Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003488
Probably be overtaken and overthrown by a country with a large government and a majority of progressive liberals. Conservatives had their chance the last 8 years to make a change. Problem is, they messed it up more than they fixed it. But of course you don't claim Bush and his cronies as being loyal Conservatives any longer. Isn't it the right-wing way to stab their faithful in the back when they decide to not bow to your every whim?
You're not answering my question. What would this country look like today if we only lived by the first ten Amendments?
How the hell do i know.Its a idiotic question.And irrelevant again.You sure like to play in fantasy land a lot.
What does Bush have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

If frogs had longer legs do you think the would still bump their ass on the floor?And would the 2nd Amendment still mean the same thing now?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003288
You've shown some very valid statistics. However, tell me why any reasonable person should own an assault weapon. Don't use the argument that they have the right to own them based on the 2nd Amendment. We know that already. Don't use the argument that they like to collect them. AR-15's, SKS's, and Uzi's aren't rare weapons. You can go to virtually any gun shop and pick one up. Granted they have gone up in value over the years, but that's because gun dealers fed off the paranoia of the '94 weapons ban and used that to entice the gun fanatics to pay a higher price before 'they disappeared off the market'. They're fun to shoot? You bet they are. But isn't it just as fun to shoot a handgun, something you could actually use to protect yourself in a home invasion (and apparently in your case, your car)? Go WAY back to the top of this thread. Look where I showed exactly what guns would actually be banned if they reenacted the '94ruling. There's only 2 or 3 weapons that would be affected. That's what's so ridiculous about this argument in the first place. You and Vici boy think if they can restrict these guns, they'll restrict all guns. You know that would never happen. They tried it in DC, and look at how it turned out.
First off there are models of AR 15's, Uzi's and AK 47's that are quite valuable. And just because you collect something doesn't mean it has to be valuable. People who started comic book collections 50 years ago had no clue they would be worth anything some day. Hell 30 years ago people started collecting matchbox cars, nobody thought they would be worth anything.
I have a fairly extensive gun collections. There are a few items that are worth some $$$ but mostly I buy stuff that is fun to shoot. I own a LOT of fishing equipment, You could easily call it a collection. Not anticipating the values to go up.
AR 15's are fun to shoot. There are organized matches where you must use your choice of civilian grade versions (Meaning semiautomatic) of military weapons, AR 15, M1/14 etc. and they are a real hoot. If you like to shoot contact the department of civilian marksmanship and see if they are holding a match in your area any time soon. You can probably rent the appropriate weapon in the area the match will be held in. Try firing a AR 15 in one of those matches and maybe you will understand what we are talking about.
As far as gun bans go yes, I am troubled when the government assumes a power not granted in the constitution. The 10th amendment clearly states that any power not specifically granted the federal government in the constitution is reserved for the states. We have enough issues with the feds over stepping their authority in this country alread.
Do i fear letting the government take away some guns will lead to them taking more? Given the history of government actions in this country you bet your *** I do.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003488
Probably be overtaken and overthrown by a country with a large government and a majority of progressive liberals. Conservatives had their chance the last 8 years to make a change. Problem is, they messed it up more than they fixed it. But of course you don't claim Bush and his cronies as being loyal Conservatives any longer. Isn't it the right-wing way to stab their faithful in the back when they decide to not bow to your every whim?
You're not answering my question. What would this country look like today if we only lived by the first ten Amendments?
We would have had to have a conservative president to press a conservative agenda the past 8 years, congress too.
They may look conservative compared to the socialists that have taken control of the Democrat party but they hardly fit the definition of conservative.
No attempt to pass paycheck protection
No attempt to pass right to work
No attempt to even cut funding for nation public radio or national endowments for the arts, let alone eliminate the wasteful programs all together.
No attempt to eliminate the federal department of education, in fact it was greatly increased under Bush.
Those are all pretty mainstream issues the conservative movement supports and Bush and the congress didn't even attempt to address. Bush didn't even reverse Clintons executive order that kept most workers in the dark regarding their right not to be a union member under the Beck decision.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3003561
We would have had to have a conservative president to press a conservative agenda the past 8 years, congress too.
They may look conservative compared to the socialists that have taken control of the Democrat party but they hardly fit the definition of conservative.
No attempt to pass paycheck protection
No attempt to pass right to work
No attempt to even cut funding for nation public radio or national endowments for the arts, let alone eliminate the wasteful programs all together.
No attempt to eliminate the federal department of education, in fact it was greatly increased under Bush.
Those are all pretty mainstream issues the conservative movement supports and Bush and the congress didn't even attempt to address. Bush didn't even reverse Clintons executive order that kept most workers in the dark regarding their right not to be a union member under the Beck decision.

