Banning assault weapons again.

If there were no guns there would be no gun crime, just like if there were no knives no one would get stabbed. Not trying to single anyone out, it's just my humble opinion.

I havnt said get rid of guns all together. What we have been debating all a long is the role of guns the main point being weather or not guns prevent crime.










[edit on 7-2-2005 by Ruins]

in every state that has adopted conceiled weapons as legal the crime rate has declined. its a lot harder to shoot someone especially if youre the one being shot at

its kinda like if a bully takes your lunch every day and you do nothing ,whats going to stop him?
now if you fight back and make it real difficult for him hes gonna really think twice about going after your lunch money instead most likely hes going to go after someone who's not going to fifgt him. its human nature

its kinda like if a bully takes your lunch every day and you do nothing ,whats going to stop him?
now if you fight back and make it real difficult for him hes gonna really think twice about going after your lunch money instead most likely hes going to go after someone who's not going to fifgt him. its human nature

Instead of arming the population you are better off looking at why crime happens and solving the problem that way.

Has crime gone down as a whole or just one particular crime?

oh please you friggin libby,DONT CHANGE WHAT YOU JUST WANTED TO KNOW... in theory thats just fine we could sit here all eternally and never find that answer. Answer me this why are just some humans bad apples from the start of their life? why because there just is. deal with it i have in fact its questions like you pose that i think the iq level has gone down in the world.

Check this out the article isnt new but it supports my case.

info


Community policing dosnt require a gun.
Info

Community policing might not be perfect but it proves people prevent crime not guns.

Amuk

Im a New Zealander, own firearms and yes we have a right to bear them, although we run into the usual govt gargabe that denys this. And people like Xpert11...yeah well you've have seen his arguement.

Dont worry xpert, Adolf Hitler liked gun control too.

Dont worry xpert, Adolf Hitler liked gun control too.

Well I am getting a good laugh you see hollywood dosnt teach people history layoff the popcorn and pick up a book.
Now guns solve econmic woes this thread gets better and better whats next guns cure cancer?
Like I already said if a dictatorship takes over they will take your guns off you.

Personality and power, although powerful tools, were not the only reasons the Germanic people followed Hitler. The German people were desperate for relief of the Depression, and Hitler provided the answer that spelled ‘relief’-- economic relief. The German people, bitter over the WWI reparations and responsibility of the ‘guilt clause’ (Chambers 896) were economically empowered by Hitler’s claim that Germany was no longer bound by the Versailles Treaty. Unemployment, which had risen to nearly 6 million people (The History Place:The Rise of Hitler) was effectively resolved by the institution of Hitler’s Public Works program. Millions of Germans found employment in constructing highway systems (the Autobahnen), government offices and public housing, as well as in the rearmament factories and military service (Chambers 940).
Link

What cracks me up about America and guns is this:

For a culture too uptight for naked bodies or the occasional four letter word to be on tv without a national meltdown, killing each other with guns by the thousands every year is no big deal.

It is evidence of a culture run on fear, not oil.

para, this is just at the City level right now but bad laws tend to spread like cancer. I had not heard of any States proposing similar laws before now. All I can say is to write your Represenatives and voice your opinion and support the NRA. Vote out any of your reps that are for anti-gun legislature. Polititians fear losing their jobs more than enything else.

During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times.

Here is a quote that shows my greatest fear concerning this subject.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic--purely symbolic--move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer
"Disarm the Citizenry,"
Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

Our Government is able to Govern because we the people give it consent to do so and that will stay that way as long as we remain an armed populace. If we were to lose that right then we would lose the ability to protect all of our other rights. Owning firearms is our liberty teeth so to say.

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom".FA Heyek

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

So I assume that all the gun fans are part of a well regulated militia, right?

BlackFlag, I will repost this for you tolook at.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While reading article 2 you will notice that the use of commas separates independent clauses. The comma after the word State makes the clause the right of the people to keep and bear arms separate from the clause talking about the State. So you have the National Guard and the right of citizens to keep arms. They were talking about different entities (State, citizens aka people) that have the same right, the right to bear arms.

Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) to connect two independent clauses, as in "He hit the ball well, but he ran toward third base."

A clause is a group of related words containing a subject and a verb A clause can be usefully distinguished from a phrase, which is a group of related words that does not contain a subject-verb relationship, such as "in the morning" or "running down the street" or "having grown used to this harassment."

