Post by: Wong Hung Lo on September 14, 2004, 06:02:00 AM
Please think of the children. You know that We The People doesn't mean the citizens. It means the government. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means only the government can have arms.
Now that is established who The People are. What's all this freedom of the press and freedom of speech hoggwash that the citizens think they have?
Post by: Baner on September 14, 2004, 11:25:00 AM
Post by: Jreb892 on September 14, 2004, 12:59:00 PM
Post by: rocky_2197 on September 14, 2004, 01:20:00 PM
But "We the people" is every individual citizen. We have the right to bear arms to protect our selves. The government has the right to bear arms in the form of a military to protect the boarders and our way of life. But it is the citizens of the US that have and shall have the right to bear arms.
As for the freedom of speach and and press. Are you not saying what you think right now. If you didn't have the freedom to do that you wouldn't be able to say ignorent things like that.
Post by: Jreb892 on September 14, 2004, 01:56:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Sorry for jumping in on this thread, but I have to disagree with the some of your statments Wong Hung Lo. Not that I am for or against the assult weapons band. But "We the people" is every individual citizen. We have the right to bear arms to protect our selves. The government has the right to bear arms in the form of a military to protect the boarders and our way of life. But it is the citizens of the US that have and shall have the right to bear arms. As for the freedom of speach and and press. Are you not saying what you think right now. If you didn't have the freedom to do that you wouldn't be able to say ignorent things like that. |
are you joking?
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 14, 2004, 01:58:00 PM
So I should have seen it coming.
Post by: thomes08 on September 14, 2004, 02:38:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 14, 2004, 03:28:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The second amendment says "the people" shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If you take "the people" here to mean the same as it clearly does in the fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments, the supreme court has made it clear this refers to individual citizens. Additionally, the second amendment falls right in the middle of the bill of rights, so am I supposed to just assume that stuck in the middle of all these constitutionally protected individual rights is one that grants powers to government to keep a militia? I doubt it. The Bill of Rights was written to grant rights to individuals, which are so fundamental they may not be infringed upon by the government. If the founding fathers intended the second amendment to grant powers to the government, and not to individuals, they sure put it in a funny place. |
Post by: thomes08 on September 14, 2004, 04:26:00 PM
summary
1.) I hate to say it but i agree with nemt and the other people who say "we the people" means exactly that.
2.) Times have changed and so should the whole assault riffle thing, nothing good can come from it.
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on September 14, 2004, 05:29:00 PM
| QUOTE |
well regulated militia |
... isn't defined by a guy with a collection of assault rifles in his living room. But nonetheless, I love shooting for recreation. Not hunting, but targets... lots of fun. I think handguns will always be more threatening to our safety than assault rifles. Or for that matter, rocket launchers and tanks (weapons you cannot conceal).
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 14, 2004, 07:59:00 PM
| QUOTE (hardcoregamer @ Sep 14 2004, 06:41 PM) |
| so am I supposed to just assume that stuck in the middle of all these constitutionally protected individual rights is one that grants powers to government to keep a militia? Amendment II 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. The well regulated militia....NON govt affilieated private citizens creat the militia. The actual reason for the militia is to keep the govt and military in check, to be a threat to said enteties. You cannot be a threat to the govt, or military with muzzel loaders, sticks, rocks, and single shot long guns. Amendment II ensures that amendment I and III are not ignored by the elected officials. |
hasnt anyone figured it out yet
you can give me all this bullshit that you need assault weapons just in case you want to change the government, or something drastic in the government happens (something bad)
but your forgetting, the military is the government, and the military has nukes, fighters, bombers, missiles, assault weapons, tanks, trucks, etc
so, whats a glock or a AK47 that all you gun loving people think you need going to do against any of the above?
please, enlighten me
Post by: thomes08 on September 14, 2004, 11:30:00 PM
MORON!
thomes08
Post by: hardcoregamer on September 15, 2004, 02:15:00 AM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on September 15, 2004, 06:35:00 AM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 14 2004, 06:29 PM) |
| i'm against this kind of gun owning but i agree that "we the people" means everyone, not just the government. Although when that was written times were completely different to the point where in my opinion it should be changed. No one needs an assault riffle to defend themselves. People need assault riffles to show them off or do what their name says, ASSAULT. summary 1.) I hate to say it but i agree with nemt and the other people who say "we the people" means exactly that. 2.) Times have changed and so should the whole assault riffle thing, nothing good can come from it. thomes08 |
Yes times have changed. When the constitution was written there was only printing presses and the town crier yelling in the streets. Now we have teletype, phones, radio, tv, newswire and the internet.
Those things didn't exist when our founding fathers sat down and wrote the constitution. Using the gungrabbers way of thinking (like when they say that only muskets existed back then and that the founding fathers didn't mean arms and only meant muskets). Our founding fathers only meant freedom of speech and press to be only for printing presses and the town crier that existed then. Not all this new technology.
Post by: nemt on September 15, 2004, 07:57:00 AM
Post by: melon on September 15, 2004, 01:00:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 15, 2004, 04:14:00 PM
First the liberals force their agenda through apellate courts, going against the will of the people, and now they want to rewrite the bill of rights. Very interesting.
Post by: hardcoregamer on September 15, 2004, 06:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 15 2004, 06:06 PM) |
| People have the right to a safe environment, and assault weapons are detrimental to that. |
People do have a right to a safe environment, i completely agree with that, as for the second part of that statement, assault weapons guarantee that. People who own assault weapons legally dont go nuts and cause havoc with guns. I own a few assault riffles and have never used it for anything but targets, or varmets.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 15, 2004, 07:25:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on September 15, 2004, 08:48:00 PM
Terrorists and drug dealers already have assault rifles (and much worse machine guns), but the average law abiding citizen couldn't until now.
Post by: HeLiuM on September 16, 2004, 08:40:00 AM
| QUOTE (gainpresence @ Sep 16 2004, 04:51 AM) |
| If you're going to do something illegal with a gun, why would you care if you got the gun legally or not? Terrorists and drug dealers already have assault rifles (and much worse machine guns), but the average law abiding citizen couldn't until now. |
You're right. Lets make it legal to sell alchohol to all ages, and narcotics available at the local rite-aid. Of course, the use of these is still illegal, but feel free to stockpile them in your basement.
Making dangerous weapons more accessible to everyone (and legal to own in mass quantities) is a step forward for terrorists and drug dealers and a step back for the safety of citizens and law enforcement.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 01:13:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 02:07:00 PM
I'm sure those people didn't defend themselves with assualt rifles.
The second amendment was not written in the age of guns that shoot 60 rounds a second, that's 59 rounds a second more than you need, unless you suck.
Amendment, it makes sense.
Post by: HeLiuM on September 16, 2004, 02:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 16 2004, 09:16 PM) |
| Take a gun out of the hands of everyone who's protected his or herself and/or loved ones, and now they're all dead. |
I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.
It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out. You don't get extra points for BS'ing.
Post by: ZeroDown on September 16, 2004, 02:14:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out. You don't get extra points for BS'ing. |
Watch out Helium, he's going to go after your avatar with wit.
