconx:
All very true. But I would also have to agree with those who say that a firearm is the easiest to use to harm other people. We don't hear a lot about people harming others with propane tanks or chainsaws or even intentionally runing over someone. But we do hear a lot about gun violence.

I would have liked to respond to him directly about the convertability of the weapons but I lacked the knowledge.



False on guns being the easiest - try knives. Go talk to a local PD. Do some research on the 7yd/21 foot engagement ans see why. Knives leave a bigger wound channel than bullets. Most every kitchen in the US has a knife capable of inflicting great harm - meaning death. Watch COPS on TV and see how many stabbings are investigated. LikeI mentioned above, don't take my word for it, I encourage you to go talk to a local police officer and ask them about the number of stabbings versus shootings and their experience/opinion about them. You can also research your community to see if they have crime reporting on line. Most accredited law enforcement agencies have on-line crime statistics. If yours doesn't have it readily available file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) to get the data.

If you "hear" a lot about gun violence where are you listening? Consider the source. Reporting someone got stabbed is a lot less sensational than shoot out at wherever location. It is commonly thought that general news agencies have slant is reporting on gun violence. There is data provided by agencies on the number of pro-gun versus anti-gun segments run by the national media. it did indicate a anti-gun stance.

Thefinal thought I would leave is this - of all the gun violence you have heard of, can you cite even one example of that same source mentioning a person that saved thier life or that os another by having a gun available? If not, you are only getting half the story.

Link Posted: 11/4/2005 5:31:11 PM EDT
Thanks for the replies. This is some good info.

Another thing I should have said to him was 'so what?'. When was the last time you heard about some one commiting a crime with a fully automatic weapon? The hollywood robery was the only one I can recall hearing about. And as thedoctor pointed out, they didn't work so well for them.

These are all good points. But I still feel it's an up hill battle, and it depresses me. I think that many many people think like my coworker. They are uninformed, and generally just afraid of guns. Gun controls have continually gotten stricter since the dawn of this country. The expiration of the assault weapons ban is the only victory we have. I wonder what the laws will be like in 20 years? We came awfully close to having Kerry as our president (which is who my coworker voted for, BTW). If Kerry had won I don't think the AWB would have been allowed to expire. In fact I don't doubt they would have made it stronger.

But I am getting off topic, perhaps I should start another thread. It's just good for me to talk about this a little bit. The only person I get to talk to about it much is my wife.

hinking.gif
Link Posted: 11/4/2005 7:25:28 PM EDT
Most people's minds can't be changed.


That said, ask him if it's LEGAL for a normal citizen, like yourselves, to even own a machinegun.


That should throw him for a loop.



I don't know about where you are, but in most states it is LEGAL to own a machinegun. Yes, there's a lot of hoops & cost involved, but it's legal.


So, even with a ban, they will still be out there......


He's a shooter. He's played with FA. Ask him which is more accurate, FA or semi aimed shots? Ask him how fast he can crank off a few shots.


Basically, lead him into the realization that dead is dead, and spraying 30 shots in the time a SA places 5 good rounds doesn't make much of a difference to the person getting shot. 5 hits or 5 hits + 25 misses still = dead
Link Posted: 11/7/2005 7:55:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2005 8:12:20 PM EDT by Model_One]
It's a mistake to argue such points - you should call his attention to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't about duck hunting. That a given firearm may or may not be convertible by thus-and-such means is completely irrelevant, as the above reference to prostitution illustrates.

Remind him, or maybe tell him for the first time he's ever heard it, that machine guns are not illegal but are perfectly legal for plain old garden-variety, non-law enforcement, non-military, non-government, non-elite, law-abiding, taxpaying Americans to own. OTOH, the illegal conversion of an AR-15 into an "M16" is just that - illegal - and a big-time felony. (Leave the constitutionality of those laws for another day.)
The penalties for committing crimes with such weapons are dire indeed, etc., etc.

He's probably heard the saying "The 1st Amendment doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater - so ask him why we don't tape peoples' mouths before they go into the theatre?" Actually, you have every right to shout "Fire!" but then you have the duty to answer for your actions... today's culture seeks to ensure safety through prior restraint, which is a philosophy most inimical to our freedom...