Originally posted by xpert11

Well I am getting a good laugh you see hollywood dosnt teach people history layoff the popcorn and pick up a book.
Now guns solve econmic woes this thread gets better and better whats next guns cure cancer?

Guns don't solve economic problems, they are an answer to crime. By equipping people so they are able to resist crime, crime is reduced-- in the short term by reducing the success probability of crimes, and in the long term by reducing the population of criminals. By making crime an unacceptable risk, more people will resort to honest work.

Like I already said if a dictatorship takes over they will take your guns off you.

You seem to think the government can just do that magically, just snap the fingers and everyone will hand over their guns. It's not that simple.

First, they'd call for a national registration of all firearms and reassure everyone it would never be used for seizure. However, that would immediately set off the DEFCON 2 sirens inside the heads of all of us right wing nut jobs-- you know, us crazy people who think the USA should be observing its Constitution a little more strictly. While many will comply fully, the rest of us will be taking final steps to secure caches of weapons off the grid.

Second, they would order the seizure of all firearms, using the registry as a starting point. For us crazy people, it's DEFCON 1. As soon as the seizures start it's time to start shooting stormtroopers.

---

Regarding the language of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

1.The "A well regulated militia...state" clause is not an independent clause, it is a subordinate clause. It is an explanatory clause that offers one justification for the statement "the right...shall not be infringed". The first half is not a qualifying clause that limits the scope of the second half. The first half simply offers a reason that makes the amendment necessary.
2. If you want to take a look at the US military law, the unorganized militia consists of all able men between 17 and 45 in the country. The National Guard and so forth are only the organized militia. "Well regulated" in 18th century English means "well equipped and trained," it has nothing to do with government control.
3. It does say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which, barring extraordinarilly warped interpretations, means that the right of the people to keep and carry weaponry shall not be inhibited at all--not by Congress, not by the state legislature, not by the county, or the city, which means any attempt to do otherwise is illegal.

[edit on 2/8/2005 by BeefotronX]

Guns don't solve economic problems, they are an answer to crime. By equipping people so they are able to resist crime, crime is reduced-- in the short term by reducing the success probability of crimes, and in the long term by reducing the population of criminals. By making crime an unacceptable risk, more people will resort to honest work.
[/quote]
The Nazis took advantage of econmic woes not crime.

You seem to think the government can just do that magically, just snap the fingers and everyone will hand over their guns. It's not that simple.

Do you have any idea what a dictatorship would be like?
You see if you dont do what the government wants they will ship you off to a concentration camp.

Second, they would order the seizure of all firearms, using the registry as a starting point. For us crazy people, it's DEFCON 1. As soon as the seizures start it's time to start shooting stormtroopers.

In the real world one man and a gun cant save the world. I hope you have anti tank weapons in your backyard because no dictatorship would allow an armed population. Do you really think a any dictatorship would just stand by while you fought back?
You better have some stinger missiles ready because they wouldnt bother with "storm troopers"

[edit on 8-2-2005 by xpert11]

The 2nd amendment doesn’t appear to say what kind of arms it could be anything from a tank to a pocket knife. Given that there is no definition of arms doesn’t that make any kind of weapon legal in the USA? Or dose it mean that the government can decided what arms are suitable for the population.

Hey all the crims, burglars, home invasionists, come one, come all.
Feel free to head over to Xpert11's place! No need to worry he doesnt have a gun!
He also doesnt do any of the other self defence things he has offered as an alternative a he doesnt know if he spelt Tae Kwon Do correctly!

So if you want free stuff just head on over there, snip the phone cable on the way in, Im sure you can think of an inventive way to prevent cell phone use, but this wont really matter as you will be finished by the time the cops arrive!

Youll have the whole run of the house without too much to fear!



I would not wish any of this on you Xpert11, but god helps those who helps them selves.

Why take chances?

selarius nice to see you have a sense of humour. Im a heavy sleeper so chances are I wouldnt hear the crimes. If I owned a gun I would be a danger to myself and others owning a gun dosnt = fire arms training.

We havnt suffered any burglaries in NZ or Aust and we didnt keep a firearm.

selarius you have missed your calling go live in the USA put landmines in your driveway carry around a rocket lancher around with you and dont forgot to have blackhawks patroling the neighborhood for pre emtive strikes against crimes.
If the postie is killed its his fault he should have brought land mine detection gear witb him.
Who is the government to say what arms are?
I could come around to this should someone try to take my wallet I will use my flamethrower for self defence and the crime will be pork chow on tomorrows menu.