Post by: Spency234 on September 16, 2004, 02:28:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 16 2004, 11:43 AM) |
| You're right. Lets make it legal to sell alchohol to all ages, and narcotics available at the local rite-aid. Of course, the use of these is still illegal, but feel free to stockpile them in your basement. Making dangerous weapons more accessible to everyone (and legal to own in mass quantities) is a step forward for terrorists and drug dealers and a step back for the safety of citizens and law enforcement. |
Great post.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 02:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 16 2004, 05:12 PM) |
| I concede to you nemt, assault weapons save lives daily. How could I have missed that important statistic you promptly PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. It's a holiday nemt, I'm sure your middle school let out. You don't get extra points for BS'ing. |
Well, asshole, the comment was directed at those questioning the merits of gun ownership, not assault weapons in particular.
The fact remains though, if someone is going to commit a crime with an assault rifle, breaking some superfluous gun law isn't going to deter him/her. If this were the case, the USA would've made it specifically illegal to hijack airplanes and use them as guided missiles.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 02:58:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 03:15:00 PM
If just one violent criminal is kept from buying an assault rifle, then the ban has served its purpose.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 03:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 16 2004, 06:18 PM) |
| If just one violent criminal is kept from buying an assault rifle, then the ban has served its purpose. |
..and if just one person is the victim of violent crime, because he or she couldn't exercise the fundamental freedoms granted by the bill of rights, the ban is proven wrong.
Criminals have guns, criminals will always have guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 03:45:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 03:51:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| ..and if just one person is the victim of violent crime, because he or she couldn't exercise the fundamental freedoms granted by the bill of rights, the ban is proven wrong. |
I can see it now Nemt, "If only little Tim had had his assualt rifle handy, then he never would have been victim to the mugging that would end his life...Damn you ban on assualt weapons...you killed Tim!"
Nobody is gonna die because they don't have their AK handy, anyone that would own an AK probably owns a much more domestic hand gun.
Either way, if a criminal broke into your house with a hand gun, or a knife, and you blew them away with an assualt rifle, you'd be going straight to jail.
You have to use equal force or else it's murder and not self defense.
Post by: gcskate27 on September 16, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
Post by: gronne on September 16, 2004, 03:54:00 PM
Maybe it affects you more than other nations, as the films, most of the time, are about americans. And then by allowing everybody to legally own guns, because it's their RIGHT(sick right) to do so, will definitely increase the deadly violence. Before the flaming: I'M NOT AGAINST VIOLENT FILMS. FILMS DON'T SHOOT PEOPLE, THEY INSPIRE. We obviously watch american films here also, and we have increased violence here as well.
Strange thing(or not) is that MANY of the kids that are in a violent nature, watch films and speak english to their friends here in Sweden. When I walk down the streets in Gothenburg a lot of kids speak english to eachother, and act "cool". To me that's enough of a proof that films affect people. This last week, supporters of two different teams were watching a film about soccer hooligans in a theatre, and before it ended there was a huge fight between them. It's rediculous to say that films don't inspire people to act violent. Every director out there saying it's not the films that make people violent, are lying to themselves. I strongly used to defend the films myself, but eventually it got impossible for me to deny the facts.
Some people will see the violence for what it is, and some will see it as a way to gain respect. I can't remember any director succesful in making violence not inspiring. You can give me any example where they do show it as negative, and I bet it's still destructive. I LOVE films, they're my biggest hobby. I often watch violent films, and nowadays I look at it from a different view, but as a kid I ALWAYS got inspired. Now I never did anything serious, but I surely wanted to. I always wanted to, and did, sabotage things in my school and start fights, and I'm certain it was because of the films I watched, no doubt.
This might have seemed very off-topic. But it's my true belief, and giving access to guns for everyone will DEFINITELY increase the problems. It's a shame for democracy that you can give people more access to violence.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 03:58:00 PM
Films and violent TV shows definately inspire people, but we'd be killing the first amendment way too much to stop that.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 16, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
When comparing crime and murder rates, be sure to factor in the per capita figures. You can't compare the US's numbers directly to Luxembourg. With that being said, yes the US' rates are still relatively high.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 04:03:00 PM
The more you see, the less it bothers you, it follows the basic idea of tolerance.
Post by: nemt on September 16, 2004, 04:03:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 04:03:00 PM
Have you ever been there?
It's a fairy tale land.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 16, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
Post by: gronne on September 16, 2004, 04:37:00 PM
As much as it hurts me to tell it, I really should. I was impressed when I heard of the first school shootings in USA. As I was a "gang" leader when I was twelve, I thought it was really cool. I started discussing it with a former friend, how we should do the same thing. I was really up in my mind about it. I made drawings of what it should look like. I probably never would dare to take real action. I gave up the thoughts as I was afraid of the consequence, I never had the balls to do it, luckily. Today I'm a strict believer in non-violence. I often wonder how I could think like that as a kid, but I never understand it. All I know is that I spent most of my time watching Van Damme and other violent films. I know how much they inspired me, in a purely negative manner. And I GOT a weak mind from watching films all day. I don't have those kinds of peoblems at all today. I haven't been in a fight for about three years, about the same time I made a "u-turn" and grew up.
Post by: Colonel32 on September 16, 2004, 09:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 17 2004, 05:45 AM) |
| This ban was a joke when it came out and finally it ends. All it did was change the looks of rifles not the operation. I am also a big fan of guns owning 50 between my dad and I. That doesnt make us bad people it's just that we have different interests than others. Also it makes me mad how people think that after this ban full auto weapons are available to everyone. Maybe you people should look up the govts definition of an assault weapon before talking. Helium you need to especially read that law and get your facts straight. I could mess a person up 10 times worse with a $50 exmilitary bolt action rilfe that fires a bullet twice the size and could pierce any body armour, than with an assault rifle |
good post. i really agree
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on September 17, 2004, 02:39:00 AM
It has begun. 2 kids are on their way to school with 2 millitary grade assault rifles.
Looks like some old school militia nuts.
I think this is the leader of that militia. He is standing there holding a military grade musket with a bayonet. At least he didn't have one of those widow maker (Kentucky) rifles.
What kind of parent lets their child touch a widow maker rifle?
It's not a Kentucky since it's has a percussion cap and nipple instead of a flintlock. But it's still a widow maker because you know it's barrel is rifled
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on September 17, 2004, 03:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 16 2004, 06:01 PM) |
| No big deal, we aren't a real democracy anyway. Films and violent TV shows definately inspire people, but we'd be killing the first amendment way too much to stop that. |
I agree with you there. We started as a Constitutional Republic. It keeps the mob rules democracy folks from stepping on the rights of the little guy.
As for the trouble with todays generation in America. All I can say is it's socitetys and the governments fault. When I grew up (long time ago) there were no school shootings and these accidental shootings were rare. Back then, there were fathers around to break their foot off in your ass and you could raise and punish your child in the proper way. Also our music was good and you could still get spanked in school then.
Today you have unwed mothers raising kids with no father figure around to keep the kid strait. You can't punish your kids in the proper way or the government steps in and takes your kids and throws you in prison for child abuse. And the music today if you can call it music is bad for kids. All this hatefull rap and it's message to degrade women, shoot cops and people. I laugh when I see the white kids acting like the rappers they listen to and act like they grew up in the hood. Combine that with no discipline and a kid finding a gun in a home adds up to trouble. Also the odds of them joining a gang and getting in trouble with the law are high.
