Actually many do. With a little knowledge, a semi-auto can be converted into a full-auto in someone’s basement. That’s where they come from - people make them. I’m sure a large number are smuggled in the country, too. The rest of the illegal machine guns on the street are those stolen from law enforcement and military.
So denying a citizen the right to own a machine gun is not going to take that right away from military or law enforcement. And since their weapons account for a large number of illegal machine guns in circulation, criminals will still have them. So how are you being protected?
BTW, you are going to show me proof of machineguns (illegal or legal) being a danger to your health, right?
Uh, there’s this thing called “the rest of the world.” The only thing seperating us Americans from it is our borders. You know, those same borders that allow millions of illegal immigrants and tons of pounds of cocaine through every year.
I think what he’s getting at is the “Firearms manufacturers need to be held liable for damage/death caused by their weapons”, argument. I could be wrong though.
You, who demand so many cites from others, you got a cite for that? Every cop I’ve talked to says that gun registration is a pain in the butt, a waste of their time and taxpayer’s money, and has not to their knowledge ever solved or prevented one crime.
Well, let me rephrase that, it has, on occassion, been helpful in getting stolen guns back to their rightful owners. Perhaps you say “See, pro-gunners should be happy!” I say that anyone who permits their guns to be stolen doesn’t deserve to get them back!
Oh I left one out. One other way machine guns end up in illegal circulation is through theft while in transit. This was once a bigger problem than it is now. Basically, what happens is parcel workers were stealing boxes shipped from manufacturers and dealers that they assumed were machine guns. Many times, they were right.
Back when I worked for a dealer, and I sent hundreds of machine guns through UPS, I never accurately labeled the contents. But if someone wanted to steal a machine gun, and they saw a long heavy box being shipped from Heckler and Koch to Machine Gun Supply, Inc, they pretty much knew what it was.
So here are the ways in which machine guns end up in the hands of criminals:
Smuggled In
Converting Semi-Autos into Full-Autos
Stealing Machine Guns from Law Enforcement or Military
Stealing Machine Guns while in Transit between dealers, manufacturers, LE, and military
Another ban against civilian ownership of machine guns would not prevent any of those.
Elucidate me, blowero. I am a rational gun owner and a Democrat. I disagree with the AWB, and other “activist” decisions/bans that have recently been enacted(.50 BMG ban in California-AB50). I disagree that there is a prevalence of illegal or loophole sales at gunshows-especially in California. I disagree that Machine guns are a problem and must be banned, though I wouldn’t want just any joker to own one and I problably wouldn’t own one myself.
I don’t feel that bear_nenno is throwing up strawmen anymore than you or anybody else in this thread. Machineguns don’t kill people-handguns kill people. Machineguns-illegally or legally purchased-don’t even constitute a fraction of a percent of crimes or murders.
Scarily enough, there are many more of them out there than you can even think of. I work with gun owners every day. When these guys run afoul of the law, they come to my firm to get expert 2nd amendment legal advice and representation. I know just how common Assault Weapons and Machine guns are…with ownership of these guns as high as I see it(and in a very liberal part of california, too), almost none of them are in trouble for criminal/civil liabilities regarding the use of the weapon, just the ownership of said weapon.
Semi-auto shotguns aren’t any faster than pump shotguns and ought not be banned. Dress-up items for make a utilitarian gun appear as if they are militarized ought not be banned either as most of them do absolutely nothing for performance and don’t make them “killing machines”, like the press wants you to think.
For anyone that’s been paying attention, as apparently you have not, Diane Feinstein has been quoted as stating, officially, on the record, that if she could have gotten the votes to ban guns completely, (her comment was, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in…”) she would have done it.
Now that is something I can get behind. Only the military, police and higher-up government officials have any business owning private automobiles. If we get rid of these instruments of destruction (and I’m talking, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!) we will save countless innocent lives, there will be less crime (imagine a bank robber making his getaway on a bus!) and we won’t be so dependent on foreign oil that we have to invade Middle Eastern countries!
The money we save could fund dependable, complete, and safe public transportation. Door-to-door service, even!
No logical, reasonable person can justify ownership of private automobiles. What do you need a car for, huh? Going to go rob a liquor store? Want to race, do wheelies and run over little old ladies and cats?
It’s time America came into the 21st century. BAN CARS!
here’s a few slogans…
Get on the bus, it’s good for US!
Anyone with a brain, prefers the train.
Psychologically speaking, car ownership promotes anti-socialism, oops, I mean anti-social tendencies, which, we all know, leads to criminal behaviour!
Yeah, if we got rid of all the legal firearms, criminals couldn’t get them illegally. And if we got rid of all the legal drugs, people couldn’t get them illegally. And we have a problem with illegal aliens. Let’s get rid of all the legal alien so we won’t have illegal ones.
I know you think you’re being witty, but really, you sound like a fucking idiot. I don’t hear anybody here saying they think all guns should be banned. And your sarcasm falls flat because your comparison sucks: obviously cars are used primarily for transportation, not killing/injuring, which is really the only thing guns are used for (or made for, at least; I realize there are people who get their rocks off shooting at targets or collecting the things). You could list all kinds of things that cause death - bathtubs, candy bars, swimming pools - but people don’t get worked up about those things because they are not inherently violent. Is that clear enough? I’d make the same argument for swords (if they were still in vogue) - I don’t give a shit if you’re into them, but you should realize that some people are going to think you’re morbid/psychotic if you’ve got a collection of the things in your house and you’re constantly frothing at the mouth about how you’re not going to let anybody take them away from you (especially when nobody’s really trying to).
You’ve never heard of Senator D. Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)? Mr. “Let’s Put a 10,000% Tax On Firearm Ammunition?”
Or of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)? Ms. “Let’s Ban 'Em All If We Can Get Away With It?”
Please. Your pretense of “rationality” (or is it ignorance?) would be laughable if it weren’t so ludicrous.
No, you fucking dumb-ass, it’s historical fact.
Why is the encroachment of any other amendment a “slippery slope?” People don’t like pornography and want to get rid of it, but noooooo… that will lead to bans on Reader’s Digest and Esquire.
People don’t want underage girls getting abortions without their parent’s or legal guardian’s knowledge, but it gets opposed by the pro-choicers because that will lead to a ban on abortions.
And only the Gun Rights Advocates are talking about “slippery slopes” when we say “Registration Leads to Confiscation.” Riiight. :rolleyes:
You will note that those Helicopters now bear the seal of the U.S. Justice Department. Do you know why, you ignorant sack of shit? Because the BATF, under the Treasury Department, was the fucking laughingstock of the law enforcement community. So much so that Congress took the BATF away from Treasury and sent it to Justice, where it might get some qualified, professional law enforcement agents staffing it (as opposed to tax-clerk revenue enforcement agents) and might actually start making headway at tracking the criminal suppliers of firearms and prosecutiong them.
You should take a trip with your strawman and ask the Great & Mighty Oz for some brains.
“Banning guns addresses the fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Assoc. Press 11/18/93
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
Sen. Jospeh Biden Assoc. Press 11/18/93
“No, we are not talking about how to control criminals, we are talking about banning guns!”
Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, Constitutional Subcommittee Hearings 2/10/89
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” Sen Dianne Feinstein, 60 Minutes, 02/05/1995
Yes, I agree with you there; she’s a kook. She also has a lot of company, but most of them aren’t stupid enough to go “on the record” with such damning evidence.
BTW, thanks for the cite. Unfortunately it didn’t say how the gun was traced to the criminal in question, whether it was fingerprints or registration or some other means. One would think if it was cause the handgun was registered to him it would have been mentioned, to support the claims, so it’s still in question in that instance. But I won’t belabor the point; the cops I know don’t know everything.
It’s usually the case that people who register their guns don’t commit crimes. The cite you gave was related to onset of mental illness, so it may have been the case, and it’s good he was apprehended no matter how it was done.
The fear (or paranoia ) of registration leading to confiscation comes from the experiences of other countries which have experienced that ‘incremental enforcement.’ First was a call for registration “to reduce crime” - then since that didn’t reduce crime enough, confiscation of registered firearms followed. And only the criminals were left with guns.
Other countries? Try other states. Like New York, and California. Technically, no American registration has led to door-to-door confiscations. Just bans. “Turn-Them-In-Or-Get-Them-Out” policies.
In another thread, Eve referred to the incidents when men shot women in a rage in the home. The context, I think, was when they discovered they were having affairs, or when they learned that their wives were leaving them.
Isn’t this an example of one of the negative consequences of having so many guns to hand - especially hand guns? (I mean, by the time you’ve gone out to the shed to load your shotgun, wifey may have taken to the woods, got in the Mercedes Sports, or whatever.)
Okay, you can go the kitchen and grab a knife, but a) it’s not such a lethal weapon (at least, it’s not such an unequal contest facing someone armed with a knife), and b) you have TIME TO CALM DOWN.
And if some woman ran her husband over three times with her SUV after following him to the hotel where he went with his mistress, is that a sign of the violence that comes with having too many cars, roger, or is it only the guns you give a damn about?
Not quite sure what you’re getting at. Any gun can be stored by the night stand. Even a loaded shotgun.
As far as a knife not being that deadly. That’s just silly. An unarmed man against a man with a knife is at a serious disadvantage. This isn’t the movies where such a threat is easily thwarted. Real people are not Walker Texas Ranger. Real people with knives kill people.
With that said. One great advantage of the modern firearm, is that it levels the playing field. No other weapon in history empowered the weak the way firearms do. Finally women, the elderly, and the feeble can adequately defend themselves. Unlike swords and clubs, firearms do not depend on a persons strength to be effective. Firearms allow even the weakest of people to defend themselves.
So in your situation, the battered wife should be glad she is allowed to posses a firearm and defend herself. Abusive husbands beware.
) of registration leading to confiscation comes from the experiences of other countries which have experienced that ‘incremental enforcement.’ First was a call for registration “to reduce crime” - then since that didn’t reduce crime enough, confiscation of registered firearms followed. And only the criminals were left with guns.