malorn and desync on why America needs Assault Rifles

I don't agree with the righties in Fred's on much, but I do here.
You can't control firearms. They are not controllable in any meanigful way. Same with alcohol, gambling, pot, abortion and other social problems. It is a Sisyphean task. You can throw as much money at it as you want for as long as you want but the problem won't go away.

Also, statistics here are absolutely useless regardless of source, left or right leaning. There are too many uncontrolled variables.

We have more hunters in the US, because they is more land that can be hunted. Hence we have more guns.
The US has the least dense population (or one of the least, I'm not sure). Especially insides the coastlines. This has a big effect on how we live, including how idiots kill each other. In a tightly packed city, a criminal with a gun is going to be noticed the minute they pull the trigger. There's just too many people around.
The "Drug war" in the US is a reason for MANY murders. Any black market causes violence. Period. And the more you fight a black market, the more violent it gets, since the value of the product goes up.
How do you factor the drug war into those statistics? Can we compare the US drug war vs. the Swiss drug war?

Also criminals don't choose assualt rifles for murder. It is the wrong tool for the task (Please, I'm not advocating murder, just making a point). An AR is hard to conceal. And if you want to be a distance from the target, a good rifle and scope are more accurate, cheaper, and easier to use. As a hunter, I personally don't like semi automatics. They are heavier to carry through the woods and they jam more often. But hey, to each their own.

The only non-military use for an assault rifle is for fun. And I'm OK with that. I think it's rather Beavis and Butthead, but oh well. Ban them, and people will make them in the black market anyways. And then kill each other trying to control their market.

 

Interesting thread.

Assault rifles suffer from a spooky name and an imposing design. A hunting rifle of large caliber is a much more efficient killing machine for human-sized targets than the popular .223 assault rifle.

The great thing, though, about a .223 "assault" rifle is that is doubles very well as a survival tool (small game hunting).

As far as protection from tyranny, the .223 is a good fit. I agree that they do not need to be fully automatic, and that is where I would draw the line. Currently in many states you can own a fully automatic gun, but the red tape is such a hurdle as to be an effective deterrent to all but the avid collector or sport shooter.

And, if a group of drug-thugs does break into your house, there's a good bet they could have assault rifles. I just read a story like this on the CNN website a few months back. Personally, a good shotgun with the right ammo (and a large caliber backup revolver) would be my choice to defend against such an invasion. My point being: assault rifles are not the ultimate self defense weapon, nor are they to be feared any more than other rifles or handguns.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 23 2007, 01:56 PM) [snapback]395277[/snapback]</div>

Maim, murder, and illegal drug use are not essential to your liberty or freedom. Firearms, and the ability to protect yourself from an overbearing government, rioters, home intruders, rapists, murderers, is indeed, a right that no government or entity can take away.

Without firearms, our countrymen and soldiers would have never been able to emancipate themselves from the oppressive British government.

To disarm yourselves, or to allow your government to disarm you, is a grave mistake that our founding fathers warned about, via the federalist papers, the constitution, etc.. etc.. Not even 300 years ago this was all written, and now, people want to destroy it. sad, really. It's sad how we forget.. How some people don't learn from history... How some people are do disillusioned as to think that America, somehow, is immune to extreme corruption and tyranny.. that our government would never put it's agenda, or it's corporations agendas before the peoples..

Hell, if the blatant bribing of Perry in Texas by Merck doesn't set off some alarms.. then .. just wow. Wow. Over 50k "donated" to this crook by Merck.. and low-and-behold.. Perry sets up a huge profit making scheme for Merck.

Cheney, Haliburton, Black Water.. Bush and Oil.. The Federal Reserve... There is evil on both sides of the fence, Libtards and Republicrats.. They're both so corrupt and some of you just want to lay down and take it. So complacent already.. so compliant. So ready to get bent over you just want to hand over our firearms..

 

Perry and MercK?
Wow, another thing I agree with you on...

God-given right to bear arms? Sorry, can't follow you there.
Which God?
Jesus did not pull out his uzi on Mt. Sinai and mow down the jews....He was a pacifist (Even though the god of the old testement was clearly more violent and vengeful).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 23 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]395321[/snapback]</div>

Jeez, step away from the keyboard for a few minutes and Evan beats me to it. Probably more concise from him, anyway.

 

"God-Given" isn't meant to be literal. To me, the meaning is as if it were inherently wrong to take away someone means to defend themselves or provide for their family. To say that they aren't necessary in this day in age is so short sighted and ignorant.