When I grew up. There were guns in my home and I knew better than to touch them because my father would have broke his foot off in my ass. Back then you could discipline your child and there were more fathers to do it. And kids were taught to have respect for firearms, the law and their elders.
I remember when I was in grade school. I got in trouble and had to go to the principals office. He called my mother and she came up to the school. The principal spanked me with a paddle while my mother watched. Then my mother pulled her paddle out of a bag she brought with her and gave me a beating worse than principal just gave me. Then she said wait till your father gets home. And you can guess what happened when he got home that night.
I'm glad I had good parents and it's taught me how to raise a kid. My better half and I have a grandson that stays with us for a while during the summer and holidays. I don't have to lock up my guns. I even have loaded guns out in the open. He wont touch them because he has been taught to respect firearms and knows better. He also knows I'll break my foot off in his ass if he touches one. He also knows to leave and tell an adult if he's at a friends house and the other kids find and start playing with a gun. When he's a little older I'll teach him everything about firearms so he'll know how to disable a firearm before leaving and telling an adult.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 06:45:00 AM
Post by: jeti on September 17, 2004, 08:07:00 AM
Post by: Spency234 on September 17, 2004, 10:44:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 09:48 AM) |
| Legal gun ownsership lowers crime. |
Another fact that nemt successfully pulled out of his arsehole.
Post by: bluedeath on September 17, 2004, 11:35:00 AM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 01:18:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Legal gun ownsership lowers crime. |
That's funny, last time I checked, violent crime went down a substantial amount after the ban was initiated.
http://www.ojp.usdoj...lance/viort.htm
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 02:11:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 04:21 PM) |
| That's funny, last time I checked, violent crime went down a substantial amount after the ban was initiated. http://www.ojp.usdoj...lance/viort.htm |
Violent crime decreased because of the rising popularity of handguns and concealed carry laws, the lengthening of prison sentences, and increases in local and state police funding. It had nothing to do with a ban on weapons criminals couldn't afford to buy and legally register anyway.
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 02:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 10:14 PM) |
| Violent crime decreased because of the rising popularity of handguns and concealed carry laws, the lengthening of prison sentences, and increases in local and state police funding. It had nothing to do with a ban on weapons criminals couldn't afford to buy and legally register anyway. |
The chart that Maximumbeing pointed out does show that after 1994 violent crimes went down at the same time when that assault weapons ban went to effect. Maybe it could be a coincidence or it can be a fact.
Do you have some proof of what you said?
Post by: HeLiuM on September 17, 2004, 02:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 17 2004, 08:14 PM) |
I use them for sport. You can't hunt with most of them anyways because the bullet is too small to kill large game with. |
So what you're saying is, they're useless for hunting (which is what I also said). About the sport, I honestly don't much care if you have to make another choice of weapons to shoot targets with. What ever happened to the republican view on security first blabla? NRA conflict I suppose.
| QUOTE |
I dunno what exactly this means but flash suppressors are for shooting in the dark, and that dc sniper hid in a trunk and shot people during daylight. |
That's exactly my point.. You're making more dangerous utilities absolutely useless for legit purposes more available.
| QUOTE |
I live in the country so that arguement doesnt work on me. Gangs and Terrorists have no problem buying guns in the black market. |
You think I care where you live? I don't care if "that argument doesn't work" on you, because I live near a city. Alot of Americans do.
And how do you propose stopping the sale of dangerous guns in the black market when you can legally buy them at Jeb's Gun Depot?
| QUOTE |
So now a group of people? You were talking about a burgular breaking into your home and shooting him with an "overpowered" assault rifle makes no sense. I posted that showing that assault rifles dont shoot very powerful ammo. |
Very powerful ammo? They may not shoot large caliber bullets, but they are meant for range and rapid, aimed fire (yes, I know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. Don't make yourself look more of a fool than you have to by saying semi-automatic isn't capable of rapid fire). You want to defend your home? You'd have much better luck with a handgun (if you feel you need to protect yourself with a firearm to begin with) for protecting your home.. You simply can't justify the use of these weapons. The size of these weapons would make them highly cumbersome for most homes anyway, but not so much a bother in larger spaces.
| QUOTE |
I never emailed you and why would I email a moron. Well i'm disturbed about how you say guns are bad and i bet money on it that you havent held, shot, owned a gun in your life. So dont tell people and me whats good for them. |
Congradulations.. You almost caught on to the fact I wasn't seriously implying you had emailed me. Almost.
The fact that you are disturbed that I say guns are bad, leads me to believe you are overly paranoid and probably not well suited to handle them to begin with.
I'm not telling you whats good for you (but if you do want to know, EDUCATION. Education and anti-psychotics), I'm telling you whats good for the safety of American citizens, and its not making dangerous weapons more available to whoever has the money and time to buy them. (Criminals can't afford guns? What the hell do you think they do?)
Care to back up anything you just said nemt? (Not about the criminals who can't afford guns, because quite honestly you can't. Ah hell, why not, try anyway.)
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 02:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 17 2004, 05:34 PM) |
| The chart that Maximumbeing pointed out does show that after 1994 violent crimes went down at the same time when that assault weapons ban went to effect. Maybe it could be a coincidence or it can be a fact. Do you have some proof of what you said? |
I'd like to find enough reports of violent crimes involving weapons banned in 1994 took place before the ban, and contrast it to the amount after the ban. Violent crime in general wouldn't stop, or even be curbed.
If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work?
Post by: gcskate27 on September 17, 2004, 03:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 02:55 PM) |
| If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work? |
that analogy is rediculous...
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 03:12:00 PM
Or do you hate Clinton too much to agree with that statement?
The burden of proof is on you as far as the Automatic Ban doesn't decrease crime, I've proven that right after the ban went into effect, crime went down.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 03:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 06:15 PM) |
| All right Nemt, I'll play along and pretend that the ban didn't decrease crime, wouldn't you still agree that crime drastically went down when Clinton was in office? Or do you hate Clinton too much to agree with that statement? The burden of proof is on you as far as the Automatic Ban doesn't decrease crime, I've proven that right after the ban went into effect, crime went down. |
Yes, crime went down when Clinton was in office, and under his administration, a lot was done to support police. A good portion of the help police received was in the form of harsher prison sentences, to keep criminals off the streets longer, and the spread of concealed carry laws, which have been proven to deter crime in every are they're enacted.
Unless you can prove the entire difference, or even a substancial portion, of the crimes used as data in that survey before involved automatic weapons, your argument is worthless. All it takes is common sense to shoot down your idiocy.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 03:25:00 PM
You're referring to an accurate graph that readliy supports my opinion.
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 03:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 10:55 PM) |
| I'd like to find enough reports of violent crimes involving weapons banned in 1994 took place before the ban, and contrast it to the amount after the ban. Violent crime in general wouldn't stop, or even be curbed. |
By all means, you can do that too.
| QUOTE |
| If Monster Trucks were outlawed, would that stop commuters from driving to work? |
It is like saying that everybody has a Monster Truck and then say there should be a law to ban on all Monster Trucks.
The truth is that there's very few people who actually own a Monster Truck compared to the number of people who own a gun.
Post by: bluedeath on September 17, 2004, 03:40:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 03:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 06:28 PM) |
| Shoot down my idiocy? You're referring to an accurate graph that readliy supports my opinion. |
So let's say a law was passed in 1994 banning aerosol cans. Crime went down since then..dramatically. Does the graph support this as well?