Don't get distrracted arguing about what kind of guns we can or should own, focus on our right to own self-defense, i.e., militia weapons, versus the need to severely punish people who use them to commit crimes. Back to the old saw: "Guns don't commit crimes, people do."
Link Posted: 11/8/2005 2:29:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zirconx:

He countered saying that some of the banned weapons can be easily modified to be full auto, in fact he even knew what specific part to change one one of them and it was easy (he was in the Guard and had some experience with firearms back then).



Make full auto's legal again, repeal the 1986 law, and problem solved!
Link Posted: 11/9/2005 3:53:23 AM EDT
Here in Australia, a nutjob went, well, nuts and killed 32 people in 1996. The response from the state and federal governments was to ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and limit the magazines for all other guns to 10 rounds. There was a "buy back" of the now illegal guns, and over half a million (I think), a tiny number, were handed in, as well as mandatory registration of all guns, and a requirement that all shooters have a specified "genuine reason" and be a member of a club associated with that genuine reason in order to be licenced. "Self Defence" and "property protection" were specifically excluded as genuine reasons, and the legislation states that fireams ownership was a privilage, not a right.
A couple of years later, they had clamped down on handguns, specifying that magazines had to be 10 rounds or less, that 9mm was that largest calliber permitted (there are exceptions) and once again there was a buy-back of the now prohibited weapons.
The head of the New South Wales (a state here) Institute of Criminology came out just recently and stated that, after 9 years of strict gun laws, there had essentially been NO impact on the rates of violent crime committed with or without a firearm. Accidents involving firearms had fallen, as had mass killings, although on the latter he stated that there really hadn't been enough research to verify that. Suprisingly, firearms ownership is up, with 1 in 12 adult Australians owning a gun.
Across the moat in New Zealand, you can buy and shoot just about anything you like, and that country is just about as peacefull as their sheep.
The U.K. is in a worse postion, legislatively, than us, and are doing no better crime wise.

If you really want to offer proof that gun control does nothing, tell your co-worker that its been tried, and is still being tried in Australia. Get him to look at the crime stats pre and post 1996. If he's really interested, and not the typical brainless sheep, he can see the results of "gun control" for himself
Link Posted: 11/12/2005 3:18:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Model_One:
It's a mistake to argue such points - you should call his attention to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't about duck hunting. That a given firearm may or may not be convertible by thus-and-such means is completely irrelevant, as the above reference to prostitution illustrates.

Remind him, or maybe tell him for the first time he's ever heard it, that machine guns are not illegal but are perfectly legal for plain old garden-variety, non-law enforcement, non-military, non-government, non-elite, law-abiding, taxpaying Americans to own. OTOH, the illegal conversion of an AR-15 into an "M16" is just that - illegal - and a big-time felony. (Leave the constitutionality of those laws for another day.)
The penalties for committing crimes with such weapons are dire indeed, etc., etc.

He's probably heard the saying "The 1st Amendment doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater - so ask him why we don't tape peoples' mouths before they go into the theatre?" Actually, you have every right to shout "Fire!" but then you have the duty to answer for your actions... today's culture seeks to ensure safety through prior restraint, which is a philosophy most inimical to our freedom...

Don't get distrracted arguing about what kind of guns we can or should own, focus on our right to own self-defense, i.e., militia weapons, versus the need to severely punish people who use them to commit crimes. Back to the old saw: "Guns don't commit crimes, people do."



+1!


Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
"In America, we don't (shouldn't) ban things for what "might" happen.."



I wish that was the case... And it should be. Sadly "preemptive action" seems to be the theme these days.


Originally Posted By Lert:
"Here in Australia, a nutjob went, well, nuts and killed 32 people in 1996..."



While the body count (of a single incident) doesn't compare, here in Santa Monica, CA. a man plowed through two blocks of third street promenade on a farmers market day with his car injuring 50 or so people and killing 10 including a 7 month old and a 78yo holocost survivor.

