Your gun rights were never under threat

In regards to assault weapons - similar laws apply to knives and blades.
I cannot walk around with a sword because its lethality is extreme
in contrast to a swiss army knife. VERY little effort or skill can produce
much carnage Same goes for an AK, one can piss out 30 bullets, goes beyond the notion of defense.

My city PRE AWB used to have tens of drive bys a weekend ala A to the mother $#@$@ K.

Not anymore, to exotic and expensive for the average gangbanger to afford now.

Anyhow this whole battle is semantics, yes some guns have been targeted, no you still
can buy your firearms, use them, collect them, sleep with them.

ITs alive and well

I would like a gas range stove that utilizes fifteen foot flames to cook my steak, I know how you feel

reply to post by Janky Red

I would like a gas range stove that utilizes fifteen foot flames to cook my steak, I know how you feel

Why shouldn't you have a right to a gas range stove with fifteen foot flames? If you are willing to take that risk and assume resonsibility for your actions then I say you should have every right.

Why should the government have any right to tell you whether you can buy a pistol or an AK-47 or a tiny little Weber charcoal grill or a giant flame thrower.

See the thing that some people miss are there are already laws in place for if you misuse your gun or your flame blasting grill. If you kill yourself, well that is natural consequences. If you kill someone else, then you get charged with murder or manslaughter charges.

Grills don't kill people. People kill people. Sad, but true.

What really bothers me is that people like you and the OP have been so brainwashed by growing up in this socialist state we call the USA to the point that it doesn't bother you that they take away your freedom to buy whatever you want. You just say I would like that grill but my mommy government won't let me buy it or build it without punishing me.

Is that ok to you to have your choices stripped from you, just because some subset of idiots burnt their face off. The average human being with an ounce of common sense doesn't need the government up their ass everytime they want to do something. They are smart enough to choose what is right for them, but the government takes that right under the guise of protecting the handful of idiots who unclog their lawnmower while the engine is still running. It is good for idiots to get hurt. They either learn from it or die. Hence, they get a little less stupid or they aren't here to harm themselves or others with their inbred stupidity.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

reply to post by Mr Sunchine



Well we can't buy whatever we want, I assume it is because we place an arbitrary boundary on behavior due to a threshold of danger.

I cannot go buy 50 gallons of liquid mercury based upon the fact that the substance is dangerous based upon the POTENTIAL of the substance. Sure I might just want the freedom to posses such, but the fact remains it is the potential damage regardless
of my intent that is being restricted. What bugs me is that many of you do not care to
make any distinction between a .22 and an M60. No matter how hard I try I cannot slaughter 30 unrestrained people with a .22... This is my point, our discussion is pointless if you cannot concede that distinction IS the AWB's basis. This is your choice
of course, but this has been the hang in the argument for some time. Point is I could
slaughter 30 unrestrained people with an M60, however if I cannot obtain one, via black market price or being unable to find one I will have to resort to a less lethal alternative.

I cannot ride my bicycle on the freeway, but if I used your approach I could advocate for the idea. It has wheels, it rolls, I control it, my choice, freedom, survival of the brightest etc...


In both both cases disregarding potential harm to others is not being addressed, in fact some of you disregard that and the fact that there are countless laws restricting ownership of things due to placing arbitrary thresholds for Potentiality. Common law
allows to such distinctions...

Fact is here, the AWB seems to have had a dramatic effect in halting drivebys,
I understand folks who do not live in places where such a thing is an actual concern,
but then again America is not just a small town on the road to nowhere... Firing an AK
from a moving vehicle is not the same as a shoty or a .45 for that matter.

If you CAN concede that all guns are not equal in efficiency, lethality and general purpose (of the firearm) then I will be glad to debate further. If not, debate is pointless






[edit on 6-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Janky Red
In both both cases disregarding potential harm to others is not being addressed, in fact some of you disregard that and the fact that there are countless laws restricting ownership of things due to placing arbitrary thresholds for Potentiality. Common law
allows to such distinctions...

On the other hand, the statistics bear out that handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice in violent crime. Rifles of all types typically account for only about 3-4% of homicides in the United States every year, and that category includes everything from 'assault rifles' to bolt action, lever, and single shot rifles. In fact, twice as many people die yearly from being punched or kicked than from a rifle shot. Those stats are readily available from the FBI's website

I'd argue that the most potentially dangerous firearm that is still unrestricted is the plain old shotgun. Whereas an assault rifle is semi-automatic and can send only one projectile downrange with each trigger pull, a shotgun loaded with buckshot can send a dozen or more downrange with each pull of the trigger.