Rent a brain, dipshit, you don't know what you're talking about.
| QUOTE (sack of meat bordering on sentience) |
| It is like saying that everybody has a Monster Truck and then say there should be a law to ban on all Monster Trucks. |
Do you even know what you're saying? Your posts have diminishing coherence.
| QUOTE (waste of food) |
| The truth is that there's very few people who actually own a Monster Truck compared to the number of people who own a gun. |
Way to miss the point. The truth is that there are very few people who commit crimes with assault rifles acquired through legal channels compared to the number of people who commit violent crimes.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
You are so much better at insults and analogies though than you are at making an arguement.
Post by: gcskate27 on September 17, 2004, 04:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 17 2004, 03:47 PM) |
| So let's say a law was passed in 1994 banning aerosol cans. Crime went down since then..dramatically. Does the graph support this as well? Rent a brain, dipshit, you don't know what you're talking about. |
thats all well and good, but one at least follows logically...
sure there is no way of knowing for sure with all the factors but saying that there is abs no correlation between the ban and the drop is just as baseless as saying the ban was the sole reason...
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
It almost makes sense.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 04:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 07:07 PM) |
| No, no, it's much more baseless, my base is that there is a direct correlation between the accessability of guns, and the violent crime rate. It almost makes sense. |
Step off your soapbox and think.
You're a criminal, you just have an extra $1000 lying around (for some reason). You figure an assault rifle would make committing crimes even easier, so you go buy one, go through a clean background check, and have the ballistic fingerprint registered with local and state police. NOW IT'S OFF TO CAP WHITEY!
Does that make sense?
Post by: bluedeath on September 17, 2004, 04:10:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 18 2004, 12:10 AM) |
| Step off your soapbox and think. You're a criminal, you just have an extra $1000 lying around (for some reason). You figure an assault rifle would make committing crimes even easier, so you go buy one, go through a clean background check, and have the ballistic fingerprint registered with local and state police. NOW IT'S OFF TO CAP WHITEY! Does that make sense? |
exactly
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:11:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 04:12:00 PM
Lack of necessity doesn't constitute a reason to ban something.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:14:00 PM
WMD's aren't necessary for your average citizen, but that doesn't mean we can't have them!
Post by: gcskate27 on September 17, 2004, 04:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 04:07 PM) |
| No, no, it's much more baseless, my base is that there is a direct correlation between the accessability of guns, and the violent crime rate. It almost makes sense. |
im not saying that there being a link is baseless, just the two extremes: it being the only cause, and it absolutely having no effect...
your argument still stands...
@nemt - know how a lot of criminals get guns (and no not all, but some... so dont go off on one just yet...)? they steal them from people who legally own them... some kid does a breaking and entering to take some jewelry or tvs or whatever, walks out with an assault weapon and is now heavily armed... thats great...
so, the ban not being in place would mean that there are more of such guns out in the world to get into peoples hands no matter how they get them...
plus i think some people here are trivialising how 'easy' it is to get guns illegally... its not exactly like going to the ubiquitous 'black market' as though it was a store...
Post by: bluedeath on September 17, 2004, 04:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 18 2004, 12:14 AM) |
| What about calculative criminals like The Branch Davidians, or Charles Manson, these people are willing to wait to make their crimes perfect. This ban just makes it harder for people like that to get weapons, I see no reason that the average american needs an assualt rifle. |
The branch dividians were being investigated because of suspicion of "gun running". How would a ban affect them. They didn't care either way. The mansons used everyday household items, such as knives.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 04:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 17 2004, 07:17 PM) |
| If it's sole purpose is to KILL SHIT, then yes. WMD's aren't necessary for your average citizen, but that doesn't mean we can't have them! |
The sole purpose of assault weaponry is to disable and discourage, but this holds true for all weapons, so by your logic, even knives should be illegal.
The bill of rights doesn't mention WMDs either.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:23:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The branch dividians were being investigated because of suspicion of "gun running". How would a ban affect them. They didn't care either way. The mansons used everyday household items, such as knives. |
Had the guns been legal, they wouldn't have been under investigation at all, it would have been their right.
Would have sucked if Manson had used assualt rifles right?
| QUOTE |
| The bill of rights doesn't mention WMDs either. |
It's an armament.
ARMament
It's really up to interpretation.
Post by: Colonel32 on September 17, 2004, 04:25:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Would have sucked if Manson had used assualt rifles right? |
Was Manson using registered guns? I don't see how that matters. If Manson could brainwash hippies, I bet he could buy an illegal gun. This ban changed nothing.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:31:00 PM
How can you say the ban has done nothing, look at the dramatic decrease in crime since the time the ban was implemented.
And please don't tell me theres no relation.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 04:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Sep 17 2004, 07:26 PM) |
| I don't disagree with the point you are making, but that is a fallacy. If it was the sole purpose then there would be nothing to discourage. |
No arms makers builds civilian market guns under the assumption they'll be used for anything other than home defense or sporting.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 04:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 17 2004, 07:42 PM) |
| And no cigarette manufacturers make cartons under the assumption kids will be buying them without full knowledge of the harmful effects they'll have later in life. |
So what you're trying to say is, the manufacturers are responsible for what their products are used for, even if it's not intended for something illegal or dangerous?
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 04:45:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Crime goes down when the economy is good? I'm not really sure why. |
Yeah, thats definately true, but I can't concede that the ban had absolutely no effect.
Post by: HeLiuM on September 17, 2004, 09:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 18 2004, 12:44 AM) |
| So what you're trying to say is, the manufacturers are responsible for what their products are used for, even if it's not intended for something illegal or dangerous? |
What I'm trying to say is that your point is completely useless. It doesn't matter what the intentions they were originally manufactured with were, the fact is guns get into the hands of people who would use them for crime, and therefore need to be regulated. I say the same about cigarettes.
Cigarette company whistleblowers have shown the "measures" they (pretend to) take in keeping their product out of the hands of children.. Gun manufacturers have always had a similiar position about criminals, but it really doesn't matter. Should gun manufacturers be held responsible if someone who buys there guns commits a crime? Most likely not.. But that doesn't make their product any more immune to regulation if it is a danger to society.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 10:25:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on September 18, 2004, 01:04:00 AM
here a hint at a way to formulate an effective counterargument: use logic and reasoning, not namecalling and sentence fragments about 'our rights'...
Post by: nemt on September 18, 2004, 08:45:00 AM
| QUOTE (gcskate27 @ Sep 18 2004, 04:07 AM) |
| and youre both wrong... how can it be a bad thing to regulate dangerous things? and to ban those dangerous things that have no real use other than harm? here a hint at a way to formulate an effective counterargument: use logic and reasoning, not namecalling and sentence fragments about 'our rights'... |
How could it be a bad thing to monitor everyone with ever-present cameras, and brand bar codes onto citizens' necks to keep track of them? The end doesn't justify the means when it comes to fighting crime. This ban only restricts LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' access to assault weapons. Anyone who says otherwise, is an idiot.
Government regulation isn't a good thing, I can think of a few other forms of government involved in total regulation. Let's see...communism, national socialism, fascism...am I missing any, or would you go rather live in one of these situations?
Post by: gcskate27 on September 18, 2004, 11:32:00 AM
how does gun control equate with an orwellian-esqe big brother situation? you either do too much, or not enough drugs...
Post by: nemt on September 18, 2004, 11:47:00 AM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 18 2004, 12:17 PM) |
| Making these weapons legal would just be a hindrance to law enforcement. |
Explain how? Show me a news report, from any time in history, where legally acquired assault weapons were used by violent criminals.
I'd really love to see this.
I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle for defense, or even hunting, but lack of necessity doesn't mean a ban should be in place, or that those who own an unecessary item are criminals. No one needs a Hummer H1, no one needs a giant house, no one needs lobster, no one needs hard liqour.
Post by: nemt on September 18, 2004, 04:56:00 PM
All of your arguments are double standards, and you're missing the big picture.
Post by: moistness on September 18, 2004, 05:57:00 PM
Try-in to find lots of things not to do!
Post by: AkumAPRIME on September 18, 2004, 06:13:00 PM
ehb
Post by: HeLiuM on September 18, 2004, 08:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 19 2004, 02:36 AM) |
| First you dont hunt with assault rifles. Most shoot too weak of ammunition. How would gun locks prevent Columbine? Also Columbine happened during the ban so the ban did ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent it and evidence has never been found that the ban stopped people from shooting others just because they couldn't buy an assault weapon. Helium you got you info all wrong. During the ban you can buy rifles that operate and hold the same mags as the rifles that were banned. The only thing banned was the production of new rilfes with those "dangerous" features. The ban only changed the looks of rifles so they wouldnt be considered "assault weapons". I would also add that terrorists during 9/11 used simple knifes and i think tear gas to carry out the biggest attack ever on the US not assault rifles. |
I know what the ban does, K98. This thread seems to have escalated to gun control in general.
Last time I checked, makeshift knives didn't bring down the WTC. Highjacked jumbo jets full of fuel did.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 18, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Untrue, During Clinton's presidency more assault weapons were sold than any other President's term. |
Prove it.
Or never say anything like it again.
Post by: gcskate27 on September 18, 2004, 09:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (AkumAPRIME @ Sep 18 2004, 06:16 PM) |
| We should NOT amend the Third. |
i agree, how can anyone disagree with:
| QUOTE |
| No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. |
jk akuma
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 18, 2004, 10:04:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| "Bill Clinton sold more assault weapons than any president in history by threatening to take them away from everybody." |
Quote by Gregg Griffeth, 50, owner of Sportsman's Den in Shelby
So your convincing piece of evidence, that more guns were sold during Clintons presidency than any others, is soley the testiment of this man?
You're telling me, that some 50 year old business man in Shelby, has catalogged every gun that was purchsed between forever and 2001?
You have officially beaten Nemt out on the title for dumbest person on this forum.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 18, 2004, 10:13:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 19 2004, 06:00 AM) |
| Maximumbeing never say anything like that again because it makes you look like an idiot. |
Too late for that.
The Kar98 was a superior a rifle
.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 18, 2004, 10:18:00 PM
Thank god deduction is found in this forum.
Fucking morons.
Post by: nemt on September 18, 2004, 10:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 18 2004, 08:48 PM) |
| Why don't you take the time for point by point rebuttals? They offer alot to a debate (they keep it from degrading into a namecalling contest). |
I find they're ineffective, well, so effective that they become ineffective. When I thoroughly shoot you organ donors down point by point, you don't respond to anything I've said. You just restate what you said above, pretend you didn't read it, or just not reply at all.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 18, 2004, 10:24:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| We should NOT amend the Third. |
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I agree.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 18, 2004, 10:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 19 2004, 06:21 AM) |
Convert to my ideology or die. My opinion is absolute. |
Well said!
Here are the people who agree with Maximumbeing:
Here are the people who don't:
The minds of the weak will be easily swayed by conspiracy.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 18, 2004, 10:56:00 PM
So I suppose you agree that the opinion of some 50 year old basketball salesmen is as good as the word of god, eh?
At least Hitler knew when to kill himself, that's one better than I can say for you.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 18, 2004, 11:01:00 PM
| QUOTE (Spency234 @ Sep 19 2004, 06:46 AM) |
| I don't usually give in to trolls, but here I go. I apologize to anybody with a brain for this post. EverythingButAnAnswer, I bet you are some 300 lbs loser that jacks off to kiddie porn and hasn't touched a real girl in years. I sincerely hope you read this post, go out and get yourself a dozen Krispy Kream donuts, and cry your fat ass to sleep. Now back on topic.... |
Touché. You play a high stakes game sir and I applaud you, the winning hand is obviously yours. I ask you though, who is the real troll here?
.P.S. Thank you for again stooping to my level, feel free to stop by another time.
Post by: pug_ster on September 18, 2004, 11:06:00 PM
I won't name all 31 similarities, but I will name the first 5.
1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.
2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitlers case the Reichstag fire, in Bushs case the 9-11 catastrophe.
3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.
4. Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germanys military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.
5. Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.
Post by: moistness on September 19, 2004, 07:54:00 AM
Post by: Intensecure on September 19, 2004, 09:56:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Oh nemt, you're a troll and nothing else |
Sorry, just had to take time out (as you Yanks say...) to agree with that.
Post by: Ultima111 on September 20, 2004, 10:13:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 18 2004, 12:50 PM) |
| Explain how? Show me a news report, from any time in history, where legally acquired assault weapons were used by violent criminals. I'd really love to see this. I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle for defense, or even hunting, but lack of necessity doesn't mean a ban should be in place, or that those who own an unecessary item are criminals. No one needs a Hummer H1, no one needs a giant house, no one needs lobster, no one needs hard liqour. |
Umm... you need to watch/read the news more often. Have you ever heard of something about a shooting called "Columbine" at columbine high? Well, obviously you don't, because 12 kids were murdered. By a LEGALLY bought TEC-9 with LEGAL 9mm rounds from KMART! So, get your facts straight.
With that being said, i would like to state that i live in Vista, CA which is the hood. But, to be honest i feel much safer when the ban was lifted, because i know that the gangstas around here, don't exactly have 3,000USD to be blowing on an Ak-47, or tec-9!
Anyways, how many times in the news a month do you hear "today in San Diego, CA a suspect in a bank shooting, killed 58 people with his newly acquired ak-47? You don't!
Nemt, you are in need of a good political science class, at your local community college, and you need to buy an ak-47 to shoot yourself..
But, my point is, there is no need to have a ban on "Military-Grade" weapons, because
1.)We don't have enough money for them.
2.)All they do is shoot bullets faster.
3.)It's not easier to kill someone with them(less accurate)
4.) A glock does the same thing.
but the thing is... How many homes do you go into everyday, that have a stockpileof g3a3's and m16s and tec-9's?
And, those of you who are so worried about this, go double layer with bullet proof vests.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 20, 2004, 10:52:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ultima111 @ Sep 20 2004, 12:16 PM) |
| But, my point is, there is no need to have a ban on "Military-Grade" weapons, because 1.)We don't have enough money for them. 2.)All they do is shoot bullets faster. 3.)It's not easier to kill someone with them(less accurate) 4.) A glock does the same thing. but the thing is... How many homes do you go into everyday, that have a stockpileof g3a3's and m16s and tec-9's? And, those of you who are so worried about this, go double layer with bullet proof vests. |
thats a good assumption.......
but the ban is there for instances in which people do fit the required criteria to acquire these useless weapons
the ban is there for saftey, but i guess saftey doesnt matter so free boxcutters to all that ride on the airlines
Post by: nemt on September 20, 2004, 02:23:00 PM
Post by: HeLiuM on September 20, 2004, 02:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 20 2004, 10:26 PM) |
| The human mind is the weapon, knives, guns, bricks...they're just tools. |
Much like yourself.
