DescentBB

VonVulcan wrote:This is just sad... you haven't got a clue Dak. Nothing personal.

If you mean the weapons thing, it was a joke. I know what an assault weapon is. An assault weapon is basically what's considered a military weapon (doesn't necessarily mean an assault rifle).

By the way, pistols are useless, hence their name

Top Gun wrote:Which would make pistols used for...

Pistol-whipping?

Why ban assault weapons?

Most deaths related to guns (in violent crimes)are from hand guns. .. and those obtained outside the confines prescribed by law.

Take guns away and they'll use baseball bats and knives. ..er.. more.

Duper wrote:Take guns away and they'll use...

Bows and arrows! Archery ftw!

Rough croud, huh dak…

Dakatsu wrote: Okay I disagree, but it's such a petty argument that it's not worth bothering for

I was referring to this. Anything that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is hardly petty. You register ammo, then your in the system. Maybe harmless now, but you never know how that data will be used in the future. I for one will NEVER register a firearm, hold a CC permit or comply with any law about registered ammo.

I would say the second amendment would be much better upheld if everyone in the US was allowed to own but not carry an all-out assault weapon.

You don't want people walking down the street with them, but imagine a hostile force trying to take over a neighborhood where everyone owned an AR-15.

Speaking of the AR-15, I saw a really funny sig in a sportsman forum the other day. It said something like, \"The AR-15 is the modern-day musket and everyone should own one\". I don't know if you've ever heard the argument that the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to more modern (deadly) weapons...

Well lets see. In one part of the constitution were told we have the right to arm and protect ourselves, and in another were told we have the responsibility to put down an oppressive government. It's gonna take more than level 1's to put MD down

There is a misconception that needs to be cleared up. I know those of you who are brain damaged by the liberal press and are now incompetent to question anything you read on the Huffington Post or Media Matters, I'm going to impart this one liner in hopes it jump starts your brain to start working again:

\"Just because it looks like a assault weapon does not mean that it is\".

Now go do some googling to clear out the calcification the anti-gunners have inflicted your cranial space with.

(Just now got around to reading this thread.)

Okay, as a non-gun-enthusiast, I need to ask:

1. Besides issues of privacy, why is this an issue?

2. People are saying that it's an anti-gun measure, but I don't see how; does this restrict legal gun use, or prevent people from buying ammunition?

I've seen more rhetoric and flames than good answers so far... but I'd honestly like to know, as gun issues are something I know little about.

Dakatsu wrote:By the way, pistols are useless, hence their name

Are you a suburbanite? Do you know what a .357 is? Why are you posting in this thread???

It makes it more difficult to make, sell, and buy ammo. Only the people behind it know the specific motives, but regulation does not encourage an industry.

I believe it could be said that it potentially undermines the constitutional guard against unlawful search and seizure. It won't be long and our government could laugh at the \"search\" part of that, because they don't need to search if they know exactly what we have. I don't know how familiar you are with relational databases but it's amazing what you can pull out of those things with just some basic statistics. That is speculation, because I don't know that these powers would at all be used in this way, but in my mind they conceivably could be and that is what you and I need to be mindful of. Governments have gone bad throughout history, and ours, while designed to be resistant, is not immune.

By the way, Bettina, when I say \"enemies of liberty\" I'm not necessarily talking about some nefarious group. I'm talking about anyone in a position of influence or power who does not hold liberty as their highest ideal, and when that is the case liberty ultimately gives way to whatever they think is more important. Liberty under the rule of law was the purpose of our founding fathers, and next to life it is the highest ideal that anyone in our government should have.

Big Brother wants to know more than I want him to know. Keep your government regulations out of my meat locker.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It makes it more difficult to make, sell, and buy ammo. Only the people behind it know the specific motives, but regulation does not encourage an industry.

I believe it could be said that it potentially undermines the constitutional guard against unlawful search and seizure. It won't be long and our government could laugh at the "search" part of that, because they don't need to search if they know exactly what we have. I don't know how familiar you are with relational databases but it's amazing what you can pull out of those things with just some basic statistics. That is speculation, because I don't know that these powers would at all be used in this way, but in my mind they conceivably could be and that is what you and I need to be mindful of. Governments have gone bad throughout history, and ours, while designed to be resistant, is not immune.