What is 'paycheck protection' and 'right to work'?
Cut funding for public radio and arts programs? Why? The government shouldn't promote cultural programs for all Americans, especially the kids? Who pays for the kids to have art programs in school? My daughter has been in band for the last 6 years. So all the money that's required to pay for the band program just comes out of my pocket, right? What happens to the kids who can't afford these programs? Sorry, just go hang out on the street with your other gang friends and tag a few more houses.

 

[bionicarm]

Here's an article about the Texas House trying to pass a bill to allow concealed weapons on college campuses:
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...YQEv8jj5A.cspx
Look at whose opposed to the measure. Pretty much all the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre. You'd think someone who lived through it would be the first to support a bill like this wouldn't you?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003571
What is 'paycheck protection' and 'right to work'?
Cut funding for public radio and arts programs? Why? The government shouldn't promote cultural programs for all Americans, especially the kids? Who pays for the kids to have art programs in school? My daughter has been in band for the last 6 years. So all the money that's required to pay for the band program just comes out of my pocket, right? What happens to the kids who can't afford these programs? Sorry, just go hang out on the street with your other gang friends and tag a few more houses.

Paycheck protection would require unions to get worker's permission before using portions of union dues for political purposes. Right to work means you can't be forced to join the union if you are working for a company that goes union.
National endowment for the arts has nothing to do with buying band equipment for schools. It sponsors "artists" through direct payments or providing venues for art exhibits or concerts in the case of musicians. Was there no art before government funding? What do we need NPR for? How many cable news channels are there? Cnn, FOX, NBC, ABC, Scripps Howard just to name a few have radio news networks. We have many radio stations plus XM/Sirus, I'd say we are pretty well covered.
In any case none of that matters, it just demonstrates Bush and the Republican congress could hardly be said to have pushed a conservative agenda. Things like not funding overseas abortion clinics are only small pieces of what Conservatives favor. Increased spending far eclipsed the few things Bush got right from a conservative point of view.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003574
Here's an article about the Texas House trying to pass a bill to allow concealed weapons on college campuses:
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...YQEv8jj5A.cspx
Look at whose opposed to the measure. Pretty much all the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre. You'd think someone who lived through it would be the first to support a bill like this wouldn't you?
You are taking the word of ONE Gun control advocate from VT who claims those he has talked to oppose guns on campus as "pretty much all the survivors"? I've seen interviews where several survivors complained about not being able to have a gun on campus.
By the way I am not sure which way I would go on this. I think staff should probably be allowed to keep a weapon if they have a CWP but I really wouldn't have an issue if the students wernt allowed to keep weapons in their dorms..

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3003607
You are taking the word of ONE Gun control advocate from VT who claims those he has talked to oppose guns on campus as "pretty much all the survivors"? I've seen interviews where several survivors complained about not being able to have a gun on campus.
By the way I am not sure which way I would go on this. I think staff should probably be allowed to keep a weapon if they have a CWP but I really wouldn't have an issue if the students wernt allowed to keep weapons in their dorms..
As hot-headed as I've seen college kids on campuses, I don't know if I'd like the idea of any of them 'packing'. Like the article stated, would a professor have to wonder if he gave a student a bad grade, whether the kid would go postal and pull a gun out right in the middle of class and start shooting at him - "What do you mean I got a 89 on my test! Dude! You're messing with my 4.0 GPA!!!! How am I gonna get into Harvard Grad school now!!! BANG! BANG!"

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003636
As hot-headed as I've seen college kids on campuses, I don't know if I'd like the idea of any of them 'packing'. Like the article stated, would a professor have to wonder if he gave a student a bad grade, whether the kid would go postal and pull a gun out right in the middle of class and start shooting at him - "What do you mean I got a 89 on my test! Dude! You're messing with my 4.0 GPA!!!! How am I gonna get into Harvard Grad school now!!! BANG! BANG!"

