assault weapons

[GarzaUK]

GARZAUK while you have the right to your opinion and thoughts, you are not a US citizen. You do not have the constitution rights that we in this country do so I don't beleive you have a realistic view of what the right to keep and bear arms means to the average US citizen. If the US government tried to pass gun reform like was done in your country it would not work. The average citizen would not comply. Haven't crime rates gone up in the UK since they passed the gun control laws.

Well we've had gun control laws for decades. But let's see.

The UK's last school shooting was I think in 1997 in Scotland, maybe one or two after that - I can't remember if there was.

Recent poll --- 6% of 16-25 year old British citizens think that you should be allowed to own a gun for self-protection.

I don't know about you but it seems we're doing something right.

 

[nefarious_plot]

The high crime and violance rate has to do yes witha messd up society. People kill each other with lots of bizzre stuff. Many of wich are concidered household items. Theya rent designed to kill you but they sure as heck will and quick. Cleaning Chemicals electric saws, mowers, etc. Those can kill you if missued. Just cause I own them doesnt mean they ill though. Same with that AR-15. WOnt hurt anybody. I am responcible and safe with it. If somebody else isnt THEY should be punished not me. Banning the sale of them infreinges on everybodyys right instead of targeting violaters. You wont get anywhere with inferences that simply owning them makes you unsafe or a crimainl when youve never been either. Go after the crimianals.

Secondly banning them from people whom obey laws wont keep crimanls whose sole purpose is to hurt somebody form getting them. Paying cash without any paperwork for a gun is pretty easy and there is no law that would ever stop that from occuring. Your only punishing law abiding citzens with bans of anything. And this is supposed to be a country of freedom of personal choice like Sweaty Uncle Teddy says.

 

[Davisbd23]

The 2nd amendment can be interpreted in many ways... My belief is that even if it meant that everyone should have a gun, our founding fathers had no way of knowing that there would be guns like assault rifles holding 30 bullets that could be fired straight without reloading...

That is why the second amendment is so vaguely worded, because our founding fathers knew that our weapons would be drastically different from the muzzleloaders that they were using in their time. My belief is that they wanted the people to have modern weapons. The second amendment was meant to be interpreted, whereas the first and fourth amendments are extremely clear in what they mean and have little room for interpretation.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

AR-15

My god.

That weapon is designed to kill someone. Cleaning products are designed to clean. Yes, they can both be deadly when used in such a way. But the AR-15's sole purpose is killing. You pull the trigger and a projectile round (many projectile rounds) exits the barrell and and heads for it's target. It is meant to not just do harm to it's target, but to kill it. A handgun I can see an argument for just doing harm to something, but an assault rifle (key word: ASSAULT) is meant to kill.

AR-15's are easier to track if they are harder to get. Why does an ordinary citizen need an AR-15?

 

[nefarious_plot]

Why do I need a Assualt weapon? Cause I can own one. Why do you need a coomputer or Sports car? A Riding Lawn Mower. Its not your place to decide what I can or cant own. I know a guy that owns 6 AMCJavalin Cars. WHy? Cause he can. IT makes no sence to me. Those cars were bad new. But he owns them causehe can. Who is to say he cant? I never hurt anybody no reason why I cant own one.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Those cars aren't made to kill people. Your lawnmower isn't meant to kill people. Your assault rifle is.

Do you see?

If you never hurt anybody and never plan on hurting anybody, why do you want an assault rifle?

Because you can? You can also drink your own urine? Do you indulge yourself in that? "Because you can" is not a reason.

 

[nefarious_plot]

It does NOT matter. I guy poised somebody with Drano. Its his intenet to kill. Even if the drano wasnt desigend too. I have no intention of killing anybody. Noobdy can tell me what I can and cant own. You will never get anywhere with people claiming you know whats good for them or tellgin them what they can or cant own. There is no good reason why I cant own the gun. I have never commited a vioent crime and dont intend too.