People worry way to much about the wrong kinds of things IMO.
Link Posted: 11/12/2005 3:41:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/12/2005 3:42:32 PM EDT by yekimak]

Originally Posted By zirconx:
I was discussing gun topics with a coworker the other day, including the expiration of the assault weapons ban. He mentioned that some of those weapons really should be banned. I explained that most of them were banned for looking scary, like having certain grips or stocks or bayonets. And that when it comes down to it, the bullets they fire down the range are the same as a very domestic looking hunting rifle.The ban was about looks and had nothing to do with the functionality of guns. it was a feel good farce in the wake of some tragedies that happened ironically due to the lack of enforcement of existing gunlaws, and because of some gun laws being followed, i.e. no guns at schools. There has been at least one school thwarted because a principal had a firearm illegally in his car and he had the forethought to go get it when the shit hit the fan. Who knows how may lives he saved by risking his liberty in this manner.

He countered saying that some of the banned weapons can be easily modified to be full auto, in fact he even knew what specific part to change one one of them and it was easy (he was in the Guard and had some experience with firearms back then).If I had a dime for every former army-ranger/seal/whathavenot that was somehow an expert in firearms because they went through basic, I would be rich. Even today I was dealing with a "veteran" that was trying to tell me that the AR I built was illegal. Most every gun out there takes alot of work, or the addition/change of alot of parts to make it full auto. The only one that comes to mind that would be "simple" by any stretch of the imagination was a Kimmel ap9, that would require welding and grinding to make an open-bolt conversion, and since it would not even run in semi-auto, I would be doubtful at its effectiveness at FA. Being in the Guard does not make you anymore a firearms expert than being an LEO or a gun-store owner. That said, anyone who has the time and energy can make just about any repeater a full auto, hell the first gas operated semi-auto prototype was a levergun with a gas trap on the end made by the Man himself, JMB. Tell your buddy he is a moron. I had a Guard guy tell me once that he could plug the barrel of my .45 with his pinky and it would not hurt him if I fired because the bullet would not be able to overcome the pressure of the barrel being sealed.

Is there any truth to this?
NO!

Let's save the whats-wrong-with-full-auto-anyway debate for another thread.



Gun laws are wrong. They are wrong on so many levels that it is hard to note them all, never mind near impossible to explain to some dillweed who thinks that because they were in the guard they know everything. Of course your "friend" does even bat an eye to think that because he is in the guard that he should be allowed to have access to FA weapons. Fuck him, he is not your friend, he is an elitist asshole who needs to fuck off and die. He thinks that not only should "the people" not be allowed to have FA, but even guns that look like FA. What kind of mentality is that? IS this the same kind of person that should be allowed to be in charge?

By far the worst injustice caused by gun laws is the separation of classes caused by it. All of the sudden, we are no longer equals. Cops and the rich can have what they want/need to defend themselves, and the rest of us cannot. This is the cause of all injustice. We are all meant to be equal, and gun laws take that away. My wife should not become an instant victim because 90% of men are stonger than her and she does not have the means to defend herself. A BLACK man in the inner city should not be removed of his right to defend himself because he lives in a shitty part of a shitty town. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and gun laws take that away, piece by piece, bit by bit.

Sorry for ranting, but this shit pisses me the flock off.
Link Posted: 11/12/2005 3:49:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cobracommand:

Originally Posted By Lert:
"Here in Australia, a nutjob went, well, nuts and killed 32 people in 1996..."



While the body count (of a single incident) doesn't compare, here in Santa Monica, CA. a man plowed through two blocks of third street promenade on a farmers market day with his car injuring 50 or so people and killing 10 including a 7 month old and a 78yo holocost survivor.

People worry way to much about the wrong kinds of things IMO.



+1

I once saw a docco about the rate of injury and fatalities caused by car accidents. A really good quote was
"If we could provide a fast, cheap and efficient mode of transport to every American that would revolutionise society, and all you had to do was sacrifice 50,000 people every year at the foot of the Washington Monument, would you take it?" When put in those terms, of course the answer would be NO. There'd be calls to ban something like that. When you ask if people should be allowed to use cars, even though they kill 50k people a year, the answer would be "of course!". People will only advocate banning things that they don't personally have to give up. But its for the children!
Link Posted: 11/12/2005 9:48:58 PM EDT

Sadly "preemptive action" seems to be the theme these days.