Give it up nemt, before you at least pretended to make a point, now you and people like das helghast and EverythingButAnAnswer are one in the same.
Tools for murder = weapon and nothing else.
Post by: nemt on September 20, 2004, 02:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Sep 20 2004, 05:46 PM) |
| Much like yourself. Give it up nemt, before you at least pretended to make a point, now you and people like das helghast and EverythingButAnAnswer are one in the same. Tools for murder = weapon and nothing else. |
So if I bought a pistol, I'm predestined to commit a crime with it?
So you're not only a 1984 style omnipotent government power, but Nostradamus too?
You go back and take a gun out of the hands of everyone who's ever defended him or herself with it, and they're all dead.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 20, 2004, 03:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 20 2004, 04:52 PM) |
| You go back and take a gun out of the hands of everyone who's ever defended him or herself with it, and they're all dead. |
you go back and take away an assault weapons from anyone and what will happen............
murder will go down, terrorism would suffer, but i gurantee you no one would die from not "defending" themselves
Post by: Colonel Wilhelm Klink on September 20, 2004, 09:57:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 21, 2004, 02:26:00 PM
Now the terrorists can take back REAL souveniers.
Post by: Baner on September 21, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| you go back and take away an assault weapons from anyone and what will happen............ |
We're left with lots of weakly armed military men. You're rebutile will be, I was talking about civilians in the US
Mine will be, how many people do you see get murder by an assault rifle.
If you're going to ban Assault rifles, you may as well ban pistols, you can do the same amount of damage with a glock and hollow tips in the hands of an untrained regular criminal as you can with a assault rifle.
Post by: nemt on September 22, 2004, 08:37:00 AM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 22, 2004, 04:01:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Maximumbeing why dont u stop posting because obviously you have no idea what your talking about. All you talk about terrorists getting these guns. I bet you haven't even shot,held, or even saw a "assault weapon" in your life. |
Yeah I've never 'saw' a gun before in my life.
I guess that's supposed to be seen, but one can never be too sure.
Bush supports the ban
| QUOTE |
| As a candidate in 2000, Bush had backed the ban, and he said recently he would sign it if the Republican-led Congress sent it to him. |
K98 is retarded
There you have it, ass.
You're making it even easier for a terrorist to get a gun, I fail to see what your arguement is.
Post by: HeLiuM on September 24, 2004, 02:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 24 2004, 07:11 AM) |
| I meant in real life lol. Your one of those people trying to say guns are bad when you don't even have any knowledge of them. Well according to Kerry 500 people should be dead or more from terrorists attacks after the ban ended. So far nothing has happened except law abiding citizens like me to be able to buy what I want. |
And where exactly did Kerry say that?
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 24, 2004, 03:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 24 2004, 01:11 AM) |
| I meant in real life lol. Your one of those people trying to say guns are bad when you don't even have any knowledge of them. Well according to Kerry 500 people should be dead or more from terrorists attacks after the ban ended. So far nothing has happened except law abiding citizens like me to be able to buy what I want. |
wait, is your sole arguement (or reply i should say) that people dont know about guns?
your joking right?
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 24, 2004, 07:56:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I meant in real life lol. Your one of those people trying to say guns are bad when you don't even have any knowledge of them. |
So because I've never killed anything with a gun before, I have no valid standing point for arguement?
Do you wish to take that statement back now?
Wow.
Post by: nemt on September 24, 2004, 08:04:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 24 2004, 10:59 PM) |
| So because I've never killed anything with a gun before, I have no valid standing point for arguement? |
If your opinion is that of total gun restriction, you have no business arguing for an assault weapons ban on the grounds of these weapons being "excessive," as it is not only irrelevant, but only part of a hidden authoritarian agenda you "liberals" have.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 24, 2004, 08:09:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 24, 2004, 08:13:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 24 2004, 10:07 PM) |
| If your opinion is that of total gun restriction, you have no business arguing for an assault weapons ban on the grounds of these weapons being "excessive," as it is not only irrelevant, but only part of a hidden authoritarian agenda you "liberals" have. |
when will you ever pull your head out of your ass?
can i ask that, because once you do, then start responding again
basically, all youve been saying is assault weapons are needed to be kept legal so that people who defend themselves can cuase more physical damage in a less amount of time
that sums it up
will you please tell me why assault weapons are needed?
a ban on an uneeded, deadly item is always right, how could it ever be wrong????
well, coke is deadly, but since we dont want to end up in a society were people have to have barcodes on themselves, we mine as well make it legal
and liberals are authoritative??
lets look at that real quick
liberal, authoritative
do they even go together?
Post by: hardcoregamer on September 25, 2004, 11:30:00 PM
http://www.economist...Story_ID=513031
http://www.nationmas...h-T/cri_mur_cap
Post by: hardcoregamer on September 25, 2004, 11:33:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 26, 2004, 01:24:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 26 2004, 12:25 AM) |
| What do you mean silently? Only subsonic ammo can be used with a silencer and those are pistol rounds. Yes i believe anti-gun people don't know shit about guns. They just stand up there and tell people these are bad because they kill people and aren't used for hunting. Well auto accident kill people, smoking, chemicals, and even the sun kills people. So should it be illegal to smoke or go out in the sun without sun block on? Should cars be banned from going over 20 mph? Should we ban all toxic chemicals? They kill so many more people than guns. If these guns aren't used for hunting or defense so what. There's a thing called the second amendment that tells me that I have the right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot take that right away. I don't have to give a reason why I need a particular rifle or pistol. Lastly I asked if you own, fired, or even saw a Assault Rifle in real life. I never even said nor hinted about killing something. |
wow, your very very ignorant
cars kill people because the people behind the wheel misuse them
thats why we have regulations for cars
smoking is someones one choice, if you smoke, its your choice so it counts as suicide, but we still put regulations on that too
the skin cancer thing is dumb, its a natural thing retard
now, lets look at guns..........
the moment people want to regulate guns (such as cars and smoking is) you gung ho hicks start to complain
grow up, seriously
and using self defense is the worst come back, being able to put 20 more rounds in someone, or shooting someone faster then with a pistol is no excuse to allow these guns, and anyone that hunts with them is a retarded hick
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 26, 2004, 03:11:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Have a look at the crime rates for the world. Ill have you know that the highest crimerates are in places where assault riffles are banned, as in banned for real, not like the fake ban on assault riffles that we had. Guns in general are hard to come by in england, austrailia, germany, and france. |
No matter how bad the rest of the world is with bans, it wont change the fact that our violent crime rate went down after the ban was passed.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 26, 2004, 08:10:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I dont give a shit if they are used for hunting or self defense. The foundign fathers gave me that right to own guns and it should never be questioned. |
The founding fathers also seperated Church and State, but I still hear "under god" all the time.
Amendments are meant to amended, because as the times change, so must our laws.
Post by: moistness on September 27, 2004, 05:35:00 AM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 27 2004, 02:07 AM) |
| Your just a sheep |
You got a problem with sheep?
