Ammunition Accountability Legislation

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:07 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Drakona wrote:
Bettina wrote:for Drakona to say that it should be legal to purchase/own/use military assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other military hardware is nothing short of insanity.
What's insane about it? Serious question.
Since you dropped the conversation... It was an assault rife....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/22/cal ... index.html

Bee

Your point is?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:24 pm

Bettina wrote:It was an assault rife....
VonVulcan wrote:Your point is?

The question, and I think its a valid one, is: does allowing the citizenry to have assault weapons increase the risk to the population more than any benefits they bring.

But what I haven't seen yet is anything to indicate that the criminal in this story would have been less deadly if he had opened fire with a shot gun instead of an assault rifle.

And, of course, even if it WAS determined that assault weapons brought a significantly increased risk to society, would that outweigh the advantages of having an armed citizenry? This is a much more difficult question.

A few quotes I've uncovered that lay out what the framers of the constitution meant when they established the 2nd amendment:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:13 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Drakona wrote:
Bettina wrote:for Drakona to say that it should be legal to purchase/own/use military assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other military hardware is nothing short of insanity.
What's insane about it? Serious question.
Since you dropped the conversation... It was an assault rife....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/22/cal ... index.html

Bee

well in this case the shooter was a known crimminal with a history of being a bad apple:

"Police said in a late-night news conference Saturday that Mixon had an extensive criminal history and was in violation of parole for assault with a deadly weapon."

So that he killed people with a firearm, means the law abiding citizen should be punished also? If he would of run over the officers with a automobile, should all people be restricted in ownership of cars?
I'm getting real tired of people trying to justify firearm confiscation by how mentally deranged people use them.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:18 pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/

Police: Suspect fired 100 rounds, killing 3 officers

Poplawski, armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, then held police at bay for four hours as the [three] fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them, according to police and witnesses.

Bettina

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:30 pm

Bet51987 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/

Police: Suspect fired 100 rounds, killing 3 officers

Poplawski, armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, then held police at bay for four hours as the [three] fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them, according to police and witnesses.

Bettina

Yea, so....

Police in this country are nothing more than thugs themselves for the most part. They no longer protect and serve, they collect money for the Government by way of tickets. They have gotten soft and week, not to mention some what stupid. The only cops I have any respect for are the SWAT members. They THINK and they over come. The rest are morons the liberals stuck in there for SWAT to rescue because they did not think before acting.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:40 pm

Bet51987 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30043893/

Police: Suspect fired 100 rounds, killing 3 officers

Poplawski, armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, then held police at bay for four hours as the [three] fallen officers were left bleeding nearby, their colleagues unable to reach them, according to police and witnesses.

Bettina

Your nothing if not predictable.

:edit

Poplawski...

No father in the home
Expelled from high school
Dishonorably discharged from the Marines Basic training
Failed relationship with girl friend
Failed internet show

Seems to be a pattern here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05 ... lobal-home

“I knew there was always trouble there, a lot of domestic calls,” Ms. Devinney said in a telephone interview. (neighbor)

This could have happened with any type of weapon.

The weapon is not the cause or the issue here.

QuestionableChaos · Post by **QuestionableChaos** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:10 pm

VonVulcan wrote: This could have happened with any type of weapon.

The weapon is not the cause or the issue here.

X2

beat me to it vulcan

its an easy path to blame weapons for violent crimes, rather than to look deeper into the true reasons/motives behind the crimes (as VonVulcan pointed out).

England has been taking that route and its a bit interesting/unsettling to read about.
First they restricted the sale of firearms, then swords, and then a couple years ago it was suggested to ban long kitchen knifes (see link below)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

while yes, in terms of a weapon an "assault rifle" is much more potent than a kitchen knife, the example of England should be considered to contemplate if outright BANNING "dangerous" objects is truly the best approach

A friend of mine owns a legal AR-15 and he is VERY responsible about it, and is an awesome, logical guy

On the other hand, I have met people with such volatile personalities that I would not trust then with a plank of 2x4

I myself have NEVER gotten into a fight (I'm a smooth talker and can defuse people easily), yet I normally carry a knife on me

people need to stop immediately connecting weapons to violent crimes - as i see it, there are FAR more people who are responsible with weapons (whether it be firearms, knives, etc,), than compared to people who would use weapons for foul purposes

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:00 pm

Today 69,784,295 lawful firearm owners did not commit a crime or shoot anyone.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:45 pm

woodchip wrote:Today 69,784,295 lawful firearm owners did not commit a crime or shoot anyone.