Deal with violence in society. That has nothing to do with inanimate objects. You must deal with the fools in this country that think bombing and shooting everybody is the key to solving issues. Start with the goofys that want war for vengence. That clap when hereoes in movies gun down 50 people. My gun has nothing to do with that.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It does NOT matter. I guy poised somebody with Drano. Its his intenet to kill. Even if the drano wasnt desigend too. I have no intention of killing anybody. Noobdy can tell me what I can and cant own. You will never get anywhere with people claiming you know whats good for them or tellgin them what they can or cant own. There is no good reason why I cant own the gun. I have never commited a vioent crime and dont intend too.

Deal with violence in society. That has nothing to do with inanimate objects. You must deal with the fools in this country that think bombing and shooting everybody is the key to solving issues. Start with the goofys that want war for vengence. That clap when hereoes in movies gun down 50 people. My gun has nothing to do with that.

So then it is also your contingency that it should be perfectly legal for every household to own a nucleur weapon. Is that accurate?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Why do you want to own an assault rifle? I don't get it. I can understand why you would want to own a bottle of Draino, it's sole purpose is non-violent and possibly useful from day to day when you're unclogging your sink... ohh and you can kill people with it if you are so inclined An AR-15? Hmm what that do? It can kill people and.... and... Let's just say it would be hard to unclog a sink with it.

Do you understand the difference?

I'm not trying to tell you what's good for you. This isn't about me telling you what you can and can't own. It's an issue about where the right to bear arms has a limit. Because otherwise, as Sebastian pointed out, without restrictions comes Nuclear Arms and other stupid things that people have no business owning. You don't need an AR-15 to protect your family. You don't need an AR-15 to hunt bunny rabbits. You don't need an AR-15.

"You must deal with the fools in this country that think bombing and shooting everybody is the key to solving issues."

If you believe that shooting everybody is not the key to solving issues then why do you own an assault rifle?

 

[nefarious_plot]

That Argument is old tired and lame. Own whatever you want. If you can afford a Peacekeeper ICBM go for it. If you think you will get Uranium through American Customs or store it in your Tool shed at home...please pass the bong. Regardless of what Ashcroft, Ridge, Bush, or any of the clown brigade running the White House say... its not gonna happen.


Arguing to the extremes of things like this really dont help. Destructive Devices, things that explode such as artilery mortars and hand grenades, are govererned by existing laws. Area fire weapons and explosive devices fall under this category. You need special license etc. Yet still people own cannons for show and collection etc. My VFW post has a 75mm Pack Howitzer and a M60A3 tank. These conform with laws that allow such show pieces to be owned prviately or by re-enactment groups and organzations such as the American Legion and VFW. They are shown and operated responsibly. Active Destructive devices or illegal and always have been.

As a side note after re reading the ATF laws, Nuclear Weapons would fit under this category. Of course everybody reading is saying.."No Duh" :lol:


I did notice though that Flamethrowers do not apply as far as I could see. Owning one of those as a colectors piece that is disabled and non functional is fine. But to own a functional flamethrower is insane but apprahently legal. I think theres your line drawn for me.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Okay...

Umm...

Why do you own an assault rifle? Don't say because I can.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As I understand it (I'll double-check) the definition of what constitutes and "assault rifle" is based largely upon apperance rather than function. Apparently, there're very similar weapons that were not covered by the ban.

It should be an expensive arduous ordeal for the gov to hassle citizens. This is one the better reasons, IMHO, for Americans to own powerful weapons. Sure, a small group of citizens couldn't whup the US army, but you could give a corrupt sherriff cause to pause for thought.

Another execellent reason is that the US prob'ly won't be the hyperpower it is today forever. It's just vanity to think that it will always enjoy its current status. The day could come where our descendants will be "liberated" by a foreign power. That too should be a costly and dangerous affair for that foreign pwoer. A tradition of weapon ownership helps insure this.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

So, god forbid, the country shall one day fall, and you want to make that as bloody as possible?