By the way, Bettina, when I say "enemies of liberty" I'm not necessarily talking about some nefarious group. I'm talking about anyone in a position of influence or power who does not hold liberty as their highest ideal, and when that is the case liberty ultimately gives way to whatever they think is more important. Liberty under the rule of law was the purpose of our founding fathers, and next to life it is the highest ideal that anyone in our government should have.

Exactly!!

Foil wrote:(Just now got around to reading this thread.)

Okay, as a non-gun-enthusiast, I need to ask:

1. Besides issues of privacy, why is this an issue?

2. People are saying that it's an anti-gun measure, but I don't see how; does this restrict legal gun use, or prevent people from buying ammunition?

I've seen more rhetoric and flames than good answers so far... but I'd honestly like to know, as gun issues are something I know little about.

To be frank, the anti gun people have defined every little aspect of the gun and have been chipping away at it for many years. It is at the point where just going hunting is hard to do legally. Hunting has been a part of our life since we broke away from the British. Food was so abundent here. From there it turns into a pissing match because so many details of the gun are illegal or require expensive licencing. One of the points of hunting was a poor man could feed his family. Now only well off people can afford to hunt and poor starve, and we give to charity's over sea's to feed there poor - this is where I get real pissy.

There is also the Constition where the people are suppossed to keep an eye on the Government, and if they get out of control those who can do something should and are obligated to. But the Government wants no part of that thought - small wonder why I suppose, but the thought is supposed to keep them honest.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:..By the way, Bettina, when I say "enemies of liberty" I'm not necessarily talking about some nefarious group. I'm talking about anyone in a position of influence or power who does not hold liberty as their highest ideal, and when that is the case liberty ultimately gives way to whatever they think is more important. Liberty under the rule of law was the purpose of our founding fathers, and next to life it is the highest ideal that anyone in our government should have.

I bolded that part because I'm surprised you put it there. Listening to some here...not you especially... want no laws when it involves guns. I did a little research and was shocked to find what the NRA actually fought against all it's life. Those people are crazy.

I don't like guns but I won't deny a persons right to own and use one. I just don't like the assault types that can kill a lot of people in a short timespan as being neccessary for protection. Do you believe machine guns for example should be legally sold at wallmart? How about cop killer bullets. Where do you stop liberty from becoming a license as it pertains to weapons.

Bee

To answer Foil…

If I steal your gun to kill someone, trying to pin the blame on you…you will prolly notice this and report the gun stolen. However if I steal just one of your marked bullets, and kill someone with it….(I can always alter the markings on the bullet, before firing it to throw off the ballistics, leaving the id tag intact)

That’s just one of the problems I see…

Better keep an eye on every round!

Heh, I have two 45 cal rounds in my kitchen junk drawer that I found in the park.

There's still black pwder guns. They aren't regulated at all. Davey Crockett FTW!!

Now ya dunit.

Bet51987 wrote:I bolded that part because I'm surprised you put it there. Listening to some here...not you especially... want no laws when it involves guns. I did a little research and was shocked to find what the NRA actually fought against all it's life. Those people are crazy.

The rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men) is what gives us our liberty. We may recognize inalienable rights, but without the rule of law to facilitate those rights they wouldn't be worth much. It was a qualifying statement, because I believe in liberty, not anarchy. There are two rights concerned, with regard to firearm ownership: the inalienable right to life, and the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Our right to life because if we have a right to life then we have a right to protect our life.

Bet51987 wrote:I don't like guns but I won't deny a persons right to own and use one. I just don't like the assault types that can kill a lot of people in a short timespan as being neccessary for protection. Do you believe machine guns for example should be legally sold at wallmart? How about cop killer bullets. Where do you stop liberty from becoming a license as it pertains to weapons.

I think licenses to carry are a reasonable requirement under the law. Anyone interested in carrying a gun in society should be able to demonstrate the ability and sound judgment to do so. Training should only be required if they fail to demonstrate ability. I would also require licensing for automatic or assault weapons, which it should be illegal to carry (outside of your property or home) except in hunting. Again, a demonstration of ability and sound judgment, with training required only on failure to demonstrate ability (that way a father could take the responsibility for instruction). Wal-Mart would then sell you an automatic weapon only upon your furnishing a permit, and anything less could be purchased without the need for a permit.

