Yeah, an assault rifle is on the top spot on my Christmas list this year.
Going back a little, given that militias wouldn't really be useful to overtly fight against a ruling power, and anyone resisting would have to resort to guerilla tactics, does that mean the second amendment is pro-terrorist?
Yeah, an assault rifle is on the top spot on my Christmas list this year.
Automatic weapons weren't covered under this ban and have been banned since the 1930's. It was a cosmetic ban from the start. So why the hysteria of the, "TERRORISTS ARE COMING!" ?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Then you are not a police officer, obviously, being ignorant of the circumstances of many crimes. Every single police department in the country is for this ban, and for good reason. As for "the military purpose"- nowhere does it say any citizen at any time should have any weapon with "military viability". You can;t leaglly own a tow missile system- is that your constituional rights being denied? No, not anymore than you can decry not owning a howlitzer.Originally posted by Sikander
They didn't ban clips over 10 rounds, they banned magazines over 10 rounds. Which seriously reduces the viability of a weapon for its constitutionally intended military purpose while doing almost nothing to its fear-mongered intended purpose as a murder weapon. I doubt that many people even know what flash supressors do or why one might want to have one, but I can't think of a single instance where a weapon with one was used in a crime where the flash supressor aided the criminal materially. And flash supressors add to the length of weapons that are somehow scarier because they can somehow be "concealed", much like a baseball bat can be concealed under a trench coat. No one will ever suspect it, no siree!
And we forgot to mention that bayonnet lugs have also now become legal. I guess they were banned because if they hadn't been, people who bought the right sort of bayonnet could have turned their modern semi-automatic carbines into fearsome spears!
What would be the point of a bayonnet? to hunt dear with?
As for the militia argument. It seems that the people of Iraq don't seem to believe your argument that they have no chance against the U.S. Army. They also seem to value even the sorts of weapons that are still legal in the U.S. as well as real assault weapons. Note that for all of our bombers, tanks, artillery etc. the most common weapon deployed by the U.S. is still the assault weapon, with the machine gun in second place. This is because these weapons still have a great amount of utility in modern warfare. How would we be doing in Iraq if the Army decided to simply trash all of our lead throwers because they are obslete? Not as well I can tell you.
Wonderful piece, but utterly ignoring the basic realities of both Iraq and what you claim people need assault rifles to do. I don;t think anyone in Iraq thinks they can, by a pitched battle, defeat the US. They can't. But that is not their aim (maybe fantasy, not aim). Their aim is to defeat the US politically- to create chaos, undermine the new interim authority, and then drive us out that way, not by a total military victory.
The aim of any militia would be to "defend their homes", 1., and to undermine the control of a "dictatorial regime". Just having assault weapons would simply jnot do much in the way of achieving that aim. Great example of that- Iraq itself. Do you think that multiplicity of assault weapons now in Iraq came out of nowhere? Or solely from the armies armories? No, people in Iraq were hevaily armed- Saddam gave out assault weapons to the people-to protect him. So many Iraqis had assault rifles, and as far as I know, it did diddly for their freedom or ability to fight off the Saddam Regime, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as strong as the US.
The only part of Iraq where people were able to keep Saddam at bay was in the North, were foreign powers interveend to limit Saddam's abilities.
Which is all very nice, but only has a chance of success if the enemy regime has some inherent weakness that some other non-violent opposition that can use the crackdown as an excuse for its own actions. Without another weakness a guerrilla war will collapse. Guerrila wars can bring down regimes with internal crakcs, but not strong ones, which will simply ruthlessly crush the opposition. BUt you miss something more insidious, which is the control of the media. As I have said before, it never need get to the point were you have a militia at all- the modern states has multiple ways of undermining any possibly violent opposition from the start-cutting them off at the knees without consequence. Anyone so isolated that they can't be brought to ruin otherwise is too isolated to be political significant (like the freemen in Montana).Personal firearms provide enough of a force multiplier that simple police operations in their face are severely complicated. Replacing police operations with military operations are often even more complicated, with huge political implications. This is the whole foundation of guerilla warfare, and I can't believe I have to explain that to two very intelligent posters, one of whom is a communist!
