American Gun Control

Originally posted by para

The Colt AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, and it costs upwards of $3000 USD for an rDIAS to make it so. Besides, it was stolen to perpetrate a crime which means that the person who was using it had no intent of following the law. What if the gun was banned in Canada? There might have been a 30-06 bolt-action on the shelf to steal instead, and the woman might be dead today. Or maybe he would have just stabbed her with a kitchen knife.

Honestly, I feel bad for the woman, but you are blaming the gun and not the person behind it. An assualt rifle does not just hop into someone's hands and make them start killing people, you have to have that intent to begin with. He could have used a pencil to kill her if he wanted to bad enough. The problem is not the guns, it is the people who are sick enough to use guns for killing the innocent. We should focus more on getting them help than taking away anything that they might use as a weapon.

I'm not saying that. The woman wasn't the target, that's the thing. The criminals just opened up on the deli, and she took a bullet. All I'm saying is that assault rifles have no place in the hands of the citizenry. ANd I've never heard of a drive-by with a bolt action. I'm not saying take away anything that could be used as a weapon, I'm saying take away milspec weaponry. just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean you're going to start seeding your lawn with toepoppers, is it? So why would you need an AR for home defence or sport shooting? There is such a thing as overkill.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx


I'm not saying that. The woman wasn't the target, that's the thing. The criminals just opened up on the deli, and she took a bullet. All I'm saying is that assault rifles have no place in the hands of the citizenry. ANd I've never heard of a drive-by with a bolt action. I'm not saying take away anything that could be used as a weapon, I'm saying take away milspec weaponry. just because you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean you're going to start seeding your lawn with toepoppers, is it? So why would you need an AR for home defence or sport shooting? There is such a thing as overkill.

DE

A AR-15 is not a military spec weapon. The military uses the M-16 and M-4 those are military spec weapons and are tightly controled.

The AR-15 and all versions of it are very popular for target shooting. It is the rifle designed for civilian use and should not be confused with the M-16 or M-4.

[edit on 13-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Let's see. AR= short form of assault rifle. That is, of course, what the Colt AR-15 is. It maybe be popular, but that doesn't justify it in the hands of civilians. The AR-15 is basically a semi-auto version of the M-16, isn't it? So why would you need it to defend your home? Do you expect an assault from an unnamed South American country? I repect people's rights to bear arms. I can understand having a pistol or shotgun for self defence, and a shotgun or rifle for hunting or sport shooting. i have no objections to those. I do, however, have an objection to something that is milspec or nearly milspec. It is unneccesary, as pleasurable as it is, to own these sorts of firearms.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Let's see. AR= short form of assault rifle. That is, of course, what the Colt AR-15 is. It maybe be popular, but that doesn't justify it in the hands of civilians.

DE

AR= Assault rifle thats a good one, what anti-gun person told you that? AR stands for �ArmaLite� the company that created the AR-15.

The M in M-16 stands for Military though that is a military spec weapon not the AR-15. So you would be wrong to call a AR-15 a military spec weapon it is not.

www.armalite.com...

AR stands for Armalite, the company Eugene Stoner worked for when he came up with the original design. What does mil-spec have to do with whether the public should own one or not? I own a mil-spec K-Bar, what�s wrong with that? Just because the military uses something does not make it�s sole purpose to kill humans en mass.

I don�t see owning one as overkill at all. If you take away how it looks and focus on just functionality, it is no different from any other semi-automatic long gun out there. People assign a certain stigma to it because the military uses something very similar. Do you propose that we take away all semi-automatic weapons? What about the M-1? That is a �safe� looking gun, but it has much more stopping power than an AR and can shoot just as fast. What about handguns? Plenty of dive-bys have been done with those. If we take them all away because someone might commit a crime, only the criminals are left with weapons and we are left as an unarmed and coercible population that is unable to defend ourselves. I think that the presence or possibility of the presence of a weapon is very successful crime deterrent.