 

[nefarious_plot]

I own it cause I wanted it. just like the candy bar I bought. I wanted it so I bought it. I dont think it was concidered a assualt rifle when I got it. Used to be able to hunt with it. Now I just have it.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

That Argument is old tired and lame. Own whatever you want. If you can afford a Peacekeeper ICBM go for it. If you think you will get Uranium through American Customs or store it in your Tool shed at home...please pass the bong. Regardless of what Ashcroft, Ridge, Bush, or any of the clown brigade running the White House say... its not gonna happen.


Arguing to the extremes of things like this really dont help. Destructive Devices, things that explode such as artilery mortars and hand grenades, are govererned by existing laws. Area fire weapons and explosive devices fall under this category. You need special license etc. Yet still people own cannons for show and collection etc. My VFW post has a 75mm Pack Howitzer and a M60A3 tank. These conform with laws that allow such show pieces to be owned prviately or by re-enactment groups and organzations such as the American Legion and VFW. They are shown and operated responsibly. Active Destructive devices or illegal and always have been.

As a side note after re reading the ATF laws, Nuclear Weapons would fit under this category. Of course everybody reading is saying.."No Duh" :lol:


I did notice though that Flamethrowers do not apply as far as I could see. Owning one of those as a colectors piece that is disabled and non functional is fine. But to own a functional flamethrower is insane but apprahently legal. I think theres your line drawn for me.

Then perhaps you can understand why I wish that there would be a ban on some heavier guns. Because it is indeed illegal to own "destructive devices" then should the laws not be consistent with this? Could you name for me, one constructive use for an assault riffle. By their very nature they are destructive devices. They are assembled and produced and marketed for the very purpose of destruction. If you don't believe me, load her up and let her go in your house. Then stop and see, "gee that was really a lot more destructive than it was constructive." The point is this: even if it is for nothing but show, the only thing you're showing is something that was used to kill. They are not a need, and they serve little to no purpose aside from ripping apart highschool students.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

As I understand it (I'll double-check) the definition of what constitutes and "assault rifle" is based largely upon apperance rather than function. Apparently, there're very similar weapons that were not covered by the ban.

It should be an expensive arduous ordeal for the gov to hassle citizens. This is one the better reasons, IMHO, for Americans to own powerful weapons. Sure, a small group of citizens couldn't whup the US army, but you could give a corrupt sherriff cause to pause for thought.

Another execellent reason is that the US prob'ly won't be the hyperpower it is today forever. It's just vanity to think that it will always enjoy its current status. The day could come where our descendants will be "liberated" by a foreign power. That too should be a costly and dangerous affair for that foreign pwoer. A tradition of weapon ownership helps insure this.

Sorry Rambo, but that plot's been done. And if, indeed, what we are preparing for is our siege, then there is absolutely no reason that we should have a ban on nuclear weapons or heavy explosives. So that, by your belief should be lifted.

 

[nefarious_plot]

Name me one constructive use for my Austin Healey or a 74 Pinto. Gas is hard to come by for it..it is not reliable nor practical transportation. But its fuuuunn. Who cares... I can own it and I want it.Same with my gun. I am not a criminal and noobdy has the right to prevent me from making choices on anything. There is no reason to get rid of it. Maybe I think the car you drive is uselss. Or anything else you own. Its not my buisiness to tell you, you cant own them. Its not yours to tell me I cant own that gun. What you think its good for me is completely irrelvant. I paid for it. I own it. And this country is supposed to allow me those choices. The people that want me to attend a certian church, boink a certain sex, support a spcefic policy, tell me(if I was a women) what I can or cant do with my body. They have no right to do that. Same with my gun. My choice, my gun.

Furthermore, banning it wont keep criminals or for that matter anybody else from getting one. There are far to many in existance for the federal goverment to ever track down. Thern there would be the smuggling. You have another drug traffic scenario. And then all the people that would not relenquish there weapons without bloodshed. I know most of the Gomers with "you can have my gun when you pry it form cold dead hands" bumperstickers are just good ole boys with alot of mouth and little guts. But there are plenty who would fight. Most of them are law abiding citzens otherwise though.

