Protect the second amendment.

http://www.flashbunny.org/content/assaultweapons.html

Ooh, a gun debate. Let the mudslinging begin.

[ 09-28-2005, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Man o man, the AR-15 is a pretty gun.

Anyway. As a fine upstanding liberal-minded young man, I support my good ole bill of rights...and gee whizz, what's that right after my freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, press, and religion?

The right to bear arms. Not "pistols." Not "rifles." "Arms."

To me, that includes everything except bombs. If I can afford it, and it's purpose is self-defense, there should not be a law preventing me from having it, though I'm okay with the government registering my name to the serial number of the weapon I purchase.

I'm not an advocate of the "wouldn't it be great if everyone had a gun" philosophy found here in Kentucky...but I do not support any legislation to limit the firearms or ammunition clips I can posess. What I DO support is teaching children about gun safety at a fairly young age, say ten or so. Knowledge like that can save as many lives as these gun laws claim to do.

Quite an interesting presentation, dont necessarily agree with it but they do raise some good points.
My fave line is "Do it now. For the children." Now call me a little weird but isnt more guns being around the last thing children need? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Guns are for protection...back home, that's the primary purpose of owning a firearm.

<font color=ggffcc>Guns are for shooting! Get it straight! I protect myself with my IBA (Individual Body Armor). AR-15 'a pretty gun' Palese! Ever seen a sporterized SKS? What about an all black AK with polymer accessories? Oops, did I type that in my typing voice?
Beside, everybody knows that the flashlight mounts to the bayonet lug!

'Assualt' Weapons have already been unbanned! Besides, I made quite a profit on my pre -ban 15 & greater capacity magizines! Don't let that escape here!

Machine Guns? Overrated! I mean, sheez, at 600-900 rds a minute, who has that much money for ammo? Even reloading, you'd have to load 2-3 hrs a day, for about a month on a 'mechanical' press, or about 5 hrs on an automated rig just to have 3-5 minutes of fun! Ain't worth it, unless you are wanting to re-live The Untoucables era!</font>

--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg

This is a pissing contest that can't be won!

Damn you're right, the Widowmaker is a pretty gun :D
And yes, I laughed at that last line "For the children."
There is something profoundly wrong and yet somehow right in restricting gun use. I wouldn't ban any firearm, but would install more strict laws on what you have to do to actually get one.

...OK, Felix...guns are for shootin'

I just hate to make it sound like us'ns in Kentucky just like to shoot 'em in the air. We're generally at least aiming at something...or my family is, anyway...

One of my uncles has an AK, one has an SKS. I don't like the SKS very much at all, but you do have a point about the AK [img]smile.gif[/img]

You ever watch videos on the internet of real people getting shot yeah that really makes me want people to have guns.

I usually stay out of debates like this, but WTF do you even need an assault weapon for anyway? To protect yourself? Yeah, right. A pistol or rifle is just as adequate for that as a semi-automatic. And because, just like that site itself states, you're more likely to be attacked with a crowbar, hammer or baseball bat, in by far most instances pretty much any common household heavy blunt object would suffice.

Call me European, but I find a society where civilians want to own an assault rifle creepy, and a society where civilians think they actually need an assault rifle just to protect themselves scares the living daylights out of me.

And a society with aforementioned qualities that thinks it needs to be given the leadership of the UN?.. WTF! :mad:

Well I'm one of the people that thinks banning all guns is a good idea. I just don't see why you need one... And honestly? An assault rifle? Just plain stupid.

NOTE: "semiautomatic" means that a weapon fires, then chambers the next round, and cocks the weapon. It does not imply that the weapon is an assault weapon. Most pistols, with the exception of some revolvers, are semiautomatic. Many, many rifles are.

Why is banning all guns a terrible idea? I'd honestly rather not get into that...but I don't see how anyone who's adamant about the government infringing upon their rights could possibly want the government to tell them they cannot own a gun.

The fact that some families back home in Appalachia actually keep their family fed (partially) by hunting is immaterial, I guess.

Allright, thanks for pointing that out, I don't know too much about the mechanics of guns.

Wherever people organize themselves into groups (like a country) there are going to be limits to the rights of each individual. Of course advocates of gun ownership will be ticked off when the government revokes their right to own a gun (or never grants it to them in the first place) but that's hardly an argument in the pro-contra debate. But let's indeed not get into that, it's not the issue here.

It is in this argument, yes. Unless they're using assault weapons to hunt, of course. :D

But my question is still: why would a civilian need to own an assault weapon? Normal guns I can understand the reasoning behind, even though I'm not entirely convinced that even that is a good idea. But assault rifles? I mean, come on, you have to draw the line somewhere.

[ 09-29-2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: J'aran ]

There is no difference between the assault weapons that would be available and other rifles. Without the automatic fire feature (which you can't have without a very difficult to obtain federal permit), they are simply rifles that look cooler. The assault weapons ban is a mostly cosmetic law.

[ 09-29-2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I think it is worth mentioning that they are also highly accurate, and as such, make exceedingly good weapons for killing coyotes.