So where do you draw the line? No matter what you choose, someone will be unhappy with it. Personally, I think the more weapons we are �allowed� to have, the better off we will be. I see it as a lowest common denominator situation. It would be nice if we could all live in utopia, but as long as one person has a gun, he has the ability to forcefully to impose his will on those who don�t. You can�t always depend on the government/military/police/whoever to come to your rescue. If you don�t want to live in fear of those who have guns, then you need to own one yourself.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Let's see. AR= short form of assault rifle. That is, of course, what the Colt AR-15 is. It maybe be popular, but that doesn't justify it in the hands of civilians. The AR-15 is basically a semi-auto version of the M-16, isn't it? So why would you need it to defend your home? Do you expect an assault from an unnamed South American country? I repect people's rights to bear arms. I can understand having a pistol or shotgun for self defence, and a shotgun or rifle for hunting or sport shooting. i have no objections to those. I do, however, have an objection to something that is milspec or nearly milspec. It is unneccesary, as pleasurable as it is, to own these sorts of firearms.

DE

I find it VERY neccesary, and you know what - it's not up to the government or you to tell anyone what guns are unneccesary for private ownership. The fact is, we have the right to bear arms, it's the law.

Edit - I saw everyone caught your AR mistake. Just to let you know, by DEFINITION an assault rifle MUST be FULLY automatic. The semi ato versions of these rifles are not assault weapons of any kind.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by American Mad Man]

One thing. If I see a beer running around my house going for my gun will not help maybe a doctor would, but shooting a beer would only make a big mess, and seeing how I do all the cleaning around here there will be no shooting of the beer here!

I own firearms, a rifle and a pistol. I'm an okay shot, but guns don't even appeal to me. I have these weapons to protect myself from other people who also have these weapons. Just a grand power dance is all it is. I think that's disgraceful...

Just whatever happened to the sword? Why does the 2nd ammendment allow me to own, carry, and operate a high-powered rifle but not a broadswoard or an epee? Could someone explain the logic in this?

I Live in Great Britain, I have a Colt 1911 Commander, a SAKO Sniper Rifle, and a Semi Automatic Ruger Carbine Rifle in my house. Having guns in the house is no problem, I dont feel threatened, or nervous. I use them up at shooting ranges, and I find it quite fun. I dont see why anti-gun people are so threatened by them, If I got out a gun, Emptied it, took the magazine out, and locked the slide back. I bet you they would STILL say its dangerous, because they dont know ANYTHING about guns, I remember when we ordered a gun, it had no ammunition with it, or in it, and the people sent the gun back to the person who sent it because it was deemed "dangerous" whats it going to do? come alive and hit sombody with the butt? Get Real...

I Also like the way that anti gun people rarely know anything about guns, appart from 1 person out of about 1,000,000 people kills sombody once in a while using one.

Also on the point of guns being "man killers" Point one - The gun isnt the thing that does it, its just a tool, its the PERSON thats the man killer.
Point two - if your going to blame the gun, dont forget to blame; Knifes, Baseball Bats, Golf Clubs, Bricks, Wires, Fishing Line, Piano Strings, Rope, String, Lead Pipes, Cast Iron Pokers, Sticks, Hammers, Screw Drivers, Pens, Bows and Arrows... The list goes on my friends, dont leave any of those out!!

Originally posted by lacan
Just whatever happened to the sword? Why does the 2nd ammendment allow me to own, carry, and operate a high-powered rifle but not a broadswoard or an epee? Could someone explain the logic in this?

Does the law not allow for the ownership of these weapons. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. I have in the past gotten catalogues selling swords, sabers, and knives of all sorts. In most states these weapons cannot be carried concealed which in many cases is impossible.

Did I miss something?


[edit on 04/9/14 by GradyPhilpott]

I am just posintg a thought.

We have people who defend the right to an abortion, which is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Try to limit that right, wow, you have a fight on your hands.

We have people who want to limit the right to bear arms, which is specific.

I believe Jefferson made note that the people need to be armed in case the government turned tyrannical. Not to mention defense.

And, as the abortion rights people would argue, once you limit firearms in any way, you start to slide down the slippery slope toward loosing that right.

Thanks,
Just ranting a little,
The Spider

Originally posted by ilovehaters
I am in the military... assault weapons can be used for things besides "assault". i went deer hunting with a " assault" weapon!!! it was a ar-15 with inteligent scope and it was pre ban so it was fully automatic however it had a selectable swith.... you all need to figure out a better way to keep guns out of criminals hands then to just take them away from everyone

You had me, up until you mentioned that an AR-15 had a Select Fire Switch. Even if you have a pre-ban AR, with the addition of a select fire switch it becomes an M-16/AR-16. And it comes under the 1968 law. Hope you either do your homework better or, in case you still have this weapon and do not have the correct paperwork, a good lawyer.