I bet that's much better ratio than the number of politicians who did:didn't commit a crime today....

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:28 pm

VonVulcan wrote:
Your nothing if not predictable.

We're all predictable. I knew exactly what your response would be.

VonVulcan wrote:
:edit

Poplawski...

No father in the home
Expelled from high school
Dishonorably discharged from the Marines Basic training
Failed relationship with girl friend
Failed internet show

Seems to be a pattern here.

Yes there is a pattern here... Thanks to the NRA, any lowlife can easily get his hands on an assault weapon.

VonVulcan wrote:
This could have happened with any type of weapon.

Maybe, but this was so much easier.

VonVulcan wrote: The weapon is not the cause or the issue here.

But it is....and that's the typical NRA response every time there's a mass killing.

Anyway, I'm just voicing my continued concern and opinion and I fully realize that this DBB is full of gun toting christians who want to see an assault rifle in every home.

Six policemen in one month. Three more candles to light tommorrow.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:08 pm

cell phones cause more death and guns. . so we should ban cell phones. .. or better, cars.

We've been over this before .. each year or twice a year for the last 12 years.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:54 pm

QuestionableChaos wrote:
VonVulcan wrote: This could have happened with any type of weapon.

The weapon is not the cause or the issue here.
X2

England has been taking that route and its a bit interesting/unsettling to read about.
First they restricted the sale of firearms, then swords, and then a couple years ago it was suggested to ban long kitchen knifes (see link below)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

while yes, in terms of a weapon an "assault rifle" is much more potent than a kitchen knife, the example of England should be considered to contemplate if outright BANNING "dangerous" objects is truly the best approach.

For those who didn't check QC's link, here is a short excerpt from the article.

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

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

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

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

So Bet, it starts with banning military full auto weapons, rocket launchers and such. Then that's not good enough. Now their working on semi auto weps and short barrel rifles and such. Where does it end Bet? Perhaps if the neighbors were armed, they could have HELPED save the police officers from the lunatic that was shooting at them. That's how it used to work before you were born Bet. Of course, I know there are many members of this DBB that are atheistic antigun, -the state will protect me types- that want every home to contain nothing more dangerous then butter knives. I'm just expressing my opinion.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:19 pm

Cuda68 wrote:Police in this country are nothing more than thugs themselves for the most part.

There certainly are thugs out there. But the majority of police are good men who put their lives on the line for me daily. For very little reward and less respect. Any individual police officer deserves respect until they PROVE they don't deserve it.

Bettina wrote:Yes there is a pattern here... Thanks to the NRA, any lowlife can easily get his hands on an assault weapon.

And thanks to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.

There is no question that assault rifles are dangerous. But do you think that the man could not have used a walmart shotgun to kill those officers? And if so, do you think they should ban shotguns?

What level of risk are we willing to accept for the freedom of owning weapons?

A few posts back I quoted several of the authors/signers of the constitution on what their reasons were for creating the 2nd amendment. Let me repeat just one of them here again:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

So clearly, the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment, as stated by it's author, was to allow the people to protect themselves against their own government. That leaves us with two important questions with regard to "assault weapons"

1: Are they an important part of keeping the citizenry safe from the tyranny in government?

2: Do we really believe in the 2nd amendment anymore anyway?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:59 am

Bet51987 wrote:
Yes there is a pattern here... Thanks to the NRA, any lowlife can easily get his hands on an assault weapon.

Fixed that with a link to some knowledge acquisition pages.
I suggest you do some reading before you say ANY lowlife can EASILY purchase an assault weapon.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:31 am

There are approx.:

1) 400,000 deaths a year from cigarettes

2) 100,000 deaths a year from alcohol

3) 25,000 deaths a year from drunk drivers

Funny how we don't hear Bet lamenting these senseless and preventable deaths and promoting a ban on cigarettes and alcohol. I guess these type deaths are so common place we are no longer bothered by them. Perhaps we need more people committing murder with firearms so gun deaths will become just another yawn topic.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:34 am

AlphaDoG wrote:
AlphaDog wrote:
Yes there is a pattern here... Thanks to the NRA, any lowlife can easily get his hands on an assault weapon.