A simple method would be to accuse them of tax fraud and ruin them financially as they fight the charges. Or even simple "identity theft". I mean, the ways to find and eliminate someone as a possible resistor in the modern world are endless. And having an assault rifle won't help you worth ****.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Yes you Americans need to defend your home from intruders...you can justify a handgun just about on those grounds. But the kind of firepower you are talking here is just completely unnecessary...these weapons were designed for combat situations, not shooting annoying pigeons or something.
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
it works the other way too. Maybe the terrorist would not have highjacked the planes on 9-11 with boxcutters if the passengers had UZIs pointed at them?Originally posted by GePap
Thank God we can allow any jokel to buy fully automatic weapons again- I mean,without them, wehat are terrorists going to use to kill us?
'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"
Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York
Speaking of Erith:
"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
@provost.
Any connection with the WOT, for better or for worse is stupid, really. However, guns can help people defend themselves. This is the fact. That's why guns should be legal. I know from personal knowledge that people going around with guns isn't something to worry about.
And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.
In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.
What does that tell you.
Spec.
-Never argue with an idiot; He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Right, cause we would allow people with guns on planes..Originally posted by The diplomat
it works the other way too. Maybe the terrorist would not have highjacked the planes on 9-11 with boxcutters if the passengers had UZIs pointed at them?
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
You'll shoot your eye out.Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Yeah, an assault rifle is on the top spot on my Christmas list this year.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.
In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.
What does that tell you
Yet you have IIRC, more guns per person than in the US.
Um, no, not even close. Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.Originally posted by Azazel
And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.
In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.
What does that tell you
Yet you have IIRC, more guns per person than in the US.
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
Better than ramming right into the side of the WTCOriginally posted by Provost Harrison
Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York
I don't care about the per capita numbers, I would like to see the per household number. I think that if you own one gun you are more likely to own 2, and in the south 27...Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.
I thought Libs were against bans because they argued it encourages black markets. After all, we should legalize marijuana because people are going to use it anyway. We should legalize prostitution cause everybody will do it anyway. We should legalize abortion because otherwise we'd just have unsafe abortions done in secret.
People are going to find ways to get an assault weapon anyway so why bother banning it? Just legalize it and tax it to death like you do with everything else!
'There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.'"
G'Kar - from Babylon 5 episode "Z'ha'dum"
Thats not what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine... so one of yall are misinformed, and for some reason i think its michael mooreOriginally posted by Kontiki
Um, no, not even close. Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.
"I bet Ikarus eats his own spunk..."
- BLACKENED from America's Army: Operations
Kramerman - Creator and Author of The Epic Tale of Navalon in the Civ III Stories Forum
Instead of the random ramblings of the anti-democracy liberals, heres some facts about 'assult rifles' from this well written and referenced piece.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.htmlThe following statistics summarize the findings of official governmental statistical surveys. Because different governments reported data for different years, or reported different types of data (e.g. (p.407)homicides vs. gun seizures), the raw figures reported from each jurisdiction are sometimes not directly comparable.
