Another gun control rant.

[Ranb]

I was flipping through the channels after work while propping up my swollen ankle and found myself watching a woman lecturing in front of a picture of an AK47 rifle. I noticed the corner of the screen said Cspan, so I figured it would not be a fun speech.

This woman (I forget her name) was going on and on about why the assault weapons ban should be extended. I could not help but notice her speech was not entirely truthful. She said the rifle pictured in back of her was an example of what people were being killed with in Haiti and Iraq. Either she was rather ignorant, or a liar. Assuming she was prepared for her time on the floor, I would have to say she was lying.

The rebels and insurgents fighting in the before mentioned countries are using machineguns, not semi-automatic rifles. The assault weapons ban only addresses semi-automatic rifles; it does not restrict machine guns in any way. Lying to the public while on the Congress floor is in poor form, but it is increasingly accepted today.

She also went on to say the standard lines "no sporting purpose", and "on the street". She needs to spend more time out of the house or away from Washington DC to know that Americans enjoy shooting semi-automatic rifles for recreation, this includes the ak47, ar15, M14, M1a, and others. But in her eyes, plinking is not a sporting use at all. Since when are ALL these weapons on the street? The only time mine are "on the street" is when they are locked in my truck on the way to the rifle range or hunting area.

This speech was just another example of the dishonesty that is so routinely flouted in Congress today. It turns my stomach to hear these words coming from a fellow American. It is not good enough for these freaks to ban guns; they have to make it a felony to own them. They hate gun owners, they really do. I doubt there is anything they can say to make me believe otherwise. Done ranting for now.

Ranb

[Zero]

Well, thank goodness you are done, I was about to call the nurse to sedate you...:p

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for that, Ranb, I was thinking it has been a long time since we last had a gun thread, and was going to start one of my own.

[Zero]

My question is always simple: why not get weapons experts to testify? Instead, they always have someone who ooks at all firearms with complete distaste. I would much prefer that they ask me to do it...:D

[Tony]

Whether it's the anti-gay marraige crowd, the anti-drug crowd or the anti-gun crowd, America is full of people who hate individual freedom.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Ranb
Lying to the public while on the Congress floor is in poor form, but it is increasingly accepted today.


If someone could name one politician who hasn't done this, would they qualify for the million dollar prize?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Thanks for that, Ranb, I was thinking it has been a long time since we last had a gun thread, and was going to start one of my own. Another gun thread, hurrah! Fair dinkum, those gun control "freaks" should all be rounded up and shot.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony
Whether it's the anti-gay marraige crowd, the anti-drug crowd or the anti-gun crowd, America is full of people who hate individual freedom.

Yeah and how about those b@$t@rd anti-racist crowd impinging on my right to do whatever the hell I want ?

People who are anti-gun tend to be pro-not being shot at

Repeat gun control argument ad-nauseam

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Don


Yeah and how about those b@$t@rd anti-racist crowd impinging on my right to do whatever the hell I want ?

People who are anti-gun tend to be pro-not being shot at

Repeat gun control argument ad-nauseam

I have a problem with people taking baseball bats to street protests, but I can't figure out if it just because I hate ball sports or because I hate wood.

And before we get the usual clowns suggesting it....I don't think cars could or should be banned (or guns).

ok, over to the usual crowd to tell me what I really think...

[jcon96]

Personally,given the average person I meet,I would not trust them with anything more harmful that string. That being said, and I DO have the training in question. To own a firearm a person should be required to:

1. Complete a comprehensive training program, to include safety,accuracy and maintenance training.

2. Register and maintain the whereabouts at all times of said firemarms on a yearly basis.

3. Be held at least partly responsible for the theft and possible use of said firearm in a crime(after all,they are not that hard to secure,and I do not mean in a paper bag on the top shelf of a closet.)

So bring on the "I know my rights attacks"

[Lothian]

Originally posted by The Fool

ok, over to the usual crowd to tell me what I really think... You think we have forgotten your promise to run naked round the white house. The campaign continues. Do it fool.

But back to the real issue, it has been a while since there was a gun thread, why is that?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Lothian
You think we have forgotten your promise to run naked round the white house. The campaign continues. Do it fool.

But back to the real issue, it has been a while since there was a gun thread, why is that?
What promise? I don't know what you are talking about....

I think there has not been a gun thread for a while because they give people headaches... Or Maybe Richard G has had a gun cleaning mishap and put a .38 hollow through his keyboard.

[Zero]

Originally posted by jcon96
Personally,given the average person I meet,I would not trust them with anything more harmful that string. That being said, and I DO have the training in question. To own a firearm a person should be required to:

1. Complete a comprehensive training program, to include safety,accuracy and maintenance training.

2. Register and maintain the whereabouts at all times of said firemarms on a yearly basis.

3. Be held at least partly responsible for the theft and possible use of said firearm in a crime(after all,they are not that hard to secure,and I do not mean in a paper bag on the top shelf of a closet.)

So bring on the "I know my rights attacks" See, that is just crazy...The 2nd Amendment says nothing about intelligent or responsible gun ownership, therefore if I want to keep my gun hidden wrapped in soggy newspaper under my infant's crib, that is my freedom!!

[Iconoclast]

Call me crazy, but I've got a feeling this gun thread will finally end in concensus.

[Ed]

From that pinko rag the NY Times, in their pinko commie simpering editorial section (today)

"Failing that, gun-control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hope that they can at least amend the bill by adding a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which is about to run out after 10 years of protecting the public. But even that vital measure is being pronounced dead before arrival in the House in this election year."

There was no evidence that so-called "assault" rifles were a problem in the first place. Therefore a law that bans them is largely irrelevant, yet the Times says that it "protected the public". A lie. What purpose for such a law than to lead us down a slippery slope?

I am somewhat open minded on the gun control debate but to counter as strong a force as the NYT one is almost forced into a reactionary stance.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


Yeah and how about those b@$t@rd anti-racist crowd impinging on my right to do whatever the hell I want ?


Knee-jerk irrelevance.

People who are anti-gun tend to be pro-not being shot at

False dichotomy. People who are pro-gun tend to be pro-not being shot at too.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed
From that pinko rag the NY Times, in their pinko commie simpering editorial section (today)

"Failing that, gun-control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hope that they can at least amend the bill by adding a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which is about to run out after 10 years of protecting the public. But even that vital measure is being pronounced dead before arrival in the House in this election year."

There was no evidence that so-called "assault" rifles were a problem in the first place. Therefore a law that bans them is largely irrelevant, yet the Times says that it "protected the public". A lie. What purpose for such a law than to lead us down a slippery slope?

I am somewhat open minded on the gun control debate but to counter as strong a force as the NYT one is almost forced into a reactionary stance.

You just don't understand what the phrase "protecting the public" means in reality:

Protecting the public (in politics):

The act of taking measure, no matter how short sighted, imprecise, or logically irrelevant in order to be percieved by the voters as doing something about the problem thus serving the public by ensuring that the actor is re-elected and is in a position to continue to serve the best interests of the public. Any actual net benefit to the public from this measure is not relevant, as even a negative effect can be justified by simply claiming "it would have been even worse, thank Jesus I was here to at least prevent that."

[Charlie Monoxide]

They hate gun owners, they really do. I doubt there is anything they can say to make me believe otherwise. Done ranting for now.

Whether it's the anti-gay marraige crowd, the anti-drug crowd or the anti-gun crowd, America is full of people who hate individual freedom.

Thanks guys for clearing up the reason a number of citizens would like gun control installed.

Charlie (love the gun owner, hate the gun) Monoxide

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed
From that pinko rag the NY Times, in their pinko commie simpering editorial section (today)

"Failing that, gun-control advocates like Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, hope that they can at least amend the bill by adding a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which is about to run out after 10 years of protecting the public. But even that vital measure is being pronounced dead before arrival in the House in this election year."

There was no evidence that so-called "assault" rifles were a problem in the first place. Therefore a law that bans them is largely irrelevant, yet the Times says that it "protected the public". A lie. What purpose for such a law than to lead us down a slippery slope?

I am somewhat open minded on the gun control debate but to counter as strong a force as the NYT one is almost forced into a reactionary stance. Careful...your bias is showing...:p

What confuses me is that when a politician who some people like, say GW Bush, does something stupid and ignorant that he claims "makes us safer", most of those people applaud him for "doing something". It is all politics, I think, and very little of either extreme position is based on reality.

[corplinx]

An ak47 chambered in 7.62mm makes a heck of a deer rifle. Chambered in .223 caliber its only good for sport shooting or plinking.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx
An ak47 chambered in 7.62mm makes a heck of a deer rifle. Chambered in .223 caliber its only good for sport shooting or plinking. If it is chambered in 5.56mm, does it really count as an AK47?:p

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Zero
See, that is just crazy...The 2nd Amendment says nothing about intelligent or responsible gun ownership, therefore if I want to keep my gun hidden wrapped in soggy newspaper under my infant's crib, that is my freedom!!

I won't make the mistake that you are second amendment scholar. The nice thing about the second amendment is that the spirit of the law is clearly defined "for the purpose of a well-armed militia" and so is the letter of the law "the freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now, if you store your gun in a soggy newspaper my guess is you are not competent enough to serve in a militia.

America needs to pursue some progressive measures and require gun education for gun ownership as well as mandate storage for guns. The spirit of the law implies proficiency and competency since you are no use to a militia with today's modern firearms without those two things.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx

America needs to pursue some progressive measures and require gun education for gun ownership as well as mandate storage for guns. The spirit of the law implies proficiency and competency since you are no use to a militia with today's modern firearms without those two things.


In spirit, I agree with you. But such measures would be used to deny gun ownership in some places. Look at how the "registration" system is abused in Chicago.

[Zero]

Originally posted by corplinx


I won't make the mistake that you are second amendment scholar. The nice thing about the second amendment is that the spirit of the law is clearly defined "for the purpose of a well-armed militia" and so is the letter of the law "the freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Now, if you store your gun in a soggy newspaper my guess is you are not competent enough to serve in a militia.

America needs to pursue some progressive measures and require gun education for gun ownership as well as mandate storage for guns. The spirit of the law implies proficiency and competency since you are no use to a militia with today's modern firearms without those two things. You must be an anti-gun liberal!!!:p I can store my guns anyway I like!! My and my cousin Jimmy James are a militia, it says so on our "Miller Lite Militia" bumper stickers! Har har!!


*deep breath* Ok, I'm done with my impersonation of a NRA zombie. Reasonable licencing and safety measures are perfectly logical responses to the issue of firearms. Too bad that extremists have taken over the debate.

[Jaan]

Originally posted by Zero
If it is chambered in 5.56mm, does it really count as an AK47?:p

Automat Kalashnikov model 1947 ... doesn't say anything about what it has to be chambered in. I love the fact that 7.62 mm is the Russian way of saying .30 caliber though (c: I can just hear Mr. Chekov now ... "yeas keptin, da .30-30 Vinchester vas a Wussian einvension!"

You know, I'm delighted with this new debate about gay marriage. It's not because I think it's wrong, but so that the radical liberals can feel how I felt through 8 years of Clinton ... especially with the Governators comments the other day associating drugs and guns with gay marriage. What the people who were upset about that comment didn't realize, is that it is the same thing. The same political dance, just a different tune.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
Careful...your bias is showing...:p

The funny thing is that I think that I am pretty reasonable on the issue. I think that guns can reduce crime but am perfectly aware that guns (in the wrong hands) are a source of misery.

I think that we probably have too many gun laws, many put in place by toadying, sycophantic, weak-kneed, power grasping politicions (some 20,000 at last count, laws that is) that are simply not enforced where they should be. If a person has an gun illegally, or uses on in the comission of a crime or even has one on their person when committing a crime I'd put them away for 30 years or so. What kind of crimes? Bad ones, like felonies.

I have no particular problems with background checks and the like provided there is a clear statement that there is a right, in the USA, for private gun posession and use. The difficulty is that laws tend not to go away, they just become more onerous. That is why I tend to react, or over react, to statements like the one in the Times.

I think that those that are anti-gun are often unrealistic. With 200,000,00 some odd firearms in private hands in the USA an idealistic "we know what's best for you" approach is simply doomed. The bad guys will always be able to get firearms. That is a simple fact of life that the anti-gun crowd does not seem to care about.

The "assault weapon" ban was a bullsh!t law, put in place for bullsh!t reasons, to address non-existant problems. The Times thinks, palpably, that this thinking and lawmaking is good for the country. I find it very difficult to understand how anyone, in possession of the facts, could agree.

The rather supercilious attitude of many Europeans is completely irrelevant to the discussion in the US. Whether coming from a nation with a virtually completely homogenious population or one whose "frontier era" was 2000 years ago, they simply cannot apprehend, and are not capable of relating to, the American culture. That is a level of ignorance that no boatload of statistics can overcome. And that is not meant to be derogatory or belittling, they just don't know.

End of rant.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
Careful...your bias is showing...:p

What confuses me is that when a politician who some people like, say GW Bush, does something stupid and ignorant that he claims "makes us safer", most of those people applaud him for "doing something". It is all politics, I think, and very little of either extreme position is based on reality.