Nah, the assault weapons stuff is bogus media hype and fear mongering. Perhaps in some isolated locations they've been the weapon of choice for criminals, but by and large, handguns are the thug's weapon of choice and it makes sense given that they're usually cheaper and easier to conceal.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by Janky Red
In both both cases disregarding potential harm to others is not being addressed, in fact some of you disregard that and the fact that there are countless laws restricting ownership of things due to placing arbitrary thresholds for Potentiality. Common law
allows to such distinctions...

On the other hand, the statistics bear out that handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice in violent crime. Rifles of all types typically account for only about 3-4% of homicides in the United States every year, and that category includes everything from 'assault rifles' to bolt action, lever, and single shot rifles. In fact, twice as many people die yearly from being punched or kicked than from a rifle shot. Those stats are readily available from the FBI's website

I'd argue that the most potentially dangerous firearm that is still unrestricted is the plain old shotgun. Whereas an assault rifle is semi-automatic and can send only one projectile downrange with each trigger pull, a shotgun loaded with buckshot can send a dozen or more downrange with each pull of the trigger.

Nah, the assault weapons stuff is bogus media hype and fear mongering. Perhaps in some isolated locations they've been the weapon of choice for criminals, but by and large, handguns are the thug's weapon of choice and it makes sense given that they're usually cheaper and easier to conceal.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

Well with all due respect I don't think it is all hype, I used to live in an area with drivebys and it was usually the modified assault riffles that would get the sucker and the people in the house beyond him... I am just saying I have seen a correlation in a dramatic drop in the drivebys, deaths cause by them and the subsequent retaliation
caused by successful hits. In fact the entire cycle slowed down dramatically in the same time period, I assume because it was not so easy to roll into a rival neighborhood with such a force multiplier and get away completely unchallenged.

To add to this, they neighborhoods that once were silent by dusk are now much more alive and vibrant, the local economies have gotten better HERE, home prices and new business. Of course this is here, might not mean anything if you have never lived here or known innocent neighbors hit, killed and paralyzed...

BTW I slept in the tub more than once growing up and was shot at more than once
on the streets of a major US city, you guys can't blame me for seeing it different.

reply to post by Janky Red


I don't doubt that it happened. You may well have been in an area where those types of weapons were used much more often than the national statistics indicate. On the whole, I do think the media has hyped it more than it deserves, but I do not doubt at all that it could be a major problem at your particular local level.

Honestly, I don't have a problem if Baltimore, Chicago, etc want to pass a few gun laws because they think it'll help solve their problems. I disagree with them, but I don't live there. They can do whatever they want.

My problem is with the national level bans. Its just not an issue out here in Middle-of-Nowhere USA and I don't see why my rights as a law abiding citizen and those of my neighbors should be infringed upon because of what happens on the streets 1,000 miles away.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Janky Red

 

My problem is with the national level bans. Its just not an issue out here in Middle-of-Nowhere USA and I don't see why my rights as a law abiding citizen and those of my neighbors should be infringed upon because of what happens on the streets 1,000 miles away.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by vor78]

Well there is the whole problem there -

City folks think, I don't want my life to held hostage to extreme violence so that country folks can posses a more efficient weapon weapon design for all out war.

I am just saying this is the perception, right or wrong, anyhow I know good and well that folks skirt the laws, criminals and responsible gun owners; in regards to purchasing
and modifying these things. So maybe it does not matter, maybe the thugs of today are not like the thugs of the 80's and early 90's and it has nothing to do with the AWB.
I am only stating that I have witnessed a change...

Originally posted by Janky Red
City folks think, I don't want my life to held hostage to extreme violence so that country folks can posses a more efficient weapon weapon design for all out war.

I may not agree with that position, but I definitely understand it. In any event, I'm not sure that there is a solution that is fully equitable to both sides. The closest thing I can think of is to allow the states to make their own laws on such matters, but even that solution isn't perfect. Whatever the case may be, with the differences in cultures being what they are in this country these days, I can't see this particular issue being reconciled any time soon.

The problem here is the pro gun control morons want to impose their will on others, while gun owners just want to be left alone.

Weak minded sheep who think banning guns will solve the problem refuse to accept the fact that if a criminal wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, or use some other method to wreak havoc.

Bottom line is if people dont want to own a gun, fine dont. Just dont make it impossible for others to do so. Mind your own freaking business and go on with your life.

Reply to post by Janky Red

I can't find it with this mobile thing but there is some video of a press conference a few years ago where a member of the national police chief association was asked about the "modified" semi autos alleged to be on the street. His answer was that, at the time of the interview, no semi coverted to full had ever been confiscated or found. Meaning, if there was full auto fire in a crime it was from a machinegun. Already heavilly restricted and having nothing at all to do with the AWB.

I can't imagine that what you experienced in a drop in drive bys had much to do with the AWB. Considering these gang members are squiring massive amounts of coc aine I find it hard to believe the legal status of a thing would prove a viable barrier to it's aquisition.