I think people need to focus on the yahoos that glorify gunfights and war movies and feel violence is always the solution. The violence in this society needs to be adressed. Not any piece of metal.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Name me one constructive use for my Austin Healey or a 74 Pinto. Gas is hard to come by for it..it is not reliable nor practical transportation. But its fuuuunn. Who cares... I can own it and I want it.Same with my gun. I am not a criminal and noobdy has the right to prevent me from making choices on anything. There is no reason to get rid of it. Maybe I think the car you drive is uselss. Or anything else you own. Its not my buisiness to tell you, you cant own them. Its not yours to tell me I cant own that gun. What you think its good for me is completely irrelvant. I paid for it. I own it. And this country is supposed to allow me those choices. The people that want me to attend a certian church, boink a certain sex, support a spcefic policy, tell me(if I was a women) what I can or cant do with my body. They have no right to do that. Same with my gun. My choice, my gun.

The difference? One was a means for transportation, the other a means of killing. If you were refuel to your Austin Healey and take it around the block, that more than likely is not going to kill anyone, as so long as you are careful. However, the AK, if you put bullets in it and use it for the purpose it was created, people will die. Surely you get the difference? And to the contrary, the government very much has the right to prevent you from making certain choices without consequence. If you choose to buy heroin, and you are caught, you will be arrested. I'll agree with you on the point that what I think of your belongings is irrelevent. But the government on the other hand, does have every right to prevent you from owning certain things. For example slaves or heroin. And frankly, it is not the government's job to make possitive that you have the right to do anything you like. It is the government's job to make sure that you do have certain freedoms as well as assuring that everyone else is assured their most important governmental right: life. If your owning a gun might put that right of others in jeopardy, then it is the right of the government to prevent you from having that tool. Just as they do with other such harmful devices. You have this idea that you were just born to be free of anything and everything, and that some how or another it is the government that is taking away these rights. But, to the contrary, the very reason you have these freedoms is because the government was established that gave you these freedoms to begin with. It was the US govenment that chose to exist under the rights of freedom with stipulations regarding those freedoms. You are not, in fact, free to do whatever you like however you like. You, among many others, only hold a belief that you are.

Furthermore, banning it wont keep criminals or for that matter anybody else from getting one. There are far to many in existance for the federal goverment to ever track down. Thern there would be the smuggling. You have another drug traffic scenario. And then all the people that would not relenquish there weapons without bloodshed. I know most of the Gomers with "you can have my gun when you pry it form cold dead hands" bumperstickers are just good ole boys with alot of mouth and little guts. But there are plenty who would fight. Most of them are law abiding citzens otherwise though.

Banning such guns will legally prevent their construction. It will also make it legal to seize them where found. Smuggling weapons is a crime and a problem anyhow, so that point is moot. As far as having those who will not hand over their weapons without firing them first, well to me that shows all the more reason why they ought not be legal. If a person is more willing to shoot someone with their weapon than hand it over due to law, then perhaps it is better that that person not have the weapon to begin with. And if it comes to that, it is within the right of the law to fire back. Surely after that happened once, the few remaining with that attitude would fall in line. If not, they ARE breaking the law, and they ARE firing at men enforcing the law. Furthermore, just because you abide by most other laws, if you choose to not abide by one, you are breaking that law, therefor you are subject to arrest.

I think people need to focus on the yahoos that glorify gunfights and war movies and feel violence is always the solution. The violence in this society needs to be adressed. Not any piece of metal.

I agree. Those who glorify such things should be addressed as well. But it would, in fact, be much harder to have gunfights if guns were harder to come by.

 

[nefarious_plot]

You wont stop ther construction. Every country in the world makes weapons. And if poeple want them they will get them. Like Booze with Capone. Doesnt matter what its desgined for. The fact that I won doesnt mean I am going to use it against people. No law will stop a criminal thats why he is one. And the the goverment has no right to make choices for me in any way shape or form. Any legislation sataing otherwise is contridictory to the orginal ideals of this nation. I wont let people shove this war down my throat. Lots want to kick me out of thte country for that. I wont follow there religion. Many want to make me do that. I wont abide by the ban cheeseburger thing. Granted way out there as that one is. The abortion thing. The gay thing. I amke my choices the goverment should be working for me. Not other way around. We have allowed them to dicate to us when they should be public servants. The citzenry needs to stop tryig to manipulate each other through law.