Interestingly, in the area of free speech, this is called "prior restraint" and is almost per se unconstitutional.

However, when it comes to conduct, SCOTUS has held that conduct is pretty much free game when it comes to prior restraint.

When discussing the 2nd Amendment, my Con Law professor said that no right is absolute, (despite "congress shall pass no law" and "shall not be infringed") and brought out that old saw about a person not having the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

I said, why don't they just tape everyone's mouth before they go into a theater, so no one will shout "fire?"

He said, well that would be prior restraint.

I asked him what's the difference between taping mouths and banning machine guns?

He said, prior restraint only applies to speech.

I asked him, "What's the difference? Both free speech and RKBA are both constitutionally guaranteed rights."

He said, prior restraint only applies to speech.

I said, "What's the difference? in both cases, no illegal act has occurred. Why is speech protected from prior restraint, but not any other right? Is it because groups like the ACLU sue over speech, and the media love freedom of speech, but they both hate the RKBA, and SCOTUS is therefore scared to death of ruling the way they know they will have to if they ever have a case on point? Why must the law wait until speech is uttered to act, when it may act on 'conduct' before any illegal act is manifest?"

I submitted that shouting "fire" in a theater was not so much speech as conduct, and I drew the analogy of talking about violent acts versus actually advocating such acts be committed, to owning a machinegun versus committing a crime with one. Again, I asked what was the substantive difference? If shouting "fire" is speech, is it not given that a person has a right to do it? To hold otherwise would be prior restraint. If prior restraint is wrong, then a person has the right to shout "fire" and answer for it afterwards... and a person should be able to own a machinegun, and if they use that gun to commit a crime, would they not likewise be held to account afterwards?

He had no answer to that, except to say that's just where the law is right now.

The more I learn in law school, the more I realize that it's all in flux, and things can go any which way if the reasons are politically right at the time. It is simply up to us to make our rights and freedoms "politically right" at THIS time.
Link Posted: 11/12/2005 9:58:35 PM EDT
even a converted ar15, I still dont see it as a "killing machine"
Link Posted: 11/13/2005 8:59:22 AM EDT
sure...sure..ban them all...

just provide me a reason. i like reasons. i mean. logic is a good thing.
i would say that we should examine crime. crime would be a good place to start to look at if what was previously called an assault weapon needs to be banned, or even if machine guns are a big problem.

*checks*
nope. not a problem. no need for more stupid laws.
Link Posted: 11/20/2005 12:29:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2005 12:29:52 AM EDT by AKLover_91]
you know, if you actually read the constitution, the guns we buy should be capable of effectively fighting a war, i.e. duty to rebel against injustice, right to malitia, keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Sorry, i'm for the waiting period and background check to make sure crazies don't get guns. But i do think i should be able to buy whatever the fuck i want(FA, AOW, SBR, and even DOD like an rpg, hand grendes, m203, etc.) without special fees, extra registering or taxes. The background check should be enough to prove i'm not gonna go on a rampage.
Link Posted: 11/20/2005 12:33:50 AM EDT
4th question? TROLL 100% MF'ing TROLL.
Link Posted: 11/28/2005 2:03:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I suppose an AR15 to M16 conversion is easy. If you are a machinist with a mill, the schematics and you already have the fire control group from an M16.



I've heard that a guy with a Dremel and a drill can do the necessary alteration of the receiver for an auto sear to fit/function. I dunno, but if I were a criminal and I wanted to make my own full-auto, I would get parts and stuff for a tube-style SMG like a Sten or something. A slam-firing full-auto like that would be simple. However, criminals haven't been doing this and I think we need to focus our concerns on what criminals are actually doing as opposed to what they can do. And yes, I agree that full-auto should be cash and carry. I feel the same about all small arms. About the only restrictions I could see would be the ones keeping individuals from owning WMD's and the ones regulating artillery and particularly explosive devices. I also would be concerned if MG's were easily obtainable and people started welding them to pickup trucks to make "technicals" and crap like that. So, keep the artillery, WMD and explosives regulated (not banned) and keep people from trying to drive around in technicals, and it's all good.
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 11:32:35 AM EDT
yank the disconnect and rock n roll till the gun blows up in your face
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 11:38:33 AM EDT
No. Period. I like weapons, especially "assault" rifles!
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 12:57:45 PM EDT
The line of reasoning is stupid on several levels.