Akron. Of the 669 guns seized by the Akron police in 1992, fewer than 1% were "assault weapons."[87] The 1% figure represents a decline from 1988, when about 2% of seized guns were "assault weapons."[88]
Baltimore County. During the first nine months of 1990, out of 644 weapons logged in to the Baltimore County Police Property Room, only two were "assault weapons." Out of 305 murders in the city of Baltimore in 1990, only seven (2.3%) involved rifles and shotguns of any kind, much less any subset of those firearms labeled "assault weapons."[89]
Bexar County, Texas (including San Antonio). From 1987 to 1992, "assault weapons" were used in 0.2% of homicides and 0.0% of suicides. From 1985 to 1992, they constituted 0.1% of guns seized by the police, according to Vincent DiMaio, the county's Chief Medical Examiner.[90]
California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases."[91] Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."[92]
Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was (p.408)perpetrated with a military caliber rifle.[93] Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."[94]
Chicago suburbs. From 1980 to 1989, "assault weapons" totaled 1.6% of seized drug-related guns.[95]
Connecticut. "Assault weapons" constituted 198 of the 11,002 firearms confiscated by police in the years 1988 through 1992.[96]
Denver. A gun-by-gun examination of the firearms in Denver police custody as of March 1991 found fourteen "assault weapons" among the 1,752 crime guns. Only one of those guns had been used in a crime of violence (an aggravated assault).[97]
Florida. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in seventeen of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986 to 1989.[98]
Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."[99]
Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.[100]
Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles."[101] From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.[102]
Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, (p.409)1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."[103]
Minneapolis. From April 1, 1987 to April 1, 1989, the Minneapolis police property room received 2,200 firearms, nine of which were "assault weapons."[104]
Nashville. Of the 190 homicides perpetrated in Nashville in 1991-92, none were committed with an "assault weapon."[105]
Newark. According to surgeons at the University Hospital in Newark, in the 1980s there was one wounding in the city in that decade in which the bullet removed was the type found in "semiautomatic assault rifles."[106]
New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey.[107] No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988.[108] Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.[109]
New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.[110]
New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in (p.410)twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.[111]
San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.[112]
San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.[113]
Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapon analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."[114]
Washington, D.C. The Washington Post reports: "[L]aw enforcement officials say that the guns have not been a factor in the area's murder epidemic."[115] "Assault weapons" were 3% of guns seized in 1990.[116]
National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle.[117] No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.[118]
Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.
We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.
Michael Moore also decided to show some of our most successful socialized housing and called it the "slums" in Canada. Methinks he's never been to the Jane/Finch area of Toronto - it'd give most US projects a run for their money.Originally posted by Kramerman
Thats not what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine... so one of yall are misinformed, and for some reason i think its michael moore
To be totally fair, though, Moore didn't really lie about the guns. IIRC, he said that we had plenty of guns, which is true. It's just that we hardly have any handguns compared to the US - a fact which, like so many other, didn't quite seem to fit with his overall message, so he omitted it.
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
The second amendment is pro-revolution.Originally posted by Gibsie
Going back a little, given that militias wouldn't really be useful to overtly fight against a ruling power, and anyone resisting would have to resort to guerilla tactics, does that mean the second amendment is pro-terrorist?
It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people.
Power flows from the barrel of a gun.
I find it so odd leftists, out of solidarity, or perhaps embedded misandry, revile guns, oblivious to the facts that every election, America has only slipped closer to the bonds of fascism.
The time to fight may be in your lifetime. And some yokel who has four guns, and a penchant for the Right wing aggressive agenda, perhaps in a state of martial law, may just come and make your entire mind a blightful disgrace on your bedroom wall.
All your intelligence and knowledge is nothing compared to a few grams of lead guided at highvelocity by some high school drop out finding it's way into your skull.
I cringe at the idea of some fanatic coming to my house, and blowing my head off. In all his stupidity, he at least realized one thing, a gun is power. Him with a gun, vs me, with a gun, and I have the upper hand.
I personally see no use for one to own military style weapons for hunting and the like. They could be useful for defense of one's home or business. I would rather confront a bad guy with the best automatic weapon available rather than a relatively useless pea shooter that was only going to get me killed.
As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation.
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
I think that if people can demonstrate that they can use guns responsibly, either for protection or sport etc, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to own them. I don't think an automatic right to a gun (any gun) is a sensible idea for obvious reasons. No mentally ill person has ever harmed anyone by using his automatic right to write a book or dance in the street. Same with guns? I think not.