You innocetn until pressumed quilty. Banning things because they might be missued by one is just not freedom. Punish those who have commited crime. I havent commoted any nor intend to. Trying to pre-punish somebody because they MIGHT commit one is just not possible. Thats like Homeland Security coming because somebody said I might have said "bomb" in a restraunt. Totaly gestapo.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You wont stop ther construction. Every country in the world makes weapons. And if poeple want them they will get them. Like Booze with Capone. Doesnt matter what its desgined for. The fact that I won doesnt mean I am going to use it against people. No law will stop a criminal thats why he is one. And the the goverment has no right to make choices for me in any way shape or form. Any legislation sataing otherwise is contridictory to the orginal ideals of this nation. I wont let people shove this war down my throat. Lots want to kick me out of thte country for that. I wont follow there religion. Many want to make me do that. I wont abide by the ban cheeseburger thing. Granted way out there as that one is. The abortion thing. The gay thing. I amke my choices the goverment should be working for me. Not other way around. We have allowed them to dicate to us when they should be public servants. The citzenry needs to stop tryig to manipulate each other through law.

I could almost guarantee you that the Bahamas or Sweden or even Canada do not make assault riffles. And just because every country has the ability to make bombs and/or poisons doesn't mean it ought to be legal to buy them or produce them. And just because people are going to be able to get something anyway is not a good enough reason to not make it illegal. People are always going to be able to put kids in their porn videos, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal. And no, just because you own one doesn't mean that you're going to use it against people. But it makes you a hell of a lot more likely to use it against people than someone who doesn't have one at all. Especially if it were illegal to obtain. Laws are not designed specifically for prevention of actions. It is not illegal to murder so that people will stop murdering others, it is illegal to murder because there should be legal consequences for choosing to commit an action. Just like it would not be the point of making guns illegal to prevent people from getting them, but rather to have a consequence that holds people accountable if they do choose to purchase or manufacture a gun. Again, you have a very self serving and demagogy view of America. America was not established to provide you with the right to do whatever you want. The government was established so that we, as a large group of people, would have laws that were consistent across the country and so that these laws all followed the specific path of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This idea that the government exists so that you have the right to make whatever choice you want is in your head. You are GIVEN many rights in this country. You are allowed the right to have an opinion that may counter any one elses. You are allowed to voice that opinion in the means that you choose as so long as it does not impose on others' rights. BUT it is ceratinly not the job of the government to allow you any right you have the whim of exercising whenever and however you choose to exercise it. The government does not work for you, it works for as smaller group of people for a larger group of people in the general interest of all of its people. It is not there to allow YOU as one person in the US to do whatever it is you like and support you with it. It is in place to assure that everyone is given equal rights and protection, as so long as they also abide by the laws of the land. And if, in fact, the laws of the land are against abortion, or harmful drugs, or firearms, then it is the government's place to ensure that those laws are enforced against the perpetrators. As far as citenzinary, the government is made up of "citizens," who together are constantly reviewing and revolutionizing our laws. That is how this government was designed. What you seek is anarchy, or at very least a government that serves you. If indeed the "citizens" who are on our courts or in our house or senate do agree that their should be a ban on such fire arms, or anything else for that matter, they are within their legal rights to make that law.

You innocetn until pressumed quilty. Banning things because they might be missued by one is just not freedom. Punish those who have commited crime. I havent commoted any nor intend to. Trying to pre-punish somebody because they MIGHT commit one is just not possible. Thats like Homeland Security coming because somebody said I might have said "bomb" in a restraunt. Totaly gestapo.