Some studies I have read over the years have attributed the reduction of tactics such as drive bys to their tendency to bring attention to and be the back-breaking straw that gets the Feds coming in with their RICO investigations. More than anything gang activity, especially drug related, is about money. It's hard to make mo ey when you're under constant fire from the Feds and even the local population. Plenty of gangs have been broken up because of a stray bullet hitting a little girl. I've participated in the break up of a group over just that. We couldn't get anywhere because the locals were either afraid of them or supporting them. Until a drive by took out an 8 year old girl. Then we got all the cooperation we needed.

The overt and spectacle level gang activity is largely a thing of the past. More and more such symbols as tattoos and colors are going under the plain white t-shirt and violence which can result in the harm of the unaffiliated is constantly reducing.

I'm skeptical the AWB, which the expiration of has not resulted in an increase in drive bys, had much to do with anything.

I'm not saying the drop you've witnessed isn't happening. I'm saying it's happening all over and for many different reasons.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Janky Red


The gang bangers will always have access to full auto weapons, they don't follow the law. As I stated in my previous post, ANY law in regards to gun control of ANY sort ONLY affects responsible people. You are ignorant in your statement about not being about to pick off 30 people with a 22 caliber or a handgun, if I were you I wouldn't wager any money on that cause I guarantee anyone that has sufficient training could do that with a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Most full auto weapons are not near as accurate as semi-auto guns, however the point is... a gun is a gun, doesn't matter how you try to twist it.

If the military are able to have full auto M-16's and gatling guns, citizens should be able to purchase them as well.

reply to post by Janky Red

I cannot ride my bicycle on the freeway, but if I used your approach I could advocate for the idea. It has wheels, it rolls, I control it, my choice, freedom, survival of the brightest etc...

Exactly and why shouldnt you be allowed to ride a bike on the freeway. If you are that stupid or that suicidal it is your own problem. We shouldn't even need a law for that as natural consequences would soon sort the issue out on its own.

Why does the government feel a need to protect people from being stupid. I mean if you are so damn dumb that you don't realise you are going to cut your hand off if you stick it in a runniing lawn mower then are you really smart enough to read the sign?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

I propose a law that prevents you from using certain words, espeically words that disagree with me, that assault my intelligence.

You are now illegal. You are a thought-felon and will be shot then tried, then executed for violating the Assault Words Ban.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You should wait u til everyone who lived under Clintons AWB dies off,

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent you from owning arms. It barred certain types of weapons but it did not stop you from owning guns. It also didnt change our crime problem significantly. Where I lived crime actually gradually got worse into the 2000's.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Man, you are a pathetic excuse for an American.

People in my family have killed and died and bled for the right to be Free - to bend the knee to no man.

But you would -- willingly! -- return to servitude and serfdom.

Get out of my America. You are polluting my air, my land and my heritage.

Originally posted by iMacFanatic
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

None of those take away your second amendment rights. They impose restrictions for sure but honestly who needs an assault rifle or needs to buy 20 guns at a time or can't wait to buy a gun? Also no city or state can take away an amendment right.

Who needs to take a gun into church or to a political rally?

The gun kooks have no sense of propriety. They think that they should be allowed to take them everywhere and that is not what the second amendment says.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Sorry, we seem to have touched on the truth of the matter here Mr Red.

In my sleeply little white-bread towns, plain, dull, boring without a hint of "vibrancy" (a bizarre euphemism if ever there was...) no one I know ever died of violence. Or drug overdose. No one slept in the tub unless, maybe, he was really, really, drunken.

What you are telling me is that CERTAIN PEOPLE, in CERTAIN CITIES, are incapable of restraining themselves. That they are naturally murderous and violent and kill the innocent and guilty alike.

Well sir, that would be your problem, not mine. In fact, one of the main reasons I own and am skilled in firearms is to make damned certain none of THOSE PEOPLE come any where near MY PEOPLE.

If they do, I guarantee it will be the last thing they do.

So know you know the truth: Gun control is really to control those that cannot control themselves and we all know who they are.

And it's not me or mine.

Were I you, I'd be more intertest in controlling your own people more, and firearms less.

Just sayin. But then I'm just a white boy whose ancestors invented freedom as we still know it today - even as it is taken from us one excuse at a time.

Originally posted by Janky Red

To add to this, they neighborhoods that once were silent by dusk are now much more alive and vibrant, the local economies have gotten better HERE, home prices and new business. Of course this is here, might not mean anything if you have never lived here or known innocent neighbors hit, killed and paralyzed...

BTW I slept in the tub more than once growing up

and was shot at more than once
on the streets of a major US city, you guys can't blame me for seeing it different.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You should wait u til everyone who lived under Clintons AWB dies off,

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent you from owning arms. It barred certain types of weapons but it did not stop you from owning guns. It also didnt change our crime problem significantly. Where I lived crime actually gradually got worse into the 2000's.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

The AWB did absolutely nothing to lower crime and the same jack asses that proclaimed it to be so good acomplished nothing...

crime did not drop...because little to no assault weapons were being used then or even before....