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 27, 2004, 09:02:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Its in the bill of rights and i think that means it cant be changed. I'm done posting on this topic, it's just too much antigun nonsense here |
They wouldn't be called AMENDMENTS if they weren't meant to be AMENDED.
Feel free to be as retarded as your gun-flinging trigger-happy self pleases to be though.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 27, 2004, 07:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 26 2004, 09:07 PM) |
| I dont give a shit if they are used for hunting or self defense. The foundign fathers gave me that right to own guns and it should never be questioned. face it AWB is over and more restrictions will be comign down because they are useless and unconstitutional. Dont call me a hick either. Take a look at your sig someday. Your just a sheep |
wow, talk about arrgoance and a big ass ego
Post by: gto65l on September 27, 2004, 08:17:00 PM
A folding stock
A pistol grip
A grenade launcher
A clip that carries more than 10 rounds
A flash suppressor
A bayonet lug
1. Who really cares if your rifle has a folding stock or pistol grip. Congratulations, your rifle is a few inches shorter and can be fired like a pistol, which are still legal by the way.
2. Grenades are still ILLEGAL, so go ahead and attach a laucher, you can't do anything with it.
3. The ban only made it illegal to produce new clips that can carry more than 10 rounds. All you have to do is go to a gun show and pick up an older one that can hold more.
4. The flash suppressor is the only thing in this list that makes any real sense at all.
5. If some redneck wants to attach a knife to his rifle, lack of a bayonet lug is not going to stop him. That's what duct tape and bailing wire are for.
Please note that someone can have any ONE of these items on their rifle and it would still be considered legal. Therefore all of these items are prefectly legal to own and sell. If someone really wants an assault rifle, all they have to do is assemble one. So what exactly does the assault rifle ban really do? NOTHING!
BTW, for anyone confused. Silencers are STILL illegal to own by anyone without a class three liscense. Those have nothing to do with the assault rifle ban.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 28, 2004, 01:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (gto65l @ Sep 27 2004, 10:20 PM) |
| For something to be considered an assault rifle it must utilize more than one of the following: A folding stock A pistol grip A grenade launcher A clip that carries more than 10 rounds A flash suppressor A bayonet lug 1. Who really cares if your rifle has a folding stock or pistol grip. Congratulations, your rifle is a few inches shorter and can be fired like a pistol, which are still legal by the way. 2. Grenades are still ILLEGAL, so go ahead and attach a laucher, you can't do anything with it. 3. The ban only made it illegal to produce new clips that can carry more than 10 rounds. All you have to do is go to a gun show and pick up an older one that can hold more. 4. The flash suppressor is the only thing in this list that makes any real sense at all. 5. If some redneck wants to attach a knife to his rifle, lack of a bayonet lug is not going to stop him. That's what duct tape and bailing wire are for. Please note that someone can have any ONE of these items on their rifle and it would still be considered legal. Therefore all of these items are prefectly legal to own and sell. If someone really wants an assault rifle, all they have to do is assemble one. So what exactly does the assault rifle ban really do? NOTHING! BTW, for anyone confused. Silencers are STILL illegal to own by anyone without a class three liscense. Those have nothing to do with the assault rifle ban. |
ummm, your joking right??
the ban prevented the sale of certain guns, not guns accessories (and i realize those certain guns contained some or all of the above accessories) but you cant tell me a AR-15 is the same as a pistol, just with a few nice asseccories
Post by: Baner on September 28, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The founding fathers also seperated Church and State, but I still hear "under god" all the time. |
Butch like the rest of'em, you migh tmake it on TV too. No one is forcing you to say the pledge of alliegnce, nor read the words on the dollar bill.
If you're going to say that they need to ban AR's for the reason of them being deadly, they why not ban pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles for the same reason? Hell, follow in Austrlia's foot steps, it seemed to work over there...
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 28, 2004, 02:47:00 PM
I didn't know it was, "religion is ok in state since non-religious people can ignore it."
Your arguement is shit.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 28, 2004, 04:05:00 PM
Compare that to how often someone gets wasted by a pistol... you'll find pistols to be the real problem. Any asshole could probably pick one up in the wal-mart parking lot, and no one would ever know.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 28, 2004, 06:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 28 2004, 04:36 PM) |
| Raptor your wrong. What gto said is exactly true. The older gun ban banned the guns, this new one only limits the number of "accesories". Silencers are illegal, Flash suppresors only decrease the amount of light, "flash", the gun gives off when fired. Yuo can still purchase pre-ban weapons, but they cost more. As far as anyone should be conserned, a pistol is as deadly as a ar-15. Many pistols hold anywhere from 7-15 rounds in their clip, as for a post-ban ar-15... 10. Of course, full-auto is still illegal, and burst fire shoots 3 rounds, but considering if you get hit by one round, your more than likely down. As for the Amednments, you're right they are meant to change, if need be, and there is no need be. Butch like the rest of'em, you migh tmake it on TV too. No one is forcing you to say the pledge of alliegnce, nor read the words on the dollar bill. If you're going to say that they need to ban AR's for the reason of them being deadly, they why not ban pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles for the same reason? Hell, follow in Austrlia's foot steps, it seemed to work over there... |
sorry, i was referring to the old ban, didnt know they switched it up a little now.........
im still saying, for all those people getting up tight, why???
if a pistol or shotgun or whatever is "deadlier" then why is someone like nemt saying assault weapons are needed for defense?
its hypocritical
but the bottom line is, any ban on any type of gun is a step in the right direction, no matter how flawed it is
Post by: The unProfessional on September 28, 2004, 08:57:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 29, 2004, 03:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 28 2004, 10:37 PM) |
| Arghh..must not type..... That last quote just showed how little you know about this subject. does 1989 to 2004 equal 10 years? haha what a dumbass. you know nothing yet you speak on this topic like you do. Dont be worried because the media tricked you it tricks a lot of people who believe everything they hear is true when in fact it's far from the real truth. |
sorry, i will now change my ways
yay, go guns, kill everything that breathes, white trash rules, i love guns, yay
Post by: Ween311 on September 29, 2004, 04:30:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| yay, go guns, kill everything that breathes, white trash rules, i love guns, yay |
Not to sound like I'm flaming you, but there are other uses for guns. For example, did you know that shooting is an Olympic sport? They use rifles and pistols. I would hate to think of an Olympic athlete as white-trash. (Except for Tonya Harding of course.)
I know this doesn't add anything to the discussion of the assault weapons ban, but just to throw some more light onto what some people use guns for.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 29, 2004, 05:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ween311 @ Sep 29 2004, 06:33 PM) |
| Not to sound like I'm flaming you, but there are other uses for guns. For example, did you know that shooting is an Olympic sport? They use rifles and pistols. I would hate to think of an Olympic athlete as white-trash. (Except for Tonya Harding of course.) I know this doesn't add anything to the discussion of the assault weapons ban, but just to throw some more light onto what some people use guns for. |
yea, i know that there are still people out there who like to shoot for sport and such
but now a days all i hear from people is "yea, assault weapons, now we can kill some n***ers" or "yea, now we can kill things better" and shit like that
i never here an intelligent reason as to why we need these specific guns
i mean, yes, i like guns to (going to my friends house, shooting his .22 or shotgun or even kentucky long rifle)
but what joy do these guns bring?
Post by: The unProfessional on September 29, 2004, 05:13:00 PM
Assault rifles are much more fun to shoot than pistols
A reason why this isn't a big deal in the least:
Urban killings almost exclusively feature pistols
I honestly don't think people are buying assault rifles to "kill the mother f**". I'm much more worried about some fucker whipping out his nine and dropping the mother f** than pulling out an AR-15 or M4A1. Pistols are MUCH more effective murder weapons.
And all of the "gone postal" office killings seem to feature shotguns, sub-machine guns, or pistols.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 29, 2004, 06:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 29 2004, 07:16 PM) |
| Perfectly rational reason to own an assault rifle: Assault rifles are much more fun to shoot than pistols A reason why this isn't a big deal in the least: Urban killings almost exclusively feature pistols I honestly don't think people are buying assault rifles to "kill the mother f**". I'm much more worried about some fucker whipping out his nine and dropping the mother f** than pulling out an AR-15 or M4A1. Pistols are MUCH more effective murder weapons. And all of the "gone postal" office killings seem to feature shotguns, sub-machine guns, or pistols. |
yes, pistols are a cuase of alot of killings, but i was just citing what i hear from people (like today, people said that they were going to buy an assault rifle to shoot a negro if they pulled out there nine, or they were going to buy one so they could decimate a deer)
i understand there fun to shoot, but there also a choice weapon for alot of people (criminals) to commit robberies or the such (and yes, i understand that no matter what they could get an assault rifle but a ban is still a good measure to ensure its at least a challange to get one)
mainly, im sick of hearing about assault weapons and that the ban took away freedoms, it was merley there as a deterrent, and i wouldnt mind a bit if it was reinstated
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 29, 2004, 07:12:00 PM
You don't have any reason to own an assault rifle, and I'd rather you didn't have one.
Even Bush agrees.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 29, 2004, 07:16:00 PM
| QUOTE |
You don't have any reason to own an assault rifle, and I'd rather you didn't have one. |
Mostly, I agree. Assault rifles should be tough to get, but they shouldn't be outside of our rights by any means.
If people have the right to buy 4-ton SUVs with their shitty driving record and DUI history, then assault rifles aren't so bad. But I'm sure you can admit that banning Excursions, Escalades, and Navigators infringes on our rights.
Post by: cromat44 on September 29, 2004, 07:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 29 2004, 06:19 PM) |
| Mostly, I agree. Assault rifles should be tough to get, but they shouldn't be outside of our rights by any means. If people have the right to buy 4-ton SUVs with their shitty driving record and DUI history, then assault rifles aren't so bad. But I'm sure you can admit that banning Excursions, Escalades, and Navigators infringes on our rights. |
they banned three wheel atv's because they roll over a lot (atleast where i live....)... not many people complained there... but thats not really relevant at all...
Assault Rifles are okay in my opinion, but i think they should require a higher class license... They really areen't the choice for criminals...
although that bank robbery in 97' in LA (that is about an hour from here) where they wore full body armor and had AK-47s and some modified sniper that was full auto( i think it was) was an example of bad people using ARs.... but they bought them illegally anyway...
Post by: The unProfessional on September 29, 2004, 07:40:00 PM
The dangerous part of those guys was their armor... perhaps we should ban kevlar.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 29, 2004, 07:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 29 2004, 09:43 PM) |
| Yeah... i have to discount any use of AK-47s as being relevant to the assault rifle ban. AKs are cheap and easy to acquire for criminals who need them. When someone is about to rob a bank (and waste a bunch of cops), I doubt they'll think for a second about some stupid ban that really only controlled modifications TO assault rifles. The dangerous part of those guys was their armor... perhaps we should ban kevlar. |
yes, i understand were your coming from
the point i was trying to make is that the ban itself wasnt a bad idea, and reinstating it isnt a bad thing
i understand people want these guns for fun, but others want them for no reason at all yet still try to say without them there freedoms are being trampled
Post by: The unProfessional on September 29, 2004, 10:59:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 30, 2004, 12:06:00 AM
That ban was a joke it didn't stop anyone from acquiring an automatic assault weapon (it only affected guns that looked like assault weapons, as long it looked like dad's hunting rifle, you were ok), and won't change any of that now. All that it means now is that law abiding citizens can acquire them legally, after undergoing a thorough background check. It has no effect on the underground economy.EDIT: 67thRaptorBull, you are a fucking vagina.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 30, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Sep 30 2004, 02:09 AM) |
| That ban was a joke it didn't stop anyone from acquiring an automatic assault weapon (it only affected guns that looked like assault weapons, as long it looked like dad's hunting rifle, you were ok), and won't change any of that now. All that it means now is that law abiding citizens can acquire them legally, after undergoing a thorough background check. It has no effect on the underground economy. EDIT: 67thRaptorBull, you are a fucking vagina. |
wow, your still here
its amazing...........
and Unpro, i agree, there definatly are other rights and freedoms that need to be addressed before this ban
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 07:10:00 PM
I think the fact that the government can tap my phone without a warrant is an attack on my rights.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 07:18:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 07:29:00 PM
Religion's halfway there.
Media wings itself by choice.
I understand where you're coming from, but if the amendment is obsolete, then it should be amended.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 30, 2004, 07:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (K98 @ Sep 30 2004, 09:07 PM) |
| They are adressing that statement by repealing Gun restrictions. I think yesterday the House voted to repeal the Dc gun ban by a demanding count. The right to Keep and Bear arms was being attacked and still is until every ban is lifted. |
so what your basically saying is that protecting your right to own a gun youll never need is the most important thing?
well, once the government hauls your ass to prison for 3 years before allowing you a lawyer, come back and say that statement to me again
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 08:05:00 PM
I was just going off on a rant about religious freedom, sorry, I do that.
Post by: K98 on September 30, 2004, 08:13:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 30, 2004, 08:16:00 PM
Post by: thewickedjester on October 15, 2004, 04:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Sep 14 2004, 09:05 AM) |
| Please think of the children. You know that We The People doesn't mean the citizens. It means the government. So the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means only the government can have arms. |
One big thing wrong with this statement if someone else hasnt pointed out that Wong Hung Lo is mistaken on.
WE ARE A SELF GOVERNING PEOPLE
So WE are the government.
| CODE |
| I don't have a problem with all guns, I have a problem with guns that can kill someone silently from 500 yards away at night. I live in Maryland, we have enough problems with snipers WITHOUT all the technology. |
Heres another one: Guess what, almost all the weapons used in the manner that you are talking about. Are bought illegally, so a weapons ban, wouldnt help.
And in case no one else brought up the point, on the weapons ban, I might as well:
The weapons ban that was lifted was not on fully automatic weapons, only semi automatic replicas.
Fully auto weapons have been banned from sale in the United States scince 1938 and can only be bought by people with the appropriate liscence (very few people have this permit)
(edit) edited because some of the thigns i said made me look like a dumbass myself, thanks to everyone else for pointing it out (/edit)
Post by: thewickedjester on October 15, 2004, 05:55:00 PM
Post by: gronne on October 16, 2004, 05:46:00 PM
Post by: K98 on October 16, 2004, 07:43:00 PM
The last debate he made one of the dumbest replies to letting the AWB sunset.
I don't think anybody is fooled by his "hunter" nonsense. He owns 1 sidebyside shotgun, and i think thats it.