I'm pretty sure I'm against the idea of firearm registration.

Armor-piercing or cop-killer ammunition? I would put that kind of thing in the hands of the local government/law enforcement, to be dealt out in time of crisis (may not happen in our life-time, but it's possible). There's no sense in having citizens armed against their own local government, in my opinion. Furthermore I believe that's in harmony with the 2nd Amendment, which concerns the security of a free "state."

I believe that those steps would be sufficient to, as you said, "stop liberty from becoming a license as it pertains to weapons," and at the same time preserve our rights.

Sergant Thorne wrote:There's no sense in having citizens armed against their own local government, in my opinion.

I find this odd, since the primary purpose of gun ownership is to protect us from our own government. The founding fathers saw this because they recognized England's attempt to disarm them in order to maintain control. They protected gun ownership as an important part of the many checks and balances they placed to keep government under control.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It gives the people the final veto when their own government goes out of control. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that the Tiananmen Square Massacre can not happen here.

Kilarin wrote:

Sergant Thorne wrote:There's no sense in having citizens armed against their own local government, in my opinion.

I find this odd, since the primary purpose of gun ownership is to protect us from our own government. The founding fathers saw this because they recognized England's attempt to disarm them in order to maintain control. They protected gun ownership as an important part of the many checks and balances they placed to keep government under control.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It gives the people the final veto when their own government goes out of control. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that the Tiananmen Square Massacre can not happen here.

X2

Some more bad stuff comming down the pipe.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... ed_in.html

I feel safer already...

I'd really like to see proof of the existence of problems that resolutions like this claim to address.

House Resolution 45 - GovTrack

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I feel safer already...

I'd really like to see proof of the existence of problems that resolutions like this claim to address.

House Resolution 45 - GovTrack

As you know, it has nothing to do with making us "safer". It is time for the sheep to wake up.

I find the following excerpts particularly heinous.

-------------------------------------------

SEC. 304. FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.’.

--------------------
and
--------------------


‘(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--

------------
and
------------


SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- In this Act:

(1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms ‘firearm’, ‘licensed dealer’, ‘licensed manufacturer’, and ‘State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.

(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM- The term ‘qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--

‘(A) means--

‘(i) any handgun; or

‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

I guess you're home free with a vintage Tommy gun.

A simple solution here is…coughbreakthelawcough

http://www.infowars.com/democrat-propos ... -policies/

http://www.infowars.com/%E2%80%9Cpork%E ... americans/

http://www.infowars.com/hr-45-may-be-mo ... -gun-bill/

Yep this is gonna make criminals out of a whole bunch of people. Our veterans at that, who when they were 18 we shoved a gun in their hands and put em on the front lines and now as a direct result of that action we deem them unfit to protect themselves. Buncha dummies we've all become =/

Spidey, thanks to America you can just say
break the law
Thanks Judas!!

VonVulcan wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Sergant Thorne wrote:There's no sense in having citizens armed against their own local government, in my opinion.

I find this odd, since the primary purpose of gun ownership is to protect us from our own government. The founding fathers saw this because they recognized England's attempt to disarm them in order to maintain control. They protected gun ownership as an important part of the many checks and balances they placed to keep government under control.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sports or hunting. It gives the people the final veto when their own government goes out of control. The 2nd amendment is there to ensure that the Tiananmen Square Massacre can not happen here.

X2

X3

It's nice to be able to protect yourself from criminals. However benevolent and powerful your local government is, it'll never be as motivated, immediately capable, or informed as you are on that score. Plus, when safety from criminals is something that comes from the government, it's something that the government can fail to provide--either because it's powerless during a breakdown of law in an emergency or because it's lazy and you personally are poor, powerless, and not worth the effort. Police in bad neighborhoods can be like schools in bad neighborhoods--not the same. Gun control can be viewed as a form of tangible oppression--not just of our rights in general, but literally of sacrificing the practical needs of the poor to the sensibilities and paranoias of the rich. If we had a healthy social expectation of personal responsibility for self defense and made sure to maintain access to affordable and effective means to it for everyone, that would go a long way toward making poorer folks less reliant on a frequently corrupt or inefficient local government for personal safety.

That's a worthy goal and would be well and good and appropriate in a free society.

But that's not what the second amendment's about.

The second amendment is about the right of the people to raise ad hoc, volunteer armies--that's what a militia used to be--to defend, not the free state, but the free state. It's about people retaining the right to organize and potentially threaten their government. If we were to truly follow in the footsteps of our forefathers, we wouldn't be debating whether civilians could own guns that might have military applications. It would be a given that civilians could own honest-to-God military hardware.

Call me eccentric, but it's my view that they should be able to. It's a tradeoff between the damage that can be done by a lone criminal with a weapon and the good done by keeping politicians nervous because they don't really have control over the population at large. And in my opinion, a lone criminal can do a lot of damage, pretty cheap, with various terrorist weapons of choice that have nothing to do with military hardware. Taking that as a bounding case, I say people can have whatever the heck small arms they want. Assault rifles? Machine guns? Sure. I mean, heck, shotguns are already legal, and everyone knows how much damage you can do with those. Light mounted guns? Okay. Tanks? Getting close to the line for me, but people have stolen them before, and just didn't do that much damage before society at large was able to run them down. Honestly, you may have big guns, but law-abiding citizens will always have bigger ones; you simply need a lot of organization and funding to last five minutes against the military. Start getting into sizable artillery, air defense systems with decent targeting, bombers with decent payloads . . . I think that's about where the debate should be. That's where a motivated and rich individual can do a lot of damage very fast to a very specific and valuable target--that is, where people start being able to harm society directly. My personal comfort zone is somewhere in there.

Hey, I said to call me eccentric.

It's funny. If a friend or neighbor were to say, "I'm armed, and looking out for the neighborhood," you might say, "good for you." If he were to follow up with, "so I need to know about all the guns and ammunition you have, and by the way give me anything decently big you've got," we'd not be fooled for a minute that he had our best interests at heart. Yet for some reason, when a politician--a politician!--says that exact same thing, there are people who assume he's only looking out for us, and is in no way up to anything. Look, even if that were true (and is it ever?) you trust the next generation of politicians and the next and the next? Seriously?

Look, I'm not afraid of well-equipped criminals. Crime crosses my path pretty rarely, and most criminals are dumb. The ones who have crossed my path were ill-educated and ill-equipped, and I quite frankly doubt that making bigger weapons available to law-abiding citizens would have done them any good whatsoever. The original link looked to me like nothing more than the sort of believable claptrap you get in email, but as subsequent links show, it works because it's believable. Specific examples aside, in general, what's would be the point of laws about registering guns and ammo? That some guy might murder me, or someone I care about, and that an inability to trace the bullet back to the buyer is the reason the police couldn't solve the case? Yeah . . . you know what? I'll take my chances with that. I mean, come on. That's pretty improbable. That's not a real problem someone's trying to solve. That's an excuse for a law. It's not even a very good excuse.

I'm not afraid of even very well-equipped criminals. I can take my chances. But I'd be very afraid of a goverment that wants to know exactly who owns ammunition and how much. That's a government that's up to something.

Very well put, Drakona for president!!

Drakona wrote:.....
It's funny. If a friend or neighbor were to say, "I'm armed, and looking out for the neighborhood," you might say, "good for you." If he were to follow up with, "so I need to know about all the guns and ammunition you have, and by the way give me anything decently big you've got," we'd not be fooled for a minute that he had our best interests at heart. Yet for some reason, when a politician--a politician!--says that exact same thing, there are people who assume he's only looking out for us, and is in no way up to anything. Look, even if that were true (and is it ever?) you trust the next generation of politicians and the next and the next? Seriously?....

Bravo!
That is a brilliant and succinctly illustrated point right there.

Whether one personally chooses to have weapons or not, if you know your history and consider Drakona's point you can not logically support the government taking away the ability of the citizen to arm him or her self unless you are also in favor of taking all rights away from the citizens.

Will Robinson wrote: Whether one personally chooses to have weapons or not, if you know your history and consider Drakona's point you can not logically support the government taking away the ability of the citizen to arm him or her self unless you are also in favor of taking all rights away from the citizens.