1st: The vast majority of criminals (that use guns) use the cheapest and most available guns. These are not "assault weapons." The majority of criminals do not even use guns FBI stats state that only about a third of violent crimes involve a gun at all. Only about 70% of murders invovle a gun, imagine that, in a country where almost everyone can own a gun. The reason that we hear so much about guncrime is that it is overly sensationalized. Violent crimes that DON'T involve a gun outnumber gun crimes by 200%, how frequently do you hear about them? Compare the coverage of Dahlmer's trial to Malvo's.

2nd: If in fact "assault weapons" (or any gun) were a major crime problem, banning them would do no good. When was the last time someone who had murder on their mind would be stopped by a lesser firearms law? Seriously, think about that.

3rd: It really isn't easy to convert "assault weapons" in to fully automatic weapons. I'm a serious student of firearms design and do a good bit of tinkering on the and I don't think I could safely do it to an AR or AK. There are people on this board more in to it than me and they will tell you the ame thing. Now admitedly the open bolt pistols designed from SMGs are pretty easy, but I'd much rather face on of those in a gunfight than a good AR

4th: If a person wants to kill a bunch of folks they really shouldn't use a gun. It is a most inefficient
method. If you question this ask Tim McVay, ask Osama Bin Laden. I would actually prefer that the real nutcases be limited to "assault weapons."
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 1:05:36 PM EDT
Banned because it can be converted to full auto?

Hell son, full auto ought to be legal, with no paperwork.
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 1:38:14 PM EDT
Only one answer to this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let's look at that again:

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

Don't see a ban on ownership of certain weapons there. Not muskets (rifles or smoothbores), shotguns, pistols, cannons, ships of war, chariots, war horses, catapults, armor, swords, .........
Link Posted: 11/29/2005 1:51:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zirconx:
I was discussing gun topics with a coworker the other day, including the expiration of the assault weapons ban. He mentioned that some of those weapons really should be banned. I explained that most of them were banned for looking scary, like having certain grips or stocks or bayonets. And that when it comes down to it, the bullets they fire down the range are the same as a very domestic looking hunting rifle.

He countered saying that some of the banned weapons can be easily modified to be full auto, in fact he even knew what specific part to change one one of them and it was easy (he was in the Guard and had some experience with firearms back then).
Is there any truth to this?

Let's save the whats-wrong-with-full-auto-anyway debate for another thread.



Simplest answer to that line of reasoning (without even getting into Constitutional issues, etc.)? If he doesn't think current laws will prevent criminals from illegally converting these weapons (his contention), what makes him think another law (a ban, his solution) will prevent them from having them?...
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 8:27:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Model_One:I said, why don't they just tape everyone's mouth before they go into a theater, so no one will shout "fire?"

He said, well that would be prior restraint.

I asked him what's the difference between taping mouths and banning machine guns?

He said, prior restraint only applies to speech.

I asked him, "What's the difference? Both free speech and RKBA are both constitutionally guaranteed rights."

He said, prior restraint only applies to speech.

I said, "What's the difference? in both cases, no illegal act has occurred. Why is speech protected from prior restraint, but not any other right?




Great argument. I wish everyone could see the world this clearly.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 8:59:18 AM EDT
Granted, the argument should stop with simply reminding them of the second amendment. However, it is not easy to change one's mind - especially a liberal's - and the benefit, in my opinion, is very well worth it. Even if you cannot convince them, planting the seed of challenging their "believed to be true" perceptions is essential and significant - just like a vote (it's just one, but it all adds up). For in depth statistical research one must read these two books.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:12:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/9/2005 10:13:56 AM EDT by caduckgunner]
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
In America, we don't (shouldn't) ban things for what "might" happen.quote]

I see you don't live in the People Republik of Kalifornistan, where things like that happend all the time.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 10:48:21 AM EDT
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington

Last time I checked, people respected that guy's opinions. Do you think he had any intention of restricting arms from citizens? I think not.
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:02:13 AM EDT
pretty well thought-out arguments so far, good thread.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:56:01 PM EDT
My faav quote from the gun grabbers is: "With these assault weapons you don't even have to aim, you just pull the trigger."

