It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[The diplomat]

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!

[Kramerman]

Originally 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.

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

[SpencerH]

Instead of the random ramblings of the anti-democracy liberals, heres some facts about 'assult rifles' from this well written and referenced piece.

The 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]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.

[Kontiki]

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

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.

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.

[NeOmega]

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?

The second amendment is pro-revolution.

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Whaleboy]

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.

[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.

[GePap]

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.

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.

[NeOmega]

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.

What about Saddam's Iraq?

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega
What about Saddam's Iraq?

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)

BTW, I find it irritating and sophomoric you chose to mention Africa as a whole.

Good for you boy.

[Kontiki]

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.

[tinyp3nis]

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.

The one with the upper hand is the one who shoots first.
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.

[chequita guevara]

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.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap
Ownership of weapons, including AK-47s was widespread.

Still is, America is having a hard time taking that country over.

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.