<Font color=ggffcc>Wow, this has remained calm. Must be due to the fact it's in GD as opposed to CE.

Actually, the term 'assualt weapon' did not come into term until as the article pointed out, bill clinton era. So, with that said, there's really nuting else to discuss. Butt, since there are some folks on here that don't grasp it, I'll assist.

This plain Jane looking Remington 7400, is just that. Note, it's a semi-auto (OOH, it fires round after round just by pulling the trigger) caliber? 30.06 US. or 7.62mm X very large. (No direct reference)
This gun can drop anything in North America out to 500m, and smaller (human to deer) out to 750m.
Standard built in 5 round mag. Scope setting, and that's about all folks.
http://www.remington.com/images/firearms/7400wd.jpg

The SKS (OOH, an assualt weapon). Fires round after round with each trigger pull. Is wortless beyond 60m, and I would not place the life of a liberal on it at anything greater than 75m. But ohh, it's menacing looking. In all reality, it's a POS!
Notice that bayonet lug (ooh) What about that detachable magazine well? Notice those antiquated iron sights? Doesn't it just look SO evil? Caliber? 7.62mm x 39 'Russian'
http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/graphics/full.jpg

Now, what if you really wanted it to look 'evil'?
http://www.rifletech.com/images/sks/sks4.jpg


It'a all about the hype folks. I'd glady give you my SKS if that's all you wanted. It's really a fun gun to shoot, and ammo is 'cheap', but... Now if you wanted my Remington or Seiko! You'd not manage that!


So sorry Ilander, but accuracy is not the strong point. Why else would it come with a 30rd magazine as standard issue?</font>

--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg

Talkin' 'bout the AK on that one, Felix...cannot say I like the SKS ;)

EDIT: you do make a good point about the 30rd clip, though.

Prefer shotties, myself, but that's just me. After all, the only critters I ever bother with are birds.

[ 09-30-2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

One has to wonder why civillians require arms that the military use when one's country has a military. Unless of course, it is a citizen's duty to fight one's country's army should it become so corrupt its a dictatorship.

I would have thought that extremists are dangerous enough without giving them firearms, but then - it is your culture - your right to bear arms. I guess this is what happens.

Out of interest, is there another country in the world that demands the right to bear arms as the US does?

Hmm, well I've just had a quick look at the text:

It's not written very clearly unfortunately, but isn't the intention of it to say that in order to form a well-regulated militia citizens have the right to keep and bear arms? Does this not suggest that they intended a limit on "maverick" gun ownership?

As for other countries, many in South America perhaps as they often used the US consitution for a model. Iraq?

Early US legal documents often list things without a clear, easily recognizeable structure to the list. As an example, look up the Declaration of Independence, specifically the usurpations part. It starts out pretty clear, then starts to be kind of hazy in its writing, then comes back again.

I see the second amendment as a list of 2 things: The right to a well regulated militia, AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

One could also make a case that this is a failsafe---that the framers of the Constitution felt that the people would make up a well-regulated militia, in case of the failure of the official army.

I like that interpretation, partially because it seems the most apt to be correct, historically speaking (after all, most of the Revolutionary Army was composed of simple people who'd grown up with guns in their hands), and partially because it reminds me of the Admiral Isoroku Yammamoto quote:

Speaking on behalf of my entire home county in Northeastern Kentucky...especially since Dron_Cah isn't here much nowadays...we really like the sentiment that quote expresses.

Regarding CD's comment regarding "gun the military uses," I'd like to point out that, AS I SAID BEFORE, we can't own those. Semi-auto is the best your common pedestrian gunowner can get. Again, your comment is probably focusing on the cosmetics, which Felix nicely pointed out don't mean spit. Now, he made a comment about liberals in there, too, and I'd like to take the time to remind him that some liberals own guns, too, and them's fightin words. :devil:

Regarding CD's comment that it is sometimes one's duty to fight one's country's military, I wholeheartedly agree. I think that time is now, today, when we should be storming D.C., but that's just me. Give me 10 or 20 thousand more like me, and I'll go Che Guevera on your ass, but that's a pipe dream. Regardless, that comment militates against his querry as to why we need such guns. I actually believe we should be allowed to own howitzers, RPGs, M16/M203 combos, tanks, etc., for that very reason. The 535 major bastards and the 1 uber bastard in D.C. should always feel like they are 10 seconds away from being quartered and drawn, as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding the language in the Second Amendment and all these nice arguments about how it doesn't mean this or that, drop it. File it with your argument that you don't have to pay income taxes, and with your dissertation that West Virginia was never legally chartered as a State. Put both of them together with $1.50, and you might be able to get a Venti Starbucks coffee with it.

Now, while we keep talking of America as if it were the land where you stepped off the boat and they handed you a Remington, I'd like to point out to you folks that some of us live in Socialist/Dictatorial little fiefdoms in this country, where gun ownership is nigh on illegal.

And what's with Ilander acting as if he's got a monopoly on bluegrass bragging rights?