Fixed that with a link to some knowledge acquisition pages.
I suggest you do some reading before you say ANY lowlife can EASILY purchase an assault weapon.

AlphaDog. I refixed it by removing my name from the header since it's no longer my quote. I hope you don't start following in Woodchip's footsteps.

Secondly, I suggest you also read before responding because I never said "purchase".

I've already explained how a lowlife can get his hands on an assault weapon earlier in this thread.

Bee

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:39 am

What you didn't explain is how the NRA has anything to do with illegal acquisition of assault weapons.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:22 am

Any popular anti-gun arguments just seem to boil down to a lack of respect for what America is supposed to be, and the 2nd amendment in light of that. That and fear. Otherwise prevention would be addressed to the people committing the crimes, and not the gun being used. Because it's not like guns have no legitimate use within the law. Hunting, sporting, home defense, personal defense (which could even extend to defending others, in the event that some madman--like the few we've heard of--starts opening fire on everyone), and especially the 2nd amendment makes for quite an impressive list of legitimate use. And yet the people coming up with these anti-gun arguments would be satisfied to completely disarm us, under the guise of safety (which is a bad deal anyway).

Bettina wrote:Secondly, I suggest you also read before responding because I never said "purchase". Smile I've already explained how a lowlife can get his hands on an assault weapon earlier in this thread.

Know many lowlifes?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:41 am

Two things that are obvious to me when ever these things happen.

1) There will always be an occasional event of one human suddenly going homicidal and killing one or many victims. No matter what the laws are regarding weapons this will happen.

2) If your reaction to these events cause you to believe outlawing what ever weapon the killer used is a solution then you're not a very smart person.

There are lots of reasons people grasp at failed logic. In this case maybe you seek to stand out as someone who is so concerned that you have taken a bold position to save the world...demanding an aggressive change be made to stop future deaths etc. etc.
The problem is the change you advocate would actually have the reverse effect and cause more deaths!
So thanks for nothing!!

A logical examination of implementing laws and how they might have changed the outcome of many of these shootings try this, think strictly in terms of logic and probability, remove emotional bias from your thought process as best you can.

If all guns were against the law, like cocaine is against the law in all forms, the shooter would still have been able to acquire his weapon as easily as one acquires cocaine.

On the other hand, if the laws restricting good people from carrying a personal defense weapon with them if they choose were non existent then the odds of a potential victim pulling out his pistol and shooting the killer are quite good as well.

I know the conventional yet false wisdom most anti gunners are taught tells them that more guns means more bullets flying around but reality has demonstrated repeatedly that one killer, unopposed, will launch more bullets and have a much higher kill percentage than a killer that is being shot at!
That is the reality of the situation.

Every time the cops show up at one of these events they either stop the killer by shooting back at him or the coward kills himself or surrenders. the same is true of the few instances when armed civilians pulled out their own weapons and confronted the killer.
Up until the time people threaten to shoot back the killers continue their homicidal rage.

Now you can continue to cling to your faith that guns kill people so guns must be banned but in the real world you are just a fanatical fool clinging to your anti-gun religion. And the sad thing is the anti-gun religion isn't even being taught to you by true believers! It is from the church of the left wing political spectrum. It's like Scientology, created by man to manipulate weak minded men to empower and celebrate those who preach it!

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:17 pm

Very well put Will, much better then I could ever do.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:16 pm

Kilarin...

Do you honestly believe, that in 2009 and forward, the American public needs to arm itself with weapons of mass killings because we, as a nation, may possibly have a showdown with our own government? And, if you believe that, would an armed citizenship be any kind of match for the U.S. Military? I just need to know where your really coming from. I don't want a confusing answer, it's a simple yes or no to each.

VonVulcan...

I understand where you're coming from. I'm only out to ban military style weapons. That's all. I can deal with small weapons even if I don't like them.

Thorne...

Lack of respect for America? Please.

Will...

I'm not a fanatical fool. I just know right from wrong and I wrote my congressman my feelings on assault weapons as I said in a previous thread. Hopefully, he will get a lot more now. Anyway, I respect your opinion.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:17 pm

bet51987 wrote:Do you honestly believe, that in 2009 and forward, the American public needs to arm itself with weapons of mass killings because we, as a nation, may possibly have a showdown with our own government?

If you remove the "of mass killings", my answer is an unqualified yes. I'm not trying to be tricky or confusing here, I'm just not entirely certain what your definition of weapons of mass killings is.

But to be as clear as possible: Yes, I absolutely believe that the reason Thomas Jefferson wrote the 2nd amendment apply just as much today as they did 200 years ago. The citizenry has the right to be armed in order to, as a last resort, protect themselves against the tyranny in government.

bet51987 wrote:And, if you believe that, would an armed citizenship be any kind of match for the U.S. Military?

Yes.

Would the Vietcong, with inferior weapons and equipment, be a match for the U.S. Military? The answer turned out to be yes.

As I have stated before, I have not made up my mind as to exactly where the line should be drawn on the ownership of personal weapons. Somewhere below nukes and above rifles.

But wherever it is drawn, it MUST be high enough so that if a SIGNIFICANT percentage of citizens decided the government was out of hand, they would stand a fighting chance against whatever was left of the military. This would be operating, of course, under the assumption that the military was greatly outnumbered. If there weren't enough citizens to take on a better armed military, then they SHOULDN'T win. It wouldn't be a popular uprising, but just a localized rebellion.

And, of course, the main point is that as long as the citizenry is armed, they won't NEED to rebel against the government. Tienanmen square can only happen in a disarmed nation.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:32 pm

It does not only mean the government. Just because you live in a somewhat safe environment does not mean its a safe world. The people of this nation have always stood ready to defend it. A weapon is a weapon, weather its a baseball bat or an AK. Calling Military style rifles \"WMD's\" is nothing more than sensationalism to make a feeble point where none can be made. Come out of your rich white a** area and see the nation in its real state. We have gangs and severe poverty causing an increase in crime, including murders. Spend money on the real issue.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:47 pm

Bet51987 wrote:would an armed citizenship be any kind of match for the U.S. Military?

We're not talking about Starcraft. You don't just throw your pile of forces at the other guy's pile of forces and whoever has the biggest pile of forces runs over the other guy's base and wins.

War (even on one's own citizenry) is the use of force in order to accomplish a goal. If you can make the costs of waging a war too high in relation to the goal, you can prevent it from happening in the first place. Armed citizens don't need to be powerful enough to handle the military attacking them force-on-force, they just need to be powerful enough, sneaky enough, and tenacious enough that they can make it "not worth it".

We don't need to be able to match up with the US Military head-to-head. We just need to be able to make it costly enough for them to win that a tyrant will run out of capital (monetary, political, etc.) or willpower before we do.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:57 pm

Lothar wrote:Armed citizens don't need to be powerful enough to handle the military attacking them force-on-force, they just need to be powerful enough, sneaky enough, and tenacious enough that they can make it "not worth it".

Excellent point!

Cuda68 wrote:It does not only mean the government.

Oh, absolutely. I only meant that that was the top reasons for the 2nd amendment. Not the ONLY reason.

And to be clear, Bettina has NEVER said she wants all weapons banned. She approves of ownership of rifles and shotguns at least. I would assume hand guns? (Bettina?) And self deafense is obviously possible with these.

I think the disagreement centers on two points. Where should we draw the line on weapons in private ownership, and is defending against the government actually a valid concept in the 21st century.

I think the first question is entirely valid, I must admit I'm a bit confused on the second. I don't see how the passage of time has in anyway changed the need for citizens to be armed against the tyranny of their own government.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:40 pm

Bet51987 wrote:Kilarin...

Do you honestly believe, that in 2009 and forward, the American public needs to arm itself with weapons of mass killings because we, as a nation, may possibly have a showdown with our own government? And, if you believe that, would an armed citizenship be any kind of match for the U.S. Military? I just need to know where your really coming from. I don't want a confusing answer, it's a simple yes or no to each.

VonVulcan...

I understand where you're coming from. I'm only out to ban military style weapons. That's all. I can deal with small weapons even if I don't like them.

Thorne...

Lack of respect for America? Please.

Will...

I'm not a fanatical fool. I just know right from wrong and I wrote my congressman my feelings on assault weapons as I said in a previous thread. Hopefully, he will get a lot more now. Anyway, I respect your opinion.

Forgive me for skimming, but I read this and laughed maniacally.

1) The world isn't happy flowers and roses and peace signs and happy fluffy bunnies. Us having such weaponry is a microcosm of the US Government having huge weaponry. And the reason that we can have the parks and cities and our personal freedom and happiness and comfort level we appreciate is, well, 'cuz we have lots and lots of big ****ing bombs and next to nobody wants to screw with us.

2) I would LOVE to see the Montana National Guard try and defeat us. We have more guns.

3) Assuming there was such a struggle, know that not everyone in the military is going to stick with it. The vast majority of them have families that I'm sure the'd be loyal to if the government that they serve ****ed them over enough incite such revolution.

4) Referring the first part of #1, there are no simple answers and asking for one is just silly.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:09 am

Bettina wrote:Thorne...

Lack of respect for America? Please.

You live in a different world, Bettina, and you were apparently brought up with a very liberal notion of America (I know the "liberal notion of America" exists, because I have had some personal exposure to it throughout the years... perhaps someday you'll have more than bulletin board exposure to some of the values and ideals that you hear from the likes of Will, Spidey, Woodchip, VonVulcan, Drakona, Lothar, myself, and others). I've said before (essentially) that America was not created to attain perfection in society, or in humanity, through government. America was made to facilitate justice and liberty for free and independent people, through a well conceived governmental structure and the rule of law. Now you had to have understood what I wrote in my last reply about all of the legitimate uses of firearms... despite all of those legitimate uses (two of which pertain to fully-automatic weapons), and the provision of the second amendment, there are still people that are trying to take that freedom away from law-abiding citizens. It doesn't matter how well-meaning they claim to be, they're not only treading on our freedoms, contrary to our Constitution, but they're dangerously clumsy and ineffective at solving the problem of violent crime.

People that want to shape America according to their ideas and ideals, without even grasping where the founding fathers were coming from (because if they did they wouldn't be so reckless), have a glaring, if not a willful lack of respect for America. I'm talking about America as an ideal--life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:11 am

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You live in a different world, Bettina, and you were apparently brought up with a very liberal notion of America (I know the "liberal notion of America" exists, because I have had some personal exposure to it throughout the years... perhaps someday you'll have more than bulletin board exposure to some of the values and ideals that you hear from the likes of Will, Spidey, Woodchip, VonVulcan, Drakona, Lothar, myself, and others).

Completely non-insulting, Bet, sorry if I didn't emphasize that in my last post (I think you're cool, imo), but I'm GUESSING you're around 16-19, and it's completely normal to be filled with a benevolent passion and the drive to see everything as possibly good...hey I had that too, then I woke up and smelled the roses.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:33 pm

22 in May?

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:42 pm

Oh, served myself then. Hell, I'm 23.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:32 pm

SilverFJ...Geez.. What brought that on?

I turned 21 on Feb. 15th.

Kilarin..Lothar..

I never said I would take away small caliber weapons for personal protection or shotguns for hunting even though I detest the pure sport hunter. However, I just can't believe, no matter how much of a stretch I'm willing to take, that there would ever be a situation where a shooting war would break out between our government and it's people. Call me stupid but that's just plain insane and if that's your primary reason why civilians need assault weapons it's the weakest of all arguments. The British aren't going to invade us.

Thorne...

When I first joined this DBB I brought my values and ideals with me.. and got them promptly shoved in my face by a few low lifes who have since left, so yeah, I knew right away that I came from a different world. Although I'm still here I would have been booted out if this were a private club with these fixed ideals and values because I've been at odds with almost every single important issue that has ever come up and the only thing I have EVER learned is that my values and ideals are much different than those people you listed. I won't change who I am but I will admit it's frustrating most of the time.

Cuda68...

Yeah, I live in a safe \"white ---\" area but I already know it's not a safe world. When you walk to your car, you open the door, get in and drive away. When I walk to my car I have to make sure those shadows in the corner of my eye are just that. I have to closely watch the peculiar guy slowly coming toward me. I keep my finger on my car alarm and keep my mace in easy reach. I open only the drivers side door and lock it as soon as I get in. I make sure I park up front at the mall. Yeah, I really know, but somehow I don't feel safer knowing that someone could come into the mall carrying assault weapons and grenades that he got out of someone's well stocked gun cabinet.