Oh, by the way, hitting any game with full auto does not leave a whole lot of animal to eat.

30 year Vet. just in case you doubt me.

I have known those who will not eat meat because it is cruel to do so and support abortion.

I have known those who oppose animal research because it is cruel and support abortion.

I have known those who oppose physical discipline for children because it is cruel and support abortion.

I have known those who oppose the death penalty because it is cruel and support abortion.

I have known those who oppose war because it is cruel and who support abortion.

I have known those who oppose the Second Amendment because it promotes violence and support abortion.

How can the left oppose these issues and support the killing of the most innocent among us.


[edit on 04/9/14 by GradyPhilpott]

I have known those who will use Christ to justify wars, genocide, and the bombing of abortion clinics. Perhaps the 'right' should judge themselves before they preach to others.

Originally posted by lacan

Just whatever happened to the sword? Why does the 2nd ammendment allow me to own, carry, and operate a high-powered rifle but not a broadswoard or an epee? Could someone explain the logic in this?

I have NO clue what you're talkign about. I'm in canada, and I have a very nice sword and several knives. The sword is a Hanwei Tiger, very nice. Razor sharp, too. And yet, it's perfectly fien for me to operate it up here.

DE

I used to think gun control was the right way to go in this country. But then I thought about the reason our forefathers decided we needed the right to bare arms:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), from the Declaration of Independence

If this right ever needs to be invoked it would be necessary for the public to have access to military style weapons as the govt. controlls the military and would use it to try to maintain power. What would happen if a govt. was installed in this great country that lied to the public, passed laws allowing it to remove our civil rights, and was capable of tampering with the election process? Without the publics' right to bare arms how would this govt. ever be held accountable and removed from power?

I am little lost on the sword bit as well. I know a few people who own and operate swords, and I believe that they are doing so legally.

[edit on 9/14/04 by para]

Originally posted by lacan
I have known those who will use Christ to justify wars, genocide, and the bombing of abortion clinics.

In the history of Christianity many of these things have occurred, although there is no justification to be found in the principles of Christianity for these acts.

I don't see a connection with those who are too squeamish or idealistic to justify any death except of the not yet born.

Does the one justify the one justify the other?

By what rationale do you support the summary disposal of the unfortuante by-products of sexual activity?

I Belive you need a licence to own/operate a sword. Replicas are fine though, no licence required for them.

Anyway back on topic, I think that guns should be legal, and available to those who want one. Those who dont like them, dont have them! Dont spoil it for the rest of us!!!

"If you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws."
This phrase meaning, if you outlaw guns, the people who want them have no problem getting them illegally, and probally will to avoid the troubles of a licence, certificate and time waiting.. I mean, why do that when you can buy one off a street corner in 10 minutes..

EDIT : Typo's

[edit on 14-9-2004 by The_Squid]

Originally posted by lacan
I have known those who will use Christ to justify wars, genocide, and the bombing of abortion clinics. Perhaps the 'right' should judge themselves before they preach to others.

When was the last time a right-wing American commited genocide? Does the fact that I am a Republican who happens to believe in Christ make me more likley to bomb an abortion clinic than a Democrat? Christ providied no justification for these things, and the people who commited them could just as easily done so in the name of Mohhamed or Ra the Sun God.

Originally posted by mrdependable
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), from the Declaration of Independence

If this right ever needs to be invoked it would be necessary for the public to have access to military style weapons as the govt. controlls the military and would use it to try to maintain power. What would happen if a govt. was installed in this great country that lied to the public, passed laws allowing it to remove our civil rights, and was capable of tampering with the election process? Without the publics' right to bare arms how would this govt. ever be held accountable and removed from power?

I agree, just because we have been on easy street (relativley) for the past hundred years or so does not mean that it can continue indefinatley. Civilizations rise and fall, and there is no telling when or how that may happen to us. There may come a day when these weapons become a necessity, and I would much rather be prepared for that and never have it happen in my lifetime than be caught unprepared.