Lets take a step back, shall we.

Beyond all the statstics (however false or acurate they may be)..
Beyond the "For the Children" mentality..
Beyond what a bunch of gun-grabbers "think is right"..
Beyond partisanism, leftist or righties..

Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, and it was made very, very clear as to what the 2nd Amendment was put in there for, via dozens of other articles and documents. They wrote it in there for a reason, a reason in which I have conveyed quite thoroughly through quotes and other documents.

I will fight to the death to preserve this fine country that our founding fathers created for us. I will let no gun-grabbing leftist, or corporate pandering rightie trample my rights or my country. I shall refuse to be left vunerable to the evil and tyranny that comes w/ absolute power and human greed.

Outside of any reasoning, argument, straw man, "feel good" mentality.. The only FACT that we have (statistics are bolonge), is what the 2nd Amendement was intended for. There is absolutely no room for interpretation, due to the Federal papers. It was made very clear why this was written into the Constitution..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 23 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]395314[/snapback]</div>

While I agree on the subject of government corruption but I don't see where firearms fit into that at all. So if Dick Cheney tries to sneak into your house in the middle of the night to steal you dvd player you can blast him, or if the Kool-Aid man breaks through your wall you can protect yourself? I understand about giving up a "right" but maybe you should focus your energy on more important issues like the weaving of corporations as persons into the Bill of Rights. That hs a much bigger impact in the grand scheme of things.

 

Gun control means using BOTH hands



and if "you're scared" to have a gun in your home because they wind up getting turned on yourself/family more often than not... Go take a couple of training courses. oh and going shooting every once in while doesn't hurt, plus you can meet more people and learn more than you expect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(parrot_lady @ Feb 23 2007, 05:13 PM) [snapback]395452[/snapback]</div>

I love you. :blink:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 23 2007, 04:55 PM) [snapback]395443[/snapback]</div>

What do you suggest doing? Voting? That is working out really well isn't it.. that whole voting thing. No paper trails.. no "evidence". It doesn't matter how many votes are for what, what matters is who is counting the votes.

News flash - Your votes don't mean squat. What is going to be your last line of defense when how corrupt this whole shebang has gotten is brought to the public eye? UN sanctions? Negotiations? You're going to need to use that 2nd Amendment.. for the very damn reason it was written in!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 23 2007, 02:27 PM) [snapback]395482[/snapback]</div>

You're preaching to the choir.

I posted this before. PC link to a Thomas Linzey talk.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the possibleoutcomes should our nation have to endure a catestrophic crash due to environmental issues or a collapse of goverment (due to rampant capitalism or the fall of the U.S. dollar) and the general anarchy that could ensue. People look at me equally nuts when I say that it is always a good idea to have a secure area of your home and stock it with plenty of water and long lasting food supplies and something to protect yourself with. But to run around like a crazed gun nut wearing the badges of warfare and domination does nothing to help your case. Just makes you look like the typical cop who was an football player who wasn't good enough to make it in college or the ex-military man with a propensity for violence. Maybe you could word your arguement a bit better to try to speak in terms your opponents understand better. Use examples like the oil embargo of the 70's and how food and resources were scarce and if the scarcity proved much longer there may have been large scale looting and the average family could be endangered. Or use an earthquake scenario in San Fransisco where the collapse of transport lines would endanger citizens to resource scarcity and looting. In short, paint a picture they can understand and relate to. Or just tell everyone to watch Mad Max then watch An Inconvenient Truth and Dimming the Sun. They'll put two and two together themselves then. LOL

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 23 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]395524[/snapback]</div>

I really liked your post, minus the typical cop part. <_< But I know what you mean.. there are a few bad apples.

I bet we agree on alot of things..

You see, when someone claims that they want to turn me into a criminal for having firearms, whether it be a semiautomatic handgun, or a semiautomatic assault rifle - in my own home, then I feel they are attempting to infringe on my rights as an American. Now realize, I don't think everyone should be allowed to own these. Only after a very thorough background check, etc.. the way it is setup now is fine. Background checks, criminal history, etc.. If you want a fully automatic rifle it almost isn't even worth the trouble you've got to go through. Even once granted the license, the rules are crazy .. ie. you've gotta keep it in a locked safe, unloaded.. etc

For whatever reason, whether it be for the range or for hunting (overkill, I know)..

When we've got people like Obama, Hillary, Rudy.. saying they're against gun ownership, well - it sounds almost like they're afraid of us.