I counted to ten, wrote, deleted, wrote again...

No one is trying to take away your right to bear arms but 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.

In that world you would be able to buy Ak-47's, Uzi's and grenades at Walmart. Just what we need.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:
No one is trying to take away your right to bear arms...

Bee

Your mind is so closed you are blind. Open your eyes. You may want to re-read Drakona's post. It is wise beyond her years.

Bet51987 wrote: No one is trying to take away your right to bear arms

*blink* 0_o

Um yes "they" are. The UN for one. They've been pushing legislation for years to get at our guns. They and others (like you) believe that no one should have a gun; or have it locked in a "safe area/ facility". Back in 1776 a muzzle loading musket was an assault rifle. they shot NAILS out of them when regular ammo was gone.

Bet, you're too young to see the progression of this over the last 30 years. It's no different than encroachment of trash on TV or the OK'ing of homosexuality in this country over the same time period. (different special interest group ventures, albeit) It's been a slow process that catches on hand hold at a time presented in packages that are very palletable. it's easy, take a smidge of what the "opposition" is standing for and lay out a campaign over 3 years that will criminalize it. It's really that simple. throw $250 million + at a long add campaign, get your story pimped by Newsweek and the Time magazine and you're in.

The same thing is happening with guns.

Who is going to try to over run or try to gain complete control of a country where 80% of its citizens are armed? ( i have no idea what that real figure is) Not even China will do that. The losses are way to high to risk, not to mention the trouble with pocket resistance and such.

Sure there are a lot of "crazies" out there that want guns in the hands of everyone and think that you should be issued one at BIRTH. But there is on the "other side" where crazies think that you should own nothing more dangerous than a PLASTIC BUTTER KNIFE.

where are YOU going to draw a line Bet? Where are You going to say that I have to adhere to what you think is sane? And Why is that ok? welcome to America. this was my country before it was yours! neah!

Bettina wrote:No one is trying to take away your right to bear arms but 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

It all depends on who you are afraid of Bettina. Criminals have done a lot of harm, no doubt about it. But the number of people they have hurt and killed simply does not even begin to compare to the damage done by governments who got out of control. This is why the founding fathers of America rebelled. And the rebelled with guns that were pretty much the best and the biggest that were available at the time. And after the rebellion, they wrote very clearly into law that they wanted all Americans to have the right to be armed against their own government.

I know how you feel about the Taliban, and I certainly sympathize. They are a good example of what can happen when a government gets out of control. It's evil on a scale that makes the mob look small time. If you are not familiar with Tienanmen Square, look it up. History, and the daily news, are FULL of the horrors of governments out of control.

The men who wrote the 2nd amendment wanted to give the population of America the final veto power against their own government in order to prevent just such nightmares. They recognized the risk, and thought it well worth it.

I think I might draw the line a little further away from air to air missiles than Drakona. MAYBE. Maybe not. I'll have to think about it further. But wherever you draw the line, it must be close enough that the people in mass have a realistic chance of stopping the military.

VonVulcan wrote:Very well put, Drakona for president!!

I'd vote for her.

Prior to WW2, the German govt. made it mandatory for jews to wear a large Star of David on their clothing\"

\"The German government's policy of forcing Jews to wear badges, and then confining all who wore them to ghettos, was a tactic aimed at isolating the Jews from the rest of the population. It enabled the German government to identify, concentrate, deprive, starve, and ultimately murder the Jews of Europe under its control. In 1942, Helmut Knochen, the German government's chief of the Security Service and the Security Police for occupied France and Belgium, stated that the yellow badge was \"another step on the road to the Final Solution.\"

So it is with the politicians who want American citizens to wear a Star of David in the form of gun registration. First you identify, then you segregate and finally confiscate:

\"New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated.\"

\"On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program.\"

\"In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as \"assault weapons.\" This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered \"assault weapon\" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city\"

So you see, any form of gun registration can and willed be used by politicians to confiscate firearms on what ever pretext they deem suitable. Once the Second Amendment is trashed, how long before the right to \"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness \" is also stepped upon?

People like Bet are too narrowly focused in what they see and thus are blinded to what the larger prospect may be.