Originally posted by xpert11

Banning assault rifles or handguns is the same to me as banning free speech.

You dont need guns to have free speech. This thread proves that fact.

That qoute is taken out of context. I'm not saying guns are required for free speech. What I am saying is that it is a right granted us in the bill of rights. So an attack on free speech is an attack on the constitution, the same applies to an attack on the right to bear arms.

If a dictatorship takes over the USA I think they would disarm the population it would be a case of hand over your gun or you and your family go to a concentration camp. I hope you have a good hide out somewhere.

This is certainly true in the case of a dictatorship in the US. However a more likely scenario would be the break down of our financial system and infrastructure. In that case there are no police to save you, and the only person who could protect my and my family would be me and my good friends, rifle and gun.

I'm not paranoid. I doubt something like that will happen in the immediate future, but as history has shown, once you lose your rights, it can be impossibe to retrieve them.

And thank you for your sympathy. The man who murdered my friend was arraigned this morning. He's looking at 15-20 years,

The politicians don't have a clue, and neither do the liberal gun-haters.

Here is a conversation that I have overheard from a friend who arranges drug transactions now and then.
"Hey, I need a gun, like tonight, do you know anybody?"
"Go to K-mart"
"I want a GUN not a hand warmer!"
"I'll call you in a few minutees..."
"... My buddy has an AK, but he wants 750 because it his"

The bad guys aren't getting their guns from the gun store. What the hell is a drug dealer supposed to do with a registered gun? If you have a problem and have to shoot somebody with a handgun you get rid of the handgun so that you wont be detained and investigated if you are stopped but not IDed.
The handguns are being stolen from legit owners and the assault weapons are coming into LA along with Ecstacy, probably from China. Maybe our lawmakers should come spend a few days in Desert Hot Springs and get a feel for what the criminals are doing.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
BlackFlag, I will repost this for you tolook at.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While reading article 2 you will notice that the use of commas separates independent clauses. The comma after the word State makes the clause the right of the people to keep and bear arms separate from the clause talking about the State. So you have the National Guard and the right of citizens to keep arms. They were talking about different entities (State, citizens aka people) that have the same right, the right to bear arms.

Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) to connect two independent clauses, as in "He hit the ball well, but he ran toward third base."

A clause is a group of related words containing a subject and a verb A clause can be usefully distinguished from a phrase, which is a group of related words that does not contain a subject-verb relationship, such as "in the morning" or "running down the street" or "having grown used to this harassment."

So thousands of deaths a year over the placement of a comma or two. Does that seriously cound like common sense to you?

Originally posted by Black Flag
So thousands of deaths a year over the placement of a comma or two. Does that seriously cound like common sense to you?

It's not the guns, it's the criminals. Somebody jumps my little brother, all 3 of us brothers go out looking for the culprit to force a 1 on 1 rematch. It doesn't matter if I take a gun or a knife or a baseball bat- bottom line is that I'm going out to find trouble and if things don't go well somebody will probably get killed. (I don't actually do this- I tend to give examples in the first peson).

Here is the chain of events that surrounds the common shooting.
I go out and I buy a stolen gun, which is illegal.
I carry that weapon in concealment, which is illegal.
I engage in illegal activity, probably selling drugs, robbery, or assault.
Things go badly, so I murder somebody.

Now I just broke 4 laws, and you think a 5th law is going to stop me? You can't make guns unavailable. Look at the illustration above. Did I get the gun at Walmart? Nope, I got it from a drug dealer by all odds. This next part I tell you from direct knowledge and not hypothetical in the least- the typical price for an AK-47 is 500 dollars and if you really need one just toss a couple bucks at the same person you get your ecstacy from, because a few guys up the line there is a guy who is bring things into this country from China, and he can bring weapons just as easily as drugs.

Making it illegal to obtain guns wont help. The guns that are killing people are already being obtained illegally. You know which guns AREN'T being obtained illegally? The shotgun hidden behind the liquor store counter. My grandpa's .22 carbine in his home. A licensed owner's legal concealed weapon in public. The weapons that make me think twice about comitting robbery, or about breaking into somebody's home. Those are the weapons that would cease to be available if you threw away "the commas" which you blame for the actions of criminals.