LOL...'cuz you and Felix aren't mentioning all the weapons you shoot on a monthly basis just because it's fun.

Besides, are you from Appalachia? Lewis County all the way, man, but I doubt you and Felix live there, otherwise I'd know you, in all probability. :D

[ 09-30-2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

Pike County, originally. So I got you beat by a mile on any and all Deliverance Country issues, you city slicker.

I'm a law abbiding country, I want a WOMD to defend myself and my people!

Banning WOMD didn't decrease the number of WOMD crimes commited, legalise them! ;)

Sorry, that came across wrong. What I meant was, if one's military protects the nation, why does one need arms - be it of a similar type or not - i.e. rifles, for example. The only reason one would need arms in that case, is if one had to protect oneself - in which case, it makes the military redundant on home soil. Or, to get rid of the goverment in power ;) .

Do feel free to correct me if I'm misguided in anyway. That's just how I see it.

If that's the case - why would you need an army, other then to protect against foreign nations invading? (to owning howitzers and the like)

Good point, CD. It assumes, however, that the purpose of a weapon is solely for protection. There are many who use weapons to hunt and put food on the table - that would prevent them from doing so. There are also those who carry weapons in the course of their jobs, such as the police - they would have a decided disadvantage. There are also many of those who do not care what the law is, and will find a way to get a weapon anyway - who shall protect you from the criminals?

With every exception comes another loophole, and with every loophole the law behind it becomes weaker.

My [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img]

Next!

There are exceptions, of course - as you said, such a hunter, but - why would the general population need arms? And, generally, crimials aren't armed (well, firearms) unless the police are - at least, if you take Britian as an example. Of course, that is changing, but... sigh.

I personally don't own any guns, but I don't think it's wrong for our population to own them. I had my first hunter safety course at 8 years of age, and fired my first shotgun during the same period, which is really funny to look back on now...I wasn't very big, but that 10 gauge was.
Do I feel the need to own an "assault rifle", nope. Although, a friend of mine does own an AR-15, and it's a really fun weapon to target shoot with, and it will drop a deer, personal experience. If some one feels uncomfortable about guns, don't own one, it keeps them out of your house, and that's cool. To the people that do own them, most are responsible enough to keep them out of a child's reach.

You went too deep on that one TL.
"Is wortless beyond 60m, and I would not place the life of a liberal on it at anything greater than 75m."
As in, I would not want to have to rely on this weapon if I had to defend one, (liberal) at a range greater than 75m. From the supported prone, using an AK, I have placed 18 of 30 within the '9' ring on a standard 100m E-type target at the 50m line. Without optics, my accuracy drops to 9 of 30 in the '9' ring on a 100m at 100m. With a CCO (Close Combat Optic) I can increase my accuracy to 15 of 30 on a 100m at 100m, and spot 20 of 30 on the entire target plate. On the other hand, my SKS fairs better, but fails to drive tacks at 300m like certain other guns can.

<Font color=ggffcc>My heritage hails from Boyle County</font>


--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg

I thought you guys had a "well regulated militia" called the National Guard.

So let them have all the guns :D

No way, they tend to get pretty excited sometimes, and shoot all the wrong people, besides, they have all the cool guns already, including TL's wish list...

Yeah...anymore, the National Guard is basically just another branch of the Army Reserve...the only difference being that when there's a natural disaster, they're supposed to come in and help with that too.

Boyle County, eh? Not a bad place, though it's a little bit flat for my liking.

[ 10-01-2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

<font color=ggffcc>Army Re-Structure 101. Cold War era, 18 divisions Active Army (AKA AC), enhanced units within the Army National Guard (AKA: ARNG) State controlled. Different combat and combat support units with the Army Reserve (AKA USAR).

clinton era: Active component drops 8 full divisons, and becomes 10 full AC Combat Divisions.

ARNG restructered to Combat only units, and built Combat Enhanced Brigades to coinincide with AC. State controlled, Activated for State emergencies. Federal Activation for War, acts of war, and IF the state fails to activate when needed for a natural disaster, like a big freaking hurricane.

USAR redesinged as Troop Programs Support. They serve as Support to the AC, and provide things like Water Purification, Services and Support for the Soldier, Like new equipment issues and turn in, Clerks, and Instructors to support their Federal Mission. Activated regionally by federal authority, and can provide training for ARNG predeployment units. Can support both AC and ARNG in Services and Support worldwide.

Bush era: Changing the structure from 'conventional' Divisions, to Combat Brigades, (AKA Combat Units of Action), each CBA is self contained and self supporting to make the deep fight, but will require follow-on support similiar to the current division set-up of today (As opposed to needing that support first). The first two formed have already gained combat experience.

ARNG will remain under their Enhanced Brigade concept until at least 2012.

USAR will remain unchanged, except for the upcoming BRAC that will close/relocate some Reserve Training Centers, and or Regions. </font>

I enjoy the mountains, (when viewed on TV while sipping some homebrewski on the couch).


--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg

[ 10-01-2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]