Then the same idiots that screamed and messed themselves when it was going to expire.... said there will be blood in the streets, what are we gonna do.... well guess what there was no blood...

now if you think that the anti gun clowns are going to back off... you really need to look up some very famous quotes from some of the hard leaners to the lefdt regarding our gun rights...

Then after you do that... start thinking.

because the gun control freaks are out there and trying everything they can up to and including lies and distortions about people that own guns...and it is the left and the liberal (progressives) that keep demonizing gun owners...

so get educated on gun rights before you spout off... because you have no clue.

Originally posted by brainwrek
The problem here is the pro gun control morons want to impose their will on others, while gun owners just want to be left alone.

They cant understand us and never will. They see all gun owners even criminals as being a whole. They cant do the math on the numbers. They dont understand the 2nd and dont care to.

And they talk down thinking we need to be informed. I mean the really think we need to be informed. They dont even see that they talk down to us like using the N word with the slop they throw around.

Originally posted by joeofthemountain
Sorry, we seem to have touched on the truth of the matter here Mr Red.

In my sleeply little white-bread towns, plain, dull, boring without a hint of "vibrancy" (a bizarre euphemism if ever there was...) no one I know ever died of violence. Or drug overdose. No one slept in the tub unless, maybe, he was really, really, drunken.

What you are telling me is that CERTAIN PEOPLE, in CERTAIN CITIES, are incapable of restraining themselves. That they are naturally murderous and violent and kill the innocent and guilty alike.

Well sir, that would be your problem, not mine. In fact, one of the main reasons I own and am skilled in firearms is to make damned certain none of THOSE PEOPLE come any where near MY PEOPLE.

If they do, I guarantee it will be the last thing they do.

So know you know the truth: Gun control is really to control those that cannot control themselves and we all know who they are.

And it's not me or mine.

Were I you, I'd be more intertest in controlling your own people more, and firearms less.

Just sayin. But then I'm just a white boy whose ancestors invented freedom as we still know it today - even as it is taken from us one excuse at a time.

Originally posted by Janky Red

To add to this, they neighborhoods that once were silent by dusk are now much more alive and vibrant, the local economies have gotten better HERE, home prices and new business. Of course this is here, might not mean anything if you have never lived here or known innocent neighbors hit, killed and paralyzed...

BTW I slept in the tub more than once growing up

and was shot at more than once
on the streets of a major US city, you guys can't blame me for seeing it different.

We know not your problem, what a surprise, frankly my stance is not your problem, I don't care if
people want to own as many guns as they want, whatever kind, I say fine with me.
However I do not see any need for a military grade weapon, NONE, however those two concepts are NOT the same.

I did see and experience a problem (not in many years) and I do not have or advocate a specific solution. I did also see a correlation and the AWB which many members have offered explanations for...

If by certain people you mean ethnic folks sure, however I was shot at by a white feller
who met an early end, the gang mentality is "MY PEOPLE mentality" which is as ironic as my euphemism is bizarre. Vibrant would mean people GO OUTSIDE and interact
with others...

Anyhow folks, I am not sure if you are pinning for and AK or whatever, sorry bout that,
I am sure if you want one you can find one.

Just a funny question for all, have you or anyone else you know ever been harmed because they did NOT POSSES an Assault riffle, being under equipped with a firearm that is "legal" and less potent?





[edit on 6-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Janky Red

 

The gang bangers will always have access to full auto weapons, they don't follow the law. As I stated in my previous post, ANY law in regards to gun control of ANY sort ONLY affects responsible people. You are ignorant in your statement about not being about to pick off 30 people with a 22 caliber or a handgun, if I were you I wouldn't wager any money on that cause I guarantee anyone that has sufficient training could do that with a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. Most full auto weapons are not near as accurate as semi-auto guns, however the point is... a gun is a gun, doesn't matter how you try to twist it.

If the military are able to have full auto M-16's and gatling guns, citizens should be able to purchase them as well.

All good, but I call total BS on the .22 and a gun is a gun, BS.

A man with a .22 cannot physically load, track and acquire 30 people who are free to run less a locked room or an open field, BS.

and all guns are created equal, BS again, other wise they would just mount a six shooter on a HUMVEE.

I do agree on the last line... Your life and fun, go for it

Just a funny question for all, have you or anyone else you know ever been harmed because they did NOT POSSES an Assault riffle, being under equipped with a firearm that is "legal" and less potent?


nope because crimes are not committed with them in spite of what the anti gun crowd says.... so few in fact it is not even reported...

so what was the purpose of banning them??? Nothing but to see what they could get as a starting point for the next round...