It's innocent until PROVEN guilty, not presumed. Furthermore, if the problem was that one person in the US was using these guns for misuse, then it would be a very different issue. But that is certainly not the case. Firstly, these are weapons. They are not constructed for any other purpose than to fire bullets that are by very nature of design destructive. Furthermore, not allowing you to have such a device is not punishment, it is prevention. If you're afraid your child is going to use dianamite, then you don't wait until after they do to take it away from them. You simply don't allow them to have it in the first place therefore the problem does not become a problem. And there is no pre-punishing to this case. If it is made illegal to own or sale these items, then they are in fact commiting a crime by owning and/or selling them. There is no pre-crime, only post-crime punishment. To the contrary, it is very much like you having a bomb in an airport, but saying that you weren't really going ot use it, just look at it for a while. That is a much closer analogy.

 

[nefarious_plot]

Canada and Sweden most cerntinaly do. Bahamas is a pocession of another nation. There is no reason for the guns to be illegal. Soiimply owning one doesnt make you a criminal nor give you crimianl tendenceys. If a law did absolutely nothing to solve an issue then wwhat damn goood is it. Banning the guns wont stop anybody from getting one. Crime with guns will continue. So the law abiding gun owner is punished and murder continues. Silly. Stop crimanal tendency. Stop the passion for violnce. People will kill no matter what otherwise. People kill each other with a bare hands. Bannign guns wont dent the murder rate one iota. Crimansl dont follow laws. You can easily obtain any gun without going thorough any waiting period. You wont ever confiscate them all. Talk about violence. Try taking them. It will be constant standoffs and shootouts. It just wont be tolerated.

People were killing each other in mass before gunpowder. This goverment is not to dictate to us. Thats the kind of thing Fascits and Stalinists do. We already have to much of that in this country conveintly disguised as Christian morality. NO thank you I will make my choices. The govermetn wants to prevent crime they can put some funding into education and police forces.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

...there is absolutely no reason that we should have a ban on nuclear weapons or heavy explosives. So that, by your belief should be lifted.

No, actually not so. I said where the balance should be made. This means that my belief does not include as you have assumed violations of the NPT.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

No, actually not so. I said where the balance should be made. This means that my belief does not include as you have assumed violations of the NPT.

However your argument was that when the government falls, we should be prepared to fight back. So where in that logic is there any reason to limit neucleaur weaponry?

 

[nefarious_plot]

IN any revolution however unlikely. History and logic is conveintly ignored.

There is no way in hell that every Commander would allied with govement. That the Military would be a compelte whole. What makes anybody think that Commander Gomer from Mississippi that is all about states rights and have never left is trailor park is going to order "his boys" to follow orders that would have them instituting martial law on Hazzard County and close down the Boars Nest. How many CSA commanders can you name that werent Soldiers in the US Military prior to the Civil War.

having your guns shows any potential tryanical goverment or whatever scneario you use for a revolution..That resistance will be instant and deep rooted in society. The very same thing that Bush ignored in going to Iraq: Partisans. A resistance that can meld in with a populace and strike without waring and disapeer. Ask Vietnam vets how effective that is. And how well it negated large volumes of firepower.

AS we all should know. This is the same scenario that defeated the Britiish. Tall stories and propaganda has turned it into Washington being some master mind that beat the British in a conventional war. Not the case. A mix of Foreign assistance, Half trained militia and farmers who grabbed the hunting rifles and signed up. A mix of partisan resistance and eventully a raised army whom did suprose the British here and there combined with British dealing with the rest of its empire led to eventual victory.

This is a important argument for firearms but the least on the list. Our rights and freedom, and the total illogical that taking firearms from law abiding citzens stops crime.

Be afraid of crimanals. Taking guns wont stop killing. Bladed weapons did a fine job killing plenty of poeple.

 

[stsburns]

nefarious_plot,

Yea, your right. That whole gun control thing become out of control. :rofl

The sad part is, they were taking guns away from people who needed them. Such as Billy Bob living in the country, that uses his gun to protect his property from Armadillos, Bears, and other dangerous creatures. And yet have no regulations on the thugs that illigally own guns.