I don't approve of gun ownership, but that's a different matter to thinking they should be banned. I think proper and stringent education, tests and licencing should be required for any gun ownership, as well as mental and criminal assessments. That's just common sense really.
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Licensing is not common sense... it's a way for the government to track owners, and owners don't like that.
Fact is, most gun owners do not want ot have to get into a shoot-out with the police. It is not their fantasy, it is their fear. But they also know that taking a gun away is a step in disarmament of the people, and a required part of fascism.
Giving up a gun is a non-starter. Not negotiable.
Except that having a gun does nothing to stop dictatorship- look at Saddam's Iraq. heck, getting a gun in Africa ain;t that hard- and it hardly promoted an sort of freedom at all.Originally posted by NeOmega
Licensing is not common sense... it's a way for the government to track owners, and owners don't like that.
Fact is, most gun owners do not want ot have to get into a shoot-out with the police. It is not their fantasy, it is their fear. But they also know that taking a gun away is a step in disarmament of the people, and a required part of fascism.
Giving up a gun is a non-starter. Not negotiable.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
What about Saddam's Iraq?Originally posted by GePap
Except that having a gun does nothing to stop dictatorship- look at Saddam's Iraq. heck, getting a gun in Africa ain;t that hard- and it hardly promoted an sort of freedom at all.
Look at the history of Fallujah.
Getting a gun in America ain't that hard either... what's your point?
BTW, I find it irritating and sophomoric you chose to mention Africa as a whole.
Ownership of weapons, including AK-47s was widespread.Originally posted by NeOmega
What about Saddam's Iraq?
Getting a gun in America ain't that hard either... what's your point?
Right- first, it depends were in the US. Second, it is still much easier elsewhere (like iraq)
Good for you boy.BTW, I find it irritating and sophomoric you chose to mention Africa as a whole.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
It's always fun and frightening at the same time to see the perpetual state of fear and paranoia so many Americans seem to be in.
"The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
"you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
"I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident
The one with the upper hand is the one who shoots first.I cringe at the idea of some fanatic coming to my house, and blowing my head off. In all his stupidity, he at least realized one thing, a gun is power. Him with a gun, vs me, with a gun, and I have the upper hand.
Not the one who is defending, and not the one who is right. It can be both of those thought, but only if you shoot first.
Originally posted by NeOmega
The second amendment is pro-revolution.
No it isn't. It was, however, anti-authoritarian. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the United States had a body of armed men with which to defend itself, without having to rely on a standing army, which ould be used to make someone a king.
It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people.
Yes, but not in the way you mean.
Power flows from the barrel of a gun.
But this is not the only source of power.
I find it so odd leftists, out of solidarity, or perhaps embedded misandry, revile guns, oblivious to the facts that every election, America has only slipped closer to the bonds of fascism.
We don't. Don't mistake liberals for leftists. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. We just don't identify with the rights of gun manufacterers,or their lobby group, the NRA.
All I've done is explain what the 2nd Amendment's purpose was, what the assault weapon ban did, etc. We also have to recognize, however, that the 2nd amendment has failed, and thus is an anachronism. In this context, it's not unreasonable to favor restrictions on certain arms which serve no useful function in civil society.
As for the U.S. being fascist, hah. America doesn't need fascism. The capitalists get what they want without it. They don't need fascism, so they won't allow it to take power. If they did allow it to take power, an armed American public certainly wouldn't be able to stand up against the U.S. military, and sadly, there would be plenty of people willing to join the military and fire on their fellow citizens.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Still is, America is having a hard time taking that country over.Originally posted by GePap
Ownership of weapons, including AK-47s was widespread.
Getting a gun in America ain't that hard either... what's your point?
Right- first, it depends were in the US. Second, it is still much easier elsewhere (like iraq)
Really? Do you have any statistics to back that up? Never mind the fact the average Iraqi doesn't have the disposable income an American does....
Good for you boy.
Rwanda.
Fallujah.
Look 'em up, come back to me.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks