Last edited by BurgundyBlood; January-17th-2013 at 05:18 PM.
I know a TON of people who own the Bushmaster AR15, they are recreational shooters who like to target practice with them and compete in tactical type competitions where rapid reloading and engaging multiple targets in real world scenarios. How is banning assult rifles from folks like this, many of which are either prior law enforcement or military, preventing "mass killings?
I have 27 guns, why? Well, because I collect guns. Growing up I spent a lot of time with my Dad hunting and competed in the National Hunter Education competition where myself and 4 others represented the state of WV. We competed in archery, sporting clays with shotgun, target shooting with 22's, walkthrough hunter safety course and written test, orienteering and wildlife identification. I was 16, the commradre between the competitors, coaches and parents made for an amazing event. When my father died I inherited all of his guns as well as purchasing several of my own. I don't sit around in a dark room polishing them while watching doomsday preppers and don't fill my trunk with ammo and run out to the range to blow off steam by firing a couple thousand rounds of ammo either. Anyway, when my fathers company went bankrupt back in the mid-seventies he was forced to sell some of his guns, one of the biggest regrets of his life. One of those weapons was an M1 Grand that could be considered an "assault" rifle. The guy who has it won't let it go, but he's promised me that someday he'll sell it back to me and his son has orders to make sure it gets in my hands if and when he passes. He claims it hasn't been shot since my father sold it to him, it has too much sentimental value because of his relationship with my late father.
You see, many people "collect" weapons, not to revolt against the union or even protect themselves, but because they collect guns. It's a hobby, like people who, lets say collect hammers. Which if you've watched the news caused more deaths than guns.
My point is and up to this point it's went totally unaddressed by the pro ban supporters, how will these restrictions and bans be enforced, applied and prosecuted? The INTENT is to prevent someone from going into theater and simply mowing people down with "assault" rifles with high capacity magazines but will it stop there? What's next? Do you have any idea how easy it is to convert some of these semi-automatic weapons to full auto? Do you have any idea how easy it is for just about anyone to modify a weapon to hold more rounds? Will it stop there? Define assault rifle. Anyone?
Most of us will say M16, AR's, AK's and anything fully automatic and by God I can see that. BUT, how will the legislation define "assault" rifles. That's the area of contention for the not so crazy gun nuts out there. We've seen how the gov't conducts business on a regular basis and it's oozing with corruption and greed. Someone said the gun lobbyists are paying off the politicians! Well no ****! So are the pharmacutical and oil companies, banks and every other special interest group that has to money to do so! Lol, really? Only the "gun lobbyists" are shady.
Some peoples children.
What would A World Without Lawyers be like?
i would suggest the first thing to enforce anything is to give the ATF back the power it needs to do it's job.
I'd like to see gun owners get behind forcing their so-called protectors to quit obstructing justice and do what's right, instead of blindly supporting politicians and lobbyists who are subverting the country.
---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 12:31 AM ----------
Oh no,, these are collectibles! Sealed in mylar!
It is about the most selfish reason I ever hear in these discussions.
---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 08:04 PM ----------
I think it might be easier to simply ban/restrict high capacity magazines so that suddenly the AR15, and whatever other rifle a sicko gets his hands on, can't take out so many people so easily. Gun manufacturers are just going to make different rifles to get around any specific rifle ban.
That's part of my concern.The thing that while not sacred is supposedly the ideals we send our countrymen to DIE to uphold and that many died to create.
It is the foundation of our laws to be sure, and as such it is important law, but it is law not sacred and if it is not sacred then it should not be treated as if it is sacred, i.e. inerrant or infallible.It's not sacred but its the next best thing, and it certainly rises well above "legislative matters".
I always thought the goal of the government was to protect minority viewpoints...particularly when those view points - those of law abiding citizens have valid points and are often operating with more rational facts than those whose exposure to firearms and their ownership process is limited or nonexistent.
I live in CT. My mother has taught in the Newton School System (albeit at a different elementary school), what happened is horrific- and tragic. CT also has some of the tougher regulations on gun ownership in the country...and it remains as usual that if the person involved had followed the laws...this wouldn't have happened.
Executive orders for placebo like actions to quell the majority are a dangerous precedent- and that hardly makes me a doomsdayer or even on a more superficial level selfish. The assault rifle designation is vague enough and broad enough to be expanded almost at will once the road has been started down. We continue to pass legislation in this country (and these last 10 years or so - alarmingly bypassing the Congress to do so) with a vision that isn't much more than continually slowing down for the slowest members of our herd....and punishing the vast, vast, vast majority of responsible law abiding people.
Our young adults are growing up with no fear of reprecussions, immeresed in first shooter type games that desensitizes them to violence while diminishing their perception of the value of human life. They're ill prepared to the real world because of societies "it's okay, nice try Johnny, here's a trophy" way of thinking that when they find out it's not okay to be mediocre and they're not as tough as their alter ego on Call of Duty they decide to say **** it, I'm going to show these mother ****ers just how tough I am!
Tighten the loopholes, I have no reason to be concerned about being denied I'm a law abiding citizen. Make me wait an extra week, I'm fine with that. But banning weapons so you can pat yourself on the back for doing something while completely ignoring the cause of the problem to begin with? That's a GREAT idea! Let's perpetuate the problem! Blame the gun, not the idiot using it! BRILLIANT!
So, let me get this right, my son picks up a stick and smacks his sister upside the head with it. I cut down all the trees in my yard while completing ignoring my sons behavior because it was the stick that caused the damage to her skull, not my son who hit her with it. Makes complete since! Better yet, it's my gravel driveway, MULTIPLE opportunities to do more damage with all of them stones, he picks up a handful and PELTS her in the head! "Honey, we're going to have to pave the driveway, our son hit his sister in the head with a handful or rocks, we can't have all of them rocks our there where he can get his hands on them". Hmm, makes perfect sense! I think I get it now!
the vast majority of them want to enforce current laws.
and then they vote for crooked politicians and corrupt organizations who hide legislation in other bills designed to cripple law enforcement's ability to do it.
They sure know what's best.
I always seems to me like the goalposts move a lot in these discussions.
If you suggest any gun control, it is presumed that you want to take away all Second Amendment rights and you don't care about the Constitution or you don't understand it.
If you get past that, the problem suddenly is that any law would be too complicated to implement.
If you get past that, the problem suddenly is that you have to definitively prove that your law will absolutely 100 percent prevent the exact incident that the person is talking about, otherwise it is just a "feel good" political measure.
If you get past that then you get slogans like "if you disarm the law abiding citizens then only criminals will have guns" (even though no one here is talking about disarming the law abiding citizens) or "why aren't we outlawing rocks?"
If you get past that, then you get "why aren't we addressing all other social issues first?"
And so on. It's really frustrating. A hell of a lot of people die every year from guns in this country. We have building codes, we register and require testing and licenses for drivers, we have reasonable limits on our free speech, etc. But when it comes to lethal weaponry, the most obviously dangerous thing there is, suddenly no government control or oversight is possible and the subject is politically taboo. It really is crazy.
Last edited by Predicto; January-17th-2013 at 08:05 PM.
"The Internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea: massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it" - I wish I had said this.
Can you imagine an agency like the DMV being in charge of registration, licensing and enforcement? Holy ****! Some pissed off fat ***** will turn you away after a 6 hour wait because you signed in blue ink, not black!
Your point seems to be that our laws are not God's laws, and therefore they are fallible. On this point I would agree entirely.
I do think there is an important question of human rights here. I think people have certain rights. We used to think of these rights as God-given, but I do not feel it is necessarily theistic. We could perhaps substitute something like natural rights. I hope we would all agree that we have certain inalienable rights, and these we have merely by the virtue of being human, and not by some decree from the state. It is actually a very sticky question as to exactly what these rights are and where they come from, metaphysically speaking, but I think we should begin with the assumption of inalienable human rights.
Now we might debate what these right are, whether for instance we really do have a right to bear arms, or a right to privacy, or a right to property, but I would be very weary of somebody saying we have no rights. Certain human rights seem beyond debate, we all know what a human rights violation is, and we know this has nothing to do with the laws of the state, but is instead a fundamental moral issue.
Of course the Bill of Rights is not infallible (I, for one, worry about many rights I think we have that are nor listed, like the right to food and shelter, which is the point I was originally trying to make, but in hindsight I maybe should have saved it for another thread), but I think the idea of basic and inalienable human rights is essential. The Bill of Rights at least gives the people some leverage against the state in case their human rights are violated, and as such is something we should highly value and take very seriously.
Last edited by s0crates; January-18th-2013 at 02:12 AM.
The press asked a Redskins executive about the salary cap penalty and the executive responded, "Ask John Mara." So the press asked Mara and he said, “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. "
Oh I see now, even though there was no actual salary cap in 2010 according to the CBA, the "spirit" of the salary cap still existed. Thanks for clearing that up Mara.
Compared to the USAF, the DMV is a legend of efficiency.
I thought the strongest argument made in the article was that of natural rights. The idea that everything we want to do under the sun is our right to do, unless it is specificaly limited or denied by law.
No one has ever wrote a law telling you how often you are allowed to breathe in a minute or how many push ups you can do, but we have decided we can limit how fast you can drive on a road... even though the right to travel is mostly unhindered. You can go wherever you want as long as it doesn't invade someone else's property rights (or you're on parole),
So, on the question of natural rights, we can ask... does man the animal have the right to defend himself against predator, prey, and threat? Sure, we say. Can he defend himself using tools at hand or must he use only his hands, feet and teeth? No, in a fight for life pick up that stick, throw that stone, sharpen that steel, invent fire if ya have to.
Well, what about guns? Can we use guns... Sure. No, wait! We've limited that. By passed decree we've declared that the use of guns have to be well regulated. So, we've decided we're allowed to regulate them. Maybe that means that only adults can use them sort of like alcohol. Maybe it means we have to register them like other tools we use, like cars. Maybe we need to pass a class or at least a test to operate them, again like cars. Or perhaps, it's there's that word militia which means there has to be more than one and there has to be a responsible supervising agent in the community.
So, we see in the Bill of Rights and in the very next Founding Father breath, the Militia Act, what was intended for the use of guns. The founding fathers certainly didn't forget what they agreed to between adopting the Second Ammendment and the passage of the Militia Act. They weren't dumb or absent minded. It's we who have twisted and contorted and tweedled to try to shape the writings into what we selfishly want.
But, if you want to go by what the founding fathers wanted... they were fairly clear... they wanted arms well-regulated for use in a militia (and to be solely used by draftable adults)
---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 07:52 AM ----------
Most gun owners are responsible (even the ones who allow their guns to be stolen by the irresponsible) that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to provide reasonable precautions against a very real danger and only a fool would argue that guns could not present very real danger. And that, you and most conservatives are not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)