FYI, I think that he is an idiot.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Zero
........Reasonable licencing and safety measures are perfectly logical responses to the issue of firearms. Too bad that extremists have taken over the debate.

What are these "Reasonable licensing and safety measures" you speak of? Would they be the criminalization of rifles equipped with flash suppressors or protruding handgrips? Or the banning of the so-called "high capacity" magazines? How about the $200 tax on NFA weapons? Or the fact that I have to get the local sheriff's permission (he can deny based on race/sex/creed if he wants to) in writing to buy an NFA weapon? Are yearly fees for gun ownership acceptable to you? Who should pay for all these so-called safety measures?

So many people throw around statements like these to support measures that put victimless crimes on the books. I hope you are not one of them.

Am I an extremist if I want to own a machinegun or a suppressor (silencer)? How about owning a hundred rifles and one hundred thousand rounds of ammo? I have been called an extremist for much less here at home when talking about my hobbies.

Ranb

[Zero]

Maybe the American culture in relation to guns is a little...nutty?

Anyhoo, that's besides the point. The assault rifle ban seems to be based on appearance of the weapon, instead of use. I'd restrict anything that is fully automatic, or can be converted to full auto with minimal tools and knowledge. Besides that, anything goes, with proper licencing of course.;)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ranb


What are these "Reasonable licensing and safety measures" you speak of? Would they be the criminalization of rifles equipped with flash suppressors or protruding handgrips? Or the banning of the so-called "high capacity" magazines? How about the $200 tax on NFA weapons? Or the fact that I have to get the local sheriff's permission (he can deny based on race/sex/creed if he wants to) in writing to buy an NFA weapon? Are yearly fees for gun ownership acceptable to you? Who should pay for all these so-called safety measures?

So many people throw around statements like these to support measures that put victimless crimes on the books. I hope you are not one of them.

Am I an extremist if I want to own a machinegun or a suppressor (silencer)? How about owning a hundred rifles and one hundred thousand rounds of ammo? I have been called an extremist for much less here at home when talking about my hobbies.

Ranb Why don't you take a deep breath? I can *hear* your yelling through my monitor! You certainly do seem like an extremist.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I don't have a problem with gun ownership, I have a problem with the stability of my neighbors.

--And just how do these losers who get the big headache and start blowing away schoolchildren or office workers, who have been unemployed for a long time and/or just got out of jail/mental hospital manage to find the funds to have an arsenal in their homes? They always seem to have hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, but not enough money to buy soap. What gives? What's the secret?

[Jaan]

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe the American culture in relation to guns is a little...nutty?

Anyhoo, that's besides the point. The assault rifle ban seems to be based on appearance of the weapon, instead of use. I'd restrict anything that is fully automatic, or can be converted to full auto with minimal tools and knowledge. Besides that, anything goes, with proper licencing of course.;)

Minimal tools and knowledge? Any machinist worth his salt could make a machine gun (c: This is 100 year old tech.

Yeah, that's it ... we should ban any metal working tools! All those evil hardware stores selling hacksaws so ordinary gang bangers can make sawed off shotguns!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jaan


Minimal tools and knowledge? Any machinist worth his salt could make a machine gun (c: This is 100 year old tech.

Yeah, that's it ... we should ban any metal working tools! All those evil hardware stores selling hacksaws so ordinary gang bangers can make sawed off shotguns! Good idea!!:D

There is something that can be done, though....right?

[Jaan]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I don't have a problem with gun ownership, I have a problem with the stability of my neighbors.

--And just how do these losers who get the big headache and start blowing away schoolchildren or office workers, who have been unemployed for a long time and/or just got out of jail/mental hospital manage to find the funds to have an arsenal in their homes? They always seem to have hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, but not enough money to buy soap. What gives? What's the secret?

Willpower?

You've touched on something though ... why do people commit violent acts? It doesn't have anything to do with guns specifically. People have been known to drive cars into crowds, stab people with kitchen knives, bash their brains in with baseball bats, or fly airplanes into buildings.

I think probably the saddest part of this whole political nonsense, is that the powers that be care more about votes than about genuinely trying to improve conditions for the general population ... and that most people don't give a rats @$$ about freedom as long as they're comfortable.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you take a deep breath? I can *hear* your yelling through my monitor! You certainly do seem like an extremist.

Just calm down and read the question. I was just wondering what your version of reasonable licensing and safety measures is, nothing else dude.

Why do you think I am an extremist? I have not actually said much about my charactor or what firearms I own.

Ranb

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ranb


Just calm down and read the question. I was just wondering what your version of reasonable licensing and safety measures is, nothing else dude.

Why do you think I am an extremist? I have not actually said much about my charactor or what firearms I own.

Ranb Reasonable licencing means just what it sounds like, which would probably include streamlining the current system more than anything else.

[Jaan]

Originally posted by Zero
Good idea!!:D

There is something that can be done, though....right?
I'm sure there is something that can be done, but I don't think it will be as easy as simply passing a law.

If we're talking about regulating physical objects ... the genie is out of the bottle. The knowledge is there to make these things. Let's not forget how heavily regulated explosives are, and how often they're used to commit acts of extreme violence. Our caveman ancestors were making some pretty decent weapons way back when with the simplest of tools. Try passing laws that would make it impossible for someone to make a sling.

However, what is the end goal? I believe ultimately people want a utopian society, or something close to it. Someplace where you can live without fear of lethal violence. So we're talking about preventing violent behavior towards another human.

I don't know exactly how it could be accomplished, but the society we live in now isn't that bad really. There are things that work, like education, good jobs, teaching children responsibility, engendering fair play through mock combat sports ... things like that. I think for a start people need to look within themselves though, and realize they are just as responsible for the "problems" in our society as those "other" people. Mia Culpa.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe the American culture in relation to guns is a little...nutty?

Anyhoo, that's besides the point. The assault rifle ban seems to be based on appearance of the weapon, instead of use. I'd restrict anything that is fully automatic, or can be converted to full auto with minimal tools and knowledge. Besides that, anything goes, with proper licencing of course.;)

Nutty is a relative term. I think that the French penchant for Berets is pretty nutty too.

Your notion of what it takes to convert a firearm to full auto might be a bit too subjective. I recall reading how John Browning converted a lever action rifle to full auto. No, I think that if full auto requires a special license, but is otherwise legal, you throw the book at anyone without the proper paperwork rather than try to restrict the object, per se.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed


Nutty is a relative term. I think that the French penchant for Berets is pretty nutty too.

Your notion of what it takes to convert a firearm to full auto might be a bit too subjective. I recall reading how John Browning converted a lever action rifle to full auto. No, I think that if full auto requires a special license, but is otherwise legal, you throw the book at anyone without the proper paperwork rather than try to restrict the object, per se. Isn't that like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't that like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped?

Don't most laws cover behavior, not the possibility of commiting a crime? Anyhoo, the barn door is open, 200,000,000, remember?

Note to add: I am pretty sure that being in possession of the parts necessary for a conversion is the same as if you had made the conversion.

How many deaths do you think occured due to full auto firearms in the USA? Again, we are talking laws that address a non-existant problem.

Another note: Are you aware that a credit card will take as sharp an edge as a box cutter? Try it. If we wish to talk about pre-emptive legislation, this area is one of more concern to me at least, than machineguns. The problem is that this is not quite as sexy and encapsulated as machineguns, though worthy of greater concern.

[Zero]

Never mind...the "machine gun" issue is a minor detail anyways, and barely worth getting sidetracked over. :p

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
Never mind...the "machine gun" issue is a minor detail anyways, and barely worth getting sidetracked over. :p

Right, I agree. But it is part of the slippery slope, IMHO.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed


Right, I agree. But it is part of the slippery slope, IMHO. Nah, screw that slippery slope stuff.

[Kodiak]

Laws banning guns have no effect says the CDC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085844-8119r.htm)

[Ed]

You have a reference? The CDC site, typically, makes it a bit hard.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Laws banning guns have no effect says the CDC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085844-8119r.htm) Your link means NOTHING!!!:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed
You have a reference? The CDC site, typically, makes it a bit hard.

Here you go... (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)


From the CDC study:

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Ed


The rather supercilious attitude of many Europeans is completely irrelevant to the discussion in the US. Whether coming from a nation with a virtually completely homogenious population or one whose "frontier era" was 2000 years ago, they simply cannot apprehend, and are not capable of relating to, the American culture. That is a level of ignorance that no boatload of statistics can overcome. And that is not meant to be derogatory or belittling, they just don't know.

End of rant.

Very true.

But it works both ways..........

[jcon96]

All i know,given the average person on the street I see, controls laws should be very tight...and the "only criminals will have guns" line does not work. I own a pistol,it is liscensed, and I am well versed in all aspects of it. Grandma with a .357 in her purse? Not so sure she really knows what is what.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Very true.

But it works both ways..........

No question.