 

[oscardeuce]

The NEA at least partially brought us PI^% Christ and Annie Sprinkle. Oh yea, I really want my kids to see that. In other cultures Pi$$ Christ would have brought you a sword in the back.
They never bought a band instrument in the HS or college bands I was in.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003401
Of course there's more deaths by car accidents. People use cars every day. How often do you shoot your weapon? Once a month, three or four times a year? How many deaths occurred in The Old West, when anyone and everyone could carry a gun? How many people were killed on a daily basis based on the populations during that time?
Sorry, I don't consider owning an assault weapon an excess. People who buy these weapons for the mere purpose of collecting them are few and far between.
Have you read about the ACTUAL "Old West"? Most towns required guns to be turned in. IIRC the whole OK Corral incident was about the right to carry firearms.
"In spite of these specific incidents of violence, the lawlessness of the Wild West has been blown out of proportion. Ironically, the myth of the lawless West began before the period was over. Dime novels written in the East in the latter part of the 19th century exaggerated, or simply made up, stories about the crimes and criminals of the West. Hollywood later perpetuated the myth, feeding the public’s desire for excitement and adventure with stories of gunfights in the street and stagecoach robberies. The true story of the Old West is boring by comparison. Because of the need to hunt for food or protect themselves from wild animals, many people did have guns. However, fans of Hollywood westerns may be surprised to learn that many western towns had strict gun ordinances, making it illegal to carry guns in town. People entering the town were required to surrender their firearms to the sheriff. In fact, a story that has come to epitomize the violence of the Wild West involved a conflict over such a law. When Virgil Earp, along with his brothers Morgan and Wyatt and their friend Doc Holliday, confronted five cowboys in the city of Tombstone over carrying firearms in town, violence erupted. This incident became know as the gunfight at the OK corral. Yet it’s interesting to note that even in this most famous gunfight of the violent West, only three people were killed. In any modern city today, such a minor incident would probably not even be front page news. "
From:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-w...d-reality.html
Bionic, you need to take a good history class. May I recommend one NOT taught by a liberal.

 

[reef46]

I don't know if anyone has said it yet. (im not going to read 9 pages of posts)
Gun control laws are ONLY going to affect the people who abide the law.
Taking away the ability to own a firearm is saying "hey come mug, ----, murder me and my family". Criminals would love it if they new that people could not defend themselves.

 

[vinnyraptor]

wow what a long thread!
i'll say it the best way i can...
EVERY law abiding citizen should carry and conceal fire arms to protect themselves and thier families. these people shouldn't be packing uzi's though. we dont allow common folk to own tanks, missles, etc and they should not own MILITARY grade weapons unless they are licensed collectors.
i dont want an ammendment but maybe a legal definition of what a civilian can legally own carry and conceal. any idiot can come up with a list in about 5 minutes. we dont need "soccer mom" running around the mall with an AK 47 but we DO NEED her to be able to carry a 38 in her purse, waistband, around her ankle etc. she would need to complete a training course and a complete background check. but "soccer mom" wont be getting raped and murdered in the parking lot and there wont be any rampages at the local church.
this issue is about modern day REALITY and compromise. im 99% sure that those who own these "banned" weapons would gladly give them up if they could legally carry a 357 or 9mm 24/7 anywhere anytime and use it to defend themselves and others.
this NEEDS to be addressed and part of the "change" i voted for....

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3003771
wow what a long thread!
i'll say it the best way i can...
EVERY law abiding citizen should carry and conceal fire arms to protect themselves and thier families. these people shouldn't be packing uzi's though. we dont allow common folk to own tanks, missles, etc and they should not own MILITARY grade weapons unless they are licensed collectors.
i dont want an ammendment but maybe a legal definition of what a civilian can legally own carry and conceal. any idiot can come up with a list in about 5 minutes. we dont need "soccer mom" running around the mall with an AK 47 but we DO NEED her to be able to carry a 38 in her purse, waistband, around her ankle etc. she would need to complete a training course and a complete background check. but "soccer mom" wont be getting raped and murdered in the parking lot and there wont be any rampages at the local church.
this issue is about modern day REALITY and compromise. im 99% sure that those who own these "banned" weapons would gladly give them up if they could legally carry a 357 or 9mm 24/7 anywhere anytime and use it to defend themselves and others.
this NEEDS to be addressed and part of the "change" i voted for....
I do not know where you get some of your "facts".
Actually it is quite legal to own a tank. Some even have a registered destructive device paperwork on the main gun to keep it live and legal.
I wonder, did you vote for "change" in the leadership of GMC too? Many civilians own tanks and armored cars, some are even street legal. Seems like all the more reason to have a second amendment as far socialist/nationalist as Obama's going.
BTW you can't "change" the Bill of Rights without amending the Constitution, or did you forget that too.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3003714