Complete nonsense, every time I hear that quoted it reminds me just how ignorant these people really are.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 7:41:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2005 7:42:15 PM EDT by pol_pot_47]

Originally Posted By knifehitter:
My faav quote from the gun grabbers is: "With these assault weapons you don't even have to aim, you just pull the trigger."

Complete nonsense, every time I hear that quoted it reminds me just how ignorant these people really are.



+1 they need to be educated. hell, everyone needs to be educated. as far as im concerned there is no reason why you shouldnt be able to own an assault rifle, concealed carry weapon, full auto, ect , ect, but we cant bang it into people's heads enough how to RESPONSIBLY USE THEM.

just like Ruger says

there's no reason that we shouldnt have the right to own whatever the hell we want, until we show that we're dumb enough to fuck it up. as long as we all know that you know what you're doing and aren't gonna go shooting everyone up for the hell of it, why shouldnt you be able to own any kind of gun? its absurd.

we need less, better laws. and maybe a little enforcement would be good, too. and some real punishments for when you break the rules - give people a reason to not want to break the law.

betcha cant guess what party im in from that little rant, now can ya?
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 8:46:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

betcha cant guess what party im in from that little rant, now can ya?



libertarian?
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 1:29:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By knifehitter:

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

betcha cant guess what party im in from that little rant, now can ya?



libertarian?



nope! well, lets just say my American flag has a little more red on it than most...

although im definately the black sheep in the party
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 2:16:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

Originally Posted By knifehitter:

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

betcha cant guess what party im in from that little rant, now can ya?



libertarian?



nope! well, lets just say my American flag has a little more red on it than most...

although im definately the black sheep in the party



Communist ? If so, why ? I'm just curious.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 2:21:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2005 2:26:00 PM EDT by NeoCon007]
FUCK NO!

No firearm should be banned per the Second Ammendment.

A person that thinks any gun should be banned is a two-bit, piece of dog shit, underseving of living in our great country.

Any bastard/bitch that votes in a manner limiting our 2nd ammendment freedoms is a traitor, derserving of death.

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 2:32:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoCon007:
FUCK NO!

No firearm should be banned per the Second Ammendment.

A person that thinks any gun should be banned is a two-bit, piece of dog shit, underseving of living in our great country.

Any bastard/bitch that votes in a manner limiting our 2nd ammendment freedoms is a traitor, derserving of death.




+1. The only stuff I'd approve of regulating are things like armored vehicles/vehicles with MG's on them (technicals), explosives/rockets/missles and WMD. Even then, if I had my way about it, those things wouldn't be banned, just regulated (probably less so than they are now).
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 2:51:40 PM EDT
you say "full-auto" like it's a bad thing...
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 3:27:52 PM EDT
Ban them all! Guns are icky and only hurt children and other living things. If the air force had to hold a bake sale it would have transgendered pilots, too.

Remember, it's for the children! And the animals and butterflies! And Osama, if we just tried harder to understand and bicycled!

Hillary/Schumer 2008!

;)
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 1:03:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

Originally Posted By knifehitter:

Originally Posted By pol_pot_47:

betcha cant guess what party im in from that little rant, now can ya?



libertarian?



nope! well, lets just say my American flag has a little more red on it than most...

although im definately the black sheep in the party



Communist ? If so, why ? I'm just curious.



ding ding ding. ill give you the quick and dirty since i dont like taking up space here rambling on about myself (even though i guess ive already taken up a lot....whatever.)

basically it comes down to this: everyone deserves a fair chance in life, but at the same time if they blow that chance, its their own damn fault. essentially, streamline the economy so we dont have all this inter-corporation rivalry and competition, get rid of welfare and insitute a program that will give people a JOB so they can EARN their money. that's the basis of it, create an enviroment for people where they don't have to worry about getting a job or paying for the necessities in life, only keeping that job by doing their part. also, fuck stalin. democracy is the key to making socialism work.

if you or anyone else would like a more in-depth explanation and how my view of socialism differs from many other people, let me know and id be happy to type something up for you.

now back to the main topic,

I LOVE ME MAH ASSAULT RIFLES!!!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 1:22:29 PM EDT



I LOVE ME MAH ASSAULT RIFLES!!!



Apparently not, you socialist scum.....I don't think you have a clue what socialism even is. Socialism is the reason why guns get banned in the first place. I can't beleive anyone would buy into that crap.

With gun owners like you out there, it's a wonder anyone is armed.....
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:06:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By texas1138:

Apparently not, you socialist scum.....I don't think you have a clue what socialism even is. Socialism is the reason why guns get banned in the first place. I can't beleive anyone would buy into that crap.

With gun owners like you out there, it's a wonder anyone is armed.....



there's so many things wrong with those statements i dont even know where to begin.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 11:59:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 3:57:07 PM EDT by fla556guy]
My problem is this: We already have a law that covers this. We don't need to deprive the law abiding segment of the enjoyment of possessing legal, semi-automatic weapons because someone might make them fully automatic. Hell, I could turn my car into a battering ram, but does this make my ford taurus a assault car? I could unleash my 2 95 pound dogs upon an intruder, does that make my dogs "assault dogs?"

Collecting military pattern firearms because one has a desire to is not illegal, should never be illegal, because of what could happen. He is taking the easy way out. Instead of taking the already provided avenues to deal with this, he proposes making them all illegal because it would be easier to do that, then it would be to deal with the few offenders that exist.

Technically, any semi-automatic firearm, being that it is a mechanical device, could concieveably be converted to fire fully automiatic, given the proper expertiece.

Also, so called "assault weapons" (or for those semi-auto rifles out there, like the AR-15, which don't fall into the definition of "assault weapon" because they are not full auto), represent a class of weapons that are not often used in crimes because they are expensive to obtain, and large to conceal.

Any future gun control measure needs to address the problem of firearms sold on the street by criminals, to criminals. These are generally cheaper firearms, usually pistols. Pistols are easy to conceal, less expensive (think saturday night special), and more abundent than semi-automatic military pattern rifles are. Find a way to control these weapons, and you will prevent a much larger number of deaths than you will if you spend millions of dollars on another "assault weapons" ban that does not affect criminals, and only annoys legal gun owners.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:41:38 AM EDT
Well, we can be like France, and just ban the pointy ones.


<---- the most Euro-idiotic icon I could find.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 6:45:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 6:47:15 PM EDT by blue_bomber]
Without firearms means we have submitted ourselves to total control of our corrupted government.
Then again that is why they want to bann them.

If you ask me I honestly think the people should be the ones with the full auto's and the state and local police get the semi's. After all the our country was founded on the ideology that government should never have the power to over run its citizens. However that is not the case today
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:14:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By zirconx:
He countered saying that some of the banned weapons can be easily modified to be full auto, in fact he even knew what specific part to change one one of them and it was easy (he was in the Guard and had some experience with firearms back then).



A Garand can be modified to fire full auto with a shoeshtring.

Tell your colleague that under US v. Miller, converting a semi-auto to the full auto as used by our military should make such a weapon more protected by the law than the semi auto. The short barreled shotgun owned by Miller was not protected, said the Court, because it wouldn't be useful to the militia.
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 2:08:57 AM EDT
"Any future gun control measure needs to address the problem of firearms sold on the street by criminals, to criminals."
How about we just impose stiffer sentences for criminals? And instead of letting them out early due to overcrowding jails, BUILD LARGER JAILS?
Link Posted: 2/1/2006 5:27:22 AM EDT
Assault weapons should not be banned at all
Except for .30 cal mini guns
No civilian should own one of these as the cost of ammo would bankrupt even the richest of us.
.22 cal mini guns would be ok to use though
http://www.montysminiguns.com/frame10.jpg

http://www.montysminiguns.com/frame10.jpg
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top