Bettina

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:52 pm

Well, Bettina, based on my recent findings in talkin' to ya, if I were you I'd always pack a little lead with me, or at least some pepper spray...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:02 pm

Bet51987 wrote:...
I turned 21 on Feb. 15th.

Great people born on that day: Galileo Galilei, Chris Farley, you and I..... but I have a 30 year head start on you

I never said I would take away small caliber weapons for personal protection or shotguns for hunting even though I detest the pure sport hunter. However, I just can't believe, no matter how much of a stretch I'm willing to take, that there would ever be a situation where a shooting war would break out between our government and it's people.....

It's not that the army would suddenly take up positions and we would have to face the tanks with our rifles. It's that a corrupt Sheriff or Mayor can't just bully his way around taking peoples property for himself or locking up any dissidents.

On the larger scale you are thinking of it is the fact that the soldiers are drawn from the civilian population that keeps us safe, the soldiers families and friends live among us they have strong ties to the community and they know their commanders are not allowed to use the military against the civilian population, ever.

Unlike other countries where the government does bully the civilians like China, N.Korea, Russia, etc. where the soldiers are more removed from the civilian population and trained to believe they are the elite class and everyone else is subservient to them...
That and those other countries don't teach their soldiers to disobey an 'illegal" order as our soldiers are taught.

So it would be hard to get a tank battalion or a couple of bomber pilots to level your hometown but it isn't hard for a corrupt cop or two to take over a small town by intimidation if the citizens can't even protect themselves in the course of their daily lives.

Just like we pro gunners always say 'the gun doesn't kill people' it is also true that the gun doesn't free the people...
it's the underlying foundation, the principle behind the legality of the citizen to be armed that keeps us safer. Remove that foundation and the house crumbles.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:39 pm

Bettina wrote:I never said I would take away small caliber weapons for personal protection or shotguns for hunting

Good, I got that right then. Which means that the MAIN bone of contention here is what KIND of weapons are really necessary and protected by the 2nd amendment. Those of us who believe strongly in defending the 2nd amendment tend to get all bent out of shape about it and think that anyone who wants to set limits anywhere is automatically against all gun ownership.

Bettina wrote:I just can't believe, no matter how much of a stretch I'm willing to take, that there would ever be a situation where a shooting war would break out between our government and it's people. Call me stupid but that's just plain insane and if that's your primary reason why civilians need assault weapons it's the weakest of all arguments.

It was the primary reason for the 2nd amendment according to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison. So I'm in good company.

And, again, please note, I don't think its LIKELY that we will get into a shooting war with our government. But one of the main reasons I think it's not likely is that we ARE armed.

Also, I would NOT call you stupid for disagreeing with me.

Bettina wrote:Although I'm still here I would have been booted out if this were a private club with these fixed ideals and values because I've been at odds with almost every single important issue that has ever come up and the only thing I have EVER learned is that my values and ideals are much different than those people you listed.

Heh, they are HARDLY a voting block. Everyone on that list has disagreed with everyone else on different occasions. Conservative and Liberal are really rather useless labels in my opinion. You can't pigeon hole people. You have views that are "liberal", and other views that are "conservative". That's true of everyone here.

What we hold in common here at the dbb are NOT our views, but our willingness to lay out our views in an arena where people with DIFFERENT views will weigh their merits, dissect them, and thoroughly challenge them in every way.

Many people simply can not deal with differing points of view. They retreat and hide among people who only agree with them. People who stick around here EXPECT to be disagreed with, and can handle that. It makes me proud to be part of the team.

Will Robinson wrote: the fact that the soldiers are drawn from the civilian population that keeps us safe,

That IS an interesting point.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:31 pm

Kilarin wrote:What we hold in common here at the dbb are NOT our views, but our willingness to lay out our views in an arena where people with DIFFERENT views will weigh their merits, dissect them, and thoroughly challenge them in every way.