Come to a Texas college in a year or so after they pass this law. Hope you're ready to duck and cover.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3003746
Have you read about the ACTUAL "Old West"? Most towns required guns to be turned in. IIRC the whole OK Corral incident was about the right to carry firearms.
"In spite of these specific incidents of violence, the lawlessness of the Wild West has been blown out of proportion. Ironically, the myth of the lawless West began before the period was over. Dime novels written in the East in the latter part of the 19th century exaggerated, or simply made up, stories about the crimes and criminals of the West. Hollywood later perpetuated the myth, feeding the public’s desire for excitement and adventure with stories of gunfights in the street and stagecoach robberies. The true story of the Old West is boring by comparison. Because of the need to hunt for food or protect themselves from wild animals, many people did have guns. However, fans of Hollywood westerns may be surprised to learn that many western towns had strict gun ordinances, making it illegal to carry guns in town. People entering the town were required to surrender their firearms to the sheriff. In fact, a story that has come to epitomize the violence of the Wild West involved a conflict over such a law. When Virgil Earp, along with his brothers Morgan and Wyatt and their friend Doc Holliday, confronted five cowboys in the city of Tombstone over carrying firearms in town, violence erupted. This incident became know as the gunfight at the OK corral. Yet it’s interesting to note that even in this most famous gunfight of the violent West, only three people were killed. In any modern city today, such a minor incident would probably not even be front page news. "
From:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-w...d-reality.html
Bionic, you need to take a good history class. May I recommend one NOT taught by a liberal.

You want me to take a history class, and you get your information from a site called Buzzle?

Yea, all the great historians use that site as a reference..

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003846
You want me to take a history class, and you get your information from a site called Buzzle?

Yea, all the great historians use that site as a reference..

Hah, you use MSNBC.
The truth is still the truth.
Prove I'm wrong. The "wild west" was not as wild as portrayed.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003844
Come to a Texas college in a year or so after they pass this law. Hope you're ready to duck and cover.

They said the same thing about Kennesaw, GA AKA Gun Town USA.You should read about what horrible things that happened. This place is the poster child for Gun Control

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3003401
Of course there's more deaths by car accidents. People use cars every day. How often do you shoot your weapon? Once a month, three or four times a year? How many deaths occurred in The Old West, when anyone and everyone could carry a gun? How many people were killed on a daily basis based on the populations during that time?
Sorry, I don't consider owning an assault weapon an excess. People who buy these weapons for the mere purpose of collecting them are few and far between.
If it is not an excess, what is it then?
Cars traveling at high speeds account for 40% of all accidents and deaths involving vehicles. Thus why not put a governor on these cars and not manufacture cars that drive at these speeds?
Assault weapons account for (going with the high figure) 10% of all crimes involving guns, and you are fine with banning them based off this statistic...but yet you are defending the right to own a vehicle that is designed to travel at speeds greater than necessary. I call hypocrite.....Banning one of these would save more lives than the other...yet you picked the cause that saves less lives and see nothing wrong with the other. I am just using your arguments.....now, try to defend the reason to build a car that drive 180 miles an hour.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3003771
wow what a long thread!
i'll say it the best way i can...
EVERY law abiding citizen should carry and conceal fire arms to protect themselves and thier families. these people shouldn't be packing uzi's though. we dont allow common folk to own tanks, missles, etc and they should not own MILITARY grade weapons unless they are licensed collectors.
i dont want an ammendment but maybe a legal definition of what a civilian can legally own carry and conceal. any idiot can come up with a list in about 5 minutes. we dont need "soccer mom" running around the mall with an AK 47 but we DO NEED her to be able to carry a 38 in her purse, waistband, around her ankle etc. she would need to complete a training course and a complete background check. but "soccer mom" wont be getting raped and murdered in the parking lot and there wont be any rampages at the local church.
this issue is about modern day REALITY and compromise. im 99% sure that those who own these "banned" weapons would gladly give them up if they could legally carry a 357 or 9mm 24/7 anywhere anytime and use it to defend themselves and others.
this NEEDS to be addressed and part of the "change" i voted for....
Vinny you can legally carry weapons in 48 of the 50 states and soon to be 49 adding Illinois. Further back in this thread I posted what the Supreme Court said.They said this: and i hate to have to post it again ,but it is important to understand.
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."