 

I believe we were a "kinder, gentler nation" when the right to carry concealed weapons was not infringed. If one doesn't know the target is defenseless is one going to attack?

After Goetz shot 3 muggers on the NY subway (maiming 1) reports of muggings fell. Why? Muggers didn't want to take a chance that the victim is armed. Coincidentally, the only one that didn't continue his life of crime was the one maimed.

Unarmed militia are deployed along our southern border. Mother told me that CNN reported that a well armed group of illegal aliens crossed the border and the Guardsmen ran for their lives. The USA is being invaded every day. What are the illegals importing? I'm sure they are leaving their AK47's and RPG's in Mexico.

For those of us who live elsewhere, I'm sure if we lived in a border town we'd want semiautomatic weapons to defend our property and families and a government that would support us. Unfortunately the government is more interested in protecting the rights of foreigners to enter the country illegally with whatever they can carry.

I am exercising my right to not own a firearm and I keep my Type II phaser on stun. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]394611[/snapback]</div>

CITIES WHERE STUN GUNS ARE RESTRICTED:

ANNAPOLIS, MD
BALTIMORE, MD
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD
CHICAGO, IL
DENSION / CRAWFORD COUNTY, IA (*According to Sheriff Tom Hogan*)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PHILADELPHIA


Taser's are a whole different ball of wax, and are more tightly controlled for instance while California does allow stun guns they do not allow Tasers.

If you live in one of those progressive states all that leaves you is the g'nads! Most guys in a fight can go quite awhile after a blow to the g'nads. It just pisses them off. I actually ran 40+ yards after a crushing blow to the g'nads. After being tackled just short of the goal line which was another shock to the ol' g'nads my coach picked me up from the fetal position on the ground bounced me a couple time, BTW still in the fetal position, and admonished me not to hold my g'nads in front of a hometown crowd. Then he sent me back into the game, g'nads and all.

Well that's enough for tonight, G'nads you all.

Wildkow

p.s. All of those states is considered a liberal/demoncratic state, not very progressive eh?

p.p.s. I like that word I think I will say it again, G'nads.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb 23 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]395524[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmmmm, maybe I just read this wrong but could you please re-word your disdain for the men and women who protect your physical well being, freedoms and rights, not to mention the ones that entertain you on Sundays, so as not to look like a total _______ . . . well you probably already know or the readers can come up with their own fill in the blank word.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 23 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]395691[/snapback]</div>

Sorry. I've grown up around law enforcement, my mother works in the county superior court and I nearly became a Sacramento Police Officer, my roomate is CHP and my best friend is almost finished with POST for Roseville PD. I even hold a Certificate for Wildlife Law Enforcement. I know how a lot of those guys think and unfortunately there are quite a few I hold in distain. As for football... I do not like sports and I never watch the games on sunday. I don't care if they are out on the streets "protecting my physical being", if a F' up gets a badge he is still a F' up IMO.

No offense to the good officers out there. Really, I've just been around too many bigheaded, egotistical, violence prone cops (not to be confused with the ones who work the hard districts which makes for a rough job).

desynch, thank you for the reply. I do agree with your last post. What I like about these little debates, is that if you debate long enough you are likely to find common ground or understandings. Enjoy your weekend.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 23 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]395482[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I have a wonderful bf who still doesn't understand -but respects and apperciates- my car choice. I tell you what though, if it wasn't for me driving that, it'd cost him 3x more everytime we drived out to his mom's house.

 

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

 

Where did livelychick go? Starts the thread can't defend it, changes the subject to squid and then doesn't answer the post I put up about the fact that well over 100 million Americans can't own her perferred choice of self defense weapons and I would say that 33%+ could not in any way defend themselves without them. Sounds alot like another demoncrat I know from my state Diane Feinstein, she packs a .38 cal revolver and is escorted by armed security and all the while is trying to outlaw all guns. I guess I'd run and hide after making such a badly thoughtout statement also. BTW I'm not counting all the cities that outlaw the ownership of a Taser on their own.

California 36,457,549
Hawaii 1,285,498
Illinois 12,831,970
Mass 6,437,193
Michigan 10,095,643
New Jersey 8,724,560
New York 19,306,183
Wisconsin 5,556,506
========================
100,695,102 [attachmentid=6700]

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 23 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]395358[/snapback]</div>

What if our elected officials decided to use the process instilled by our founding fathers to offer a constitutional amendment that removes or further clarifies the 2nd amendment? Will you take up arms against the government? The constitution is not a static document, it was intended by our founding fathers that it would change as time progressed.