Bett, this is not personal so please don't take it that way but... As Kilarin stated above, it appears to me you don't pay attention to the points of the pro gun arguments. You don't appear to weigh the arguments on their merits, dissect them or challenge them. It appears you just reject them out of hand. You appear closed minded on this issue. That's just the impression I get from your posts. It frustrates the heck out of me

You say you are only out to "ban military style weapons". You want to ban weps that look scary? There are plenty of weapons that aren't "Military style" that are just as deadly. Your arguments on this issue make no sense. They look to be based on emotion, not reason and logic.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:45 pm

Bettina wrote:As Kilarin stated above, it appears to me you don't pay attention to the points of the pro gun arguments.

Important clarification here; I wasn't saying that Bettina wasn't paying attention. I was saying that she throws her ideas out into the shark pool to be attacked, just like the rest of us do.

It's not an "us vs them" thing. Some people agree with each other more often then others, but no one agrees with anyone all the time. I'm certain I've disagreed with just about EVERYONE here at one time or another.

The fact that we all agree to disagree is a point we have in common. The fact that we are willing to let our ideas be attacked is, in my humble opinion, a sign of strength, and a common bond that holds us together.

None of us here are frightened to have our cherished beliefs challenged. If we were, we wouldn't survive long in this environment. It's easy to leave. But instead, we stick around. We throw out ideas and watch the sharks attack. During the frenzy we re-enforce weak points, fill holes, borrow good ideas and shave off weak spots,... and occasionally have to just give up an entire idea as chum.

In the end we've learned something. If nothing else, more about ourselves and what we believe, and why we believe it.

Frequently we play discussion Anarchy, Sometimes team discussion Anarchy, but the teams are constantly shifting. There are no permanent "guilds". This "game" is something we hold in common. Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Anarchist, whatever. We all like to play.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:31 am

VonVulcan wrote:You say you are only out to "ban military style weapons". You want to ban weps that look scary? There are plenty of weapons that aren't "Military style" that are just as deadly. Your arguments on this issue make no sense. They look to be based on emotion, not reason and logic.

(aisle reaching)
Hey, it might be worded silly, but I think an AK has a little something on my .30-O6...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:17 am

All this talk of \"assault rifles\" can only make me chuckle as a few examples will show.

Lee Harvey Oswald used a bolt action Italian Carcano rifle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano ) to assassinate a president. afterward the term \"mail order rifles\" was the catch phrase and fearful politicians took steps to ban them.

In 1966 Charles Joseph Whitman climbed up into a the Texas book tower armed with rifles and shotguns, none of which would be considered \"assault\" weapons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitman_arsenal.jpg )

Whitman killed 15 people and wounded 32

Now for people like Bet who question the validity of armed civilians:

\"Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit.\"

There are 2 points in the Whitman shootings:
1) A lone shooter in a tactically advantageous position can bring a whole city to a stand still. What would it be like if 10, 50 or a 100 citizens got together to confront a govt. gone bad?
2) Armed citizens working with the police saved how many lives? Instead of fearing a armed citizenry the left should embrace and welcome them. Socialist fear armed citizens as they view them as a impediment to controlling the populace.

Lastly Carlos Hathaway was a marine sniper in Vietnam who was credited with 93 confirmed kills. Did he use a \"assault\" weapon? No he used a bolt action rifle:
http://www.imfdb.org/index.php?title=M4 ... iper_Rifle

In short, give me any modern day scoped bolt action rifle and I would be able to do more carnage than using what people term a assault rifle.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:25 am

woodchip,

I think it's fair to say that both of these men learned how to snipe in the Marine Corps, they weren't just some random joes with guns.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:09 pm

However, I just can't believe, no matter how much of a stretch I'm willing to take, that there would ever be a situation where a shooting war would break out between our government and it's people. Call me stupid but that's just plain insane and if that's your primary reason why civilians need assault weapons it's the weakest of all arguments. The British aren't going to invade us.

That's the most near sighted thing I've heard on this matter. Just look back over the last 100 years of history and anyone can see it's far from impossible.

As each next generation comes up they get more and more indoctrinated so there's no need to wage war on the American people. The War began long ago and they lulled everybody to sleep. Now here comes Bett's generation and they have no idea of the freedom we enjoyed. I'm 38 and I havn't even experienced real adversity. Vietnam was just ending as I was born. These kids nowadays are soft and jacked up on idealism. They can be talked into anything =/

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: