Another insult. I have read the entire thread and you just supported my previous post.
I see that AFTER my post you state that you claim to know firearms. Good for you.
I’ll stand up for what I believe is right and so can you. No need for name calling.
Wow, apt analysis! Fits like a glove.
Naturally, it’s a generalization. There are extremists on all sides of this issue as well as there are moderates, but what you are talking about is not the extremists, but your run-of-the-mill male gun ban proponent!
“We don’t want to take responsibility for our own safety, or for the security of our country. That’s what we pay taxes for! And we don’t want anyone else to do it, either, that’s to scary!”
I’m not gonna get in to name calling, but I will say it’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
SnakeS
Like what kind of shit do we experience on a daily basis?
What are you babbling about?
The only shit we experience on a daily basis is political debate by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Like you.
“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Sure hurts when that shoe fits, eh, lash?
Well, when the wild boars come invading my back yard, it’s helpful to have something that has more than one shot.
In other areas, posionous snakes are a problem (but not here) and it’s kinda hard to get rid of a rattler with a single shot .22. Other places have coyotes and other dangerous animals.
When the prowlers come up to my back door, it’s good to let them know that if they come inside, they’ll regret it.
If the terrorists come up with their next surprise, and it has them in my area, I want to be able to outgun them.
No… How? How would it be a “god send to the community?” I would rather the money that such a ban would cost be spent on education reform, instead.
Now that would be a godsend to the community!
Sssssss
Partly. God bless America, freedom and the foresight of our founders.
Hey, there’s places that are worse.
WE are not a nation of sheep.
We like our freedom.
We kicked the asses of the Brits when they tried to take it away from us.
And we’ll kick the asses of anyone else who tries to take away our freedom.
We understand that Freedom isn’t free.
It has a price.
If you want to keep it, to remain free, you have to be willing to fight and die for it, because there are too many wackos out there who think they they know better than everyone else, and given the chance, they’ll take your freedom, your money, and your future.
We’ve pushed the line here in America, and we’re skating on thin ice.
We’ve had it too easy for too long, and Big Brother controls the airwaves and the minds of those sheep we do have.
“Step right up, we’re just gonna shear you, y’know, take off that unnecessary fleece?”
Baaaaa.
“Oops, there goes the genitals, sorry bout that, won’t happen again, don’t worry!”
No thanks.
Demannlash, you keep avoiding my question. Wanna step up to the plate, or continue to ignore it because it’s full of inconvenient facts? To review, you stated:
To which I replied:
I’ve asked twice now. Gonna take a swing at it or will it be strike three with the bat still on your shoulder?
I am going to ask you one simple, honest question, and I would like a simple honest answer. Since the types of weapons you’ve listed are used in a vanishingly small percentage of gun crimes, what is the point in banning them at all? What would be accomplished?
Your pretty sure of yourself there punk.
See post #119…
enipla…the knob.
Hold your ponies Wierddave, getting there.
SnakeSpirit the likes of yourself offer nothing to this argument except…well not much at all. You talk of sheep…I think you are one of those sheep but don’t realise it. You have guns so America has more freedom?? Freedom to do what? compared to other countries that have tighter weapons restrictions. What does owning semi automatic weapons grant you that I don’t have?
Weirddave
Banning semi auotomatic weapons reduces the potential rate at which a person, that desires to, can kill people compared to a weapon that has a limited rate of fire e.g bolt action. Now will come the argument about cars, knives swords, WMD’s and how they kill large numbers of people efficiently. Compared to these weapons, using a semi automatic weapon is very easy to kill large numbers of people quickly and they are relatively cheap to obtain…point, pull trigger, one round, potentially one death. Limiting access to semi auto weapons slows down the rate of fire that a person can unleash on, for example a crowd of people. This gives the people under fire a greater chance to find cover or get the fuck outta there. Get my drift, it is limiting the chance that someone who goes nuts with a semi auto rifle with a 50 round clip at a shopping centre can kill people but still allows people to continue with there gunsports, target practice, plinking, teaching the kids how to shoot etc. The argument encompasses everything, gun safety, restrictions (not banning firearms outright), licensing, procurement etc. but still allows reasonable people who have a need or a desire to own a firearm to do so.
Or, maybe I’m old fashioned and believe that one shot at a time is more than enough. If you can’t do it with one shot, you should’t be tryin to do it, one shot…one hit.
While I apreciate the lession on exactly what a semi-automatic weapon is, thankyouverymuch, what you have just typed doesn’t come close to answering my question. You say SA weapons could, might, have the potential to, etc…while completely ignoring the fact that except in the rarest of instances, the true one-in-a-million cases…They don’t. They aren’t used for what you describe. Given that fact, what’s the point in banning them? Should we ban airplanes because they have the potential to be used harmfully? Someone might hijack one, and they could fly it into a skyscraper. Do we ban planes, or simply do everything humanly possible to keep them out of the hands of terrorists while still allowing law abiding citizens access to them? What the fuck is the difference, really? I gotta tell you, I don’t see one. (Except that the potential death toll from a hijacked 747 is an order of magnitude higher than the potential death toll from a lone nutter with an Armalite)
Since you are addressing me:
How do you figure I am one of those sheep? If you knew me, you’d see I am often ‘against the grain’ fighting intended restrictions on our freedom rather than gently knuckling under. I don’t see how it fits; enlighten me.
Keeping and bearing arms is a part of our heritage. The conctitution was written and the first amendment guaranteed us freedom of speech and religion. The second amandment guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms, both for protection against foreign aggressors and for protection should our government go bad. The whole of the first ten amendments is known as “The Bill of Rights.” It is from these documents that we are guaranteed freedom.
Our freedom is not so much “for” but “from.” Freedom from oppression. Freedom from unfair conscription. Freedom from excessive government controls. Freedom from self-incrimination. And so on. Guns are not only one of those freedoms, but also a means by which to preserve those freedoms from those who would take them away, and lately they have been legion.
We have the freedom to learn, to make our own decisions, to question decisions that are proposed to be imposed upon us.
I think we have a long way to go with guns. I favor national storage standards and national educational standards, for instance. There are too many who know too little about guns, on both sides of the argument.
Freedom to own semi-autos is freedom to take a second shot, if the first one doesn’t do the trick. Semi-auto weapons are not a threat to society. Miseducation is. An economy that requires two parents working in order to survive is a threat to society. If children do not learn from their parents, they’ll learn from TV, Hollywood, and their friends. It’s no secret where that type of education leads.
Single shot, revolvers, magazine autoloaders… these are not weapons of mass destruction. Banning degrees of weapons is just a slippery slope to full confiscation, eventually.
Some people say there’s a problem. Some others say there is no problem. If one looks at all the factors involved, and doesn’t just pick and choose those that support one side of the agument, we don’t have that muh of a problem with guns in general in the US. Sure, there’s some holes we should patch, but we don’t need a complete constitutional overhaul.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I don’t really know what you have or don’t have, or how that compares to what we have. If you are happy with what you have, fine. Why try to impose your strictures on us? If we’re happy with what we have, I guess that’s the end of the story.
Our press does not give an accurate representation of American plans and dreams. Nor does Handgun Safety, Inc. (Formerly handgun Control Inc.), neither does the NRA. Both of these organizations support certain goals, and the goals are in opposition. The newspapers and TV each have their own biases. At this point in time I think a more important question than guns is the unequal distribution of wealth and power in our nation.
While ordinary, law-abiding citizens are denied the right to protect themselves from criminals, the rich and famous do so with impunity. We are tricked into thinking we are moving toward a leftist, socialist system, a ‘social democracy,’ while in fact we are headed more toward a communist dictatorship, where you don’t have to think any more; the government knows better and makes all your decisions for you.
"Oops, there goes the genitals. Sorry 'bout that. But don’t worry, we’ll make sure it won’t happen again. 
"
Not on my watch.
You are free to do what you want in Australia. We are not asking for help. We know we have a lot of deaths, and a lot of firearm deaths. Banning guns is not the answer. There is no instance where banning guns has reduced the total crime rate, but there are examples where it has done the opposite.
We have different countries with different laws, customs, languages and governments so that people can choose. It looks like you have chosen yours, and I won’t mess with it.
I’ve chosen mine, and I ask that you give me the same courtesy.
**S[sup]~<[/sup]**nakeS
How does having the ability to mow down 10 people at 50 metres make you strong? Or individual for that matter?
Mow down 10 people at 50 meters?
Sorry, Marky, you’re buying into the Hollywood version. Oh, and I should add the Edward M. Kennedy, Diane Feinstein version of “assault weapons.”
In order to “mow down” 10 people at “50 meters” you’d need a machine gun (full automatic) with about 150 rounds. Not a semi-automatic anything!
These weapons were regulated back in 1933 or so. No arguments from sportsmen. They had no sporting purpose, and we were glad to have them off the streets!
Oh, sure, that ability made you “stronger” than your opponents (Usually other criminals or valid “enemies of the state” if you were military), but current legal weapons just can’t produce that kind of firepower. Semi-automatics can only shoot one round per trigger pull, about 2 rounds per second, and to “mow down 10 people at 50 meters” the sharpshooter would need about 20 magazines of the current 10-round limit (if e’s a *real * good shot!) and IF they stand still and allow themselves to be shot!
So considering magazine changes at 20 seconds each times 15 magazines, with 20 seconds per magazine, let’s see:
10 minutes is hardly “mow down” timing. Shit, most of them would have run away in that time!
This is another example of “left-wing disinformation.” Deliberately distributed lies designed to hook the gullible into supporting causes that undermine the American way of life.
The question, therefore, is invalid. You are positing claims that have no basis in reality. Please get educated, and don’t just parrot what you hear on the “Brady” site.
Everybody dances around the issue, arguing back and forth about what we should do about guns, but the fact of the matter is that having them is a Constitutionally protected right. You are not supposed to make any laws infringing on the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights. Period.
Those rights are supposed to be inviolable…unless you change the Constitution. That flexibility was planned into the government by a bunch of really bright guys who argued and fought over their ideas of what was the best way to run a country. The document we got as a result has enabled us to have the oldest continuous government in recent history and has survived with only minor addendums and no substantial changes to the original provisions.
If you don’t like the Second Amendment, get rid of it. If the problem is really as evident as you claim there will be enough support to push a Constitutional Amendment through. No more Second Amendment, no more protection for arms, you can get rid of anything your little heart desires.
Until then, any bans or limits on the kinds of arms citizens are allowed to own are pretty plainly illegal and unconstitutional. Arguing that things should be different doesn’t make them so. If you don’t like that you have a few choices: do something to change it, put up with it, or move to another country.
I guess there’s always choice four; start a revolution. Good luck doing that with flawed interpretations of objectively verifiable reality and harsh language, which are the “tools” the people who support gun bans have been using in this thread.
Those of you who don’t live in the U.S., why are you arguing about something that doesn’t concern you and with which you have no direct experience? Americans don’t go around saying that Europeans should start importing guns and arming their people. I don’t mind you sharing your opinion, but really, what are your motives for involving yourselves in the discussion?
Most of the statistics about crime and violence in other countries are not really applicable to the U.S. There are vast differences between some of the oft-cited countries with low crime rates, like Japan (which I have already addressed), and the United States. Even those with a relatively similar culture, such as England and Australia, have some significant differences in history, government, and national temperament.
Even if you discount those differences and say that the countries are directly comparable, the fact is that crime statistics do not support the view that a society with less guns is necessarily safer. When Australia banned firearms, there was little appreciable change in overall violent crime. Britain’s crime rate has increased lately, even though the society is almost completely disarmed. At the same time, crime in the United States has fallen to the lowest per-capita in 40 years, despite the loosening of gun laws.
There is no doubt that the U.S. has a problem with violent crime, but the causes of that problem are much more complicated than the availability of certain weapons. Social problems are rarely solved through making laws. It’s illegal for teenagers below the age of majority to have sex, regardless of consent or the wishes of the parties involved. This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Do you think that point of law stopped teenagers in the U.S. from fucking?
Unless Americans change the many social imperfections that contribute to the problem, the rate of violent crime will continue to be higher than is the case in most industrial nations. Saying that taking away guns will stop violence is as overly-simplistic as saying that a murderer would not have killed if he didn’t have a hammer. Taking away the hammer may mean nothing more than that he would have to strangle, stab, use another blunt object, or get more creative to accomplish the goal. You haven’t solved the real problem of his wanting to kill in the first place.
You missed my point entirely. It’s the will, the attitude… the tools are incidental.
And to follow up, I wasn’t saying that any particular weapon represented individual empowerment. I was talking about the “spineless” comment.
This is why I don’t understand the demand of Demannlash to produce update stats-our crime stats are down, not up. I think the real problem is that people in other western countries get extremely uppity and ride along on a high horse regarding the differences in gun culture between our societies. It’s not that people are ciminals and use guns to kill people, it morphs into an argument sort of like “Americans are bad people because they have lots of guns and therefore more people are killed with guns than ANY instrument of death around”.
Anywho, I’m kinda used to the condescension, tension, and being looked down upon by them. Like I said, I don’t rightly give two fucks about banning guns that look like military weapons because they aren’t the problem. Handguns are, and you’ll probably never see them banned, but a rifle with a scope and a black composite stock with a thumbhole SUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE is fucking scary and I have no doubt you’ll see them banned again.
Hell, in California, they have recently banned a specific make of firearms in a specific caliber. the .50 BMG is now banned for sale and requires owners to register them as an assault weapon. Once again, what will this do? Nothing. THe .50 BMG is a HUGE rifle with a HUGE cartridge. To my knowledge a 30 pound rifle with enough firepower to pop a hole in an engine block hasn’t been used in any school shootings for obvious reasons, yet we waste good legislative time and money on this crap.
Owners of BMG rifles are shooters. They do one-mile shooting contests and shit. These guys are in their 50’s and 60’s and are all certified marksman. Why fucking ban it? Probably because some fucking Aussie Ex-pat decided it was a scary weapon and california legislature ought to just ban it. 
BTW, I may be incorrect, but I think at least some of the BMG rifles are bolt-action.
Sam
(bolding mine)
Then in your reply to Weirddave
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this. Care to explain?
Here’s something I had put together for another thread:
It’s not the guns or the availability of the guns, it’s the intent. Removing guns did nothing to decrease the deaths.
Kaboodle:
I’ve been citing a study linked to at Guncite for several years relating to Firearms Suicides
The table International Violent Death Rates is fairly informative when you start comparing countries.
The original study that a good deal of the data is from the International Journal of Epidemiology, and is linked to at the bottom of the page. Warning: PDF.
Bottom line: while there may be some correlation between firearms prevalence and firearms suicide rates, there is little correltaion between firearms prevalence and overall suicide rates.
Wow, those went all into “add to favorites” ‘gun’ folder.
Great discourse on the meaning of the second amendment, showing the dishonesty and inadequacy of certain Supreme Court Decisions!
I hereby bestow upon you the title of “Living Treasure.” 
SnakeS
There really aren’t any SCOTUS cases/decisions pertinent to the second amendment. The casename fails me right now, but there was one long ago that held that a citizen could not sue on second amendment grounds. Only the state can raise such issues with SCOTUS.
Just this week, a denial of Certiorari in the case of Nordyke v. Marin was issued. The specific grounds for suit at SCOTUS level was suppression of second amendment rights to bear/sell/display firearms at gun shows on county property.
That case has now been bounced back into the 9th Circuit court of Appeals’ lap. Until such time as SCOTUS takes up the issue of defining, hearing and ruling on a second amendment case, we’re pretty well sunk and can consider its status unknown. None of our SCOTUS justices actually have the balls to take up the issue once and for all, even though at the State Supreme court and the Circuit court justices have no problem voicing dissent.
Sam