|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 5, 2013 10:27:38 GMT -4
Studies have shown that countries with stricter freedom of speech laws show a decreased rate of libel and slander.
We should act now. The first amendment wasn't written with blogs or 24 hour TV news in mind.
Again, still waiting to read what Loudness or tomb thinks an assault weapon is. Trying to drag us into the weeds with snopes "stats" hasn't distracted me.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 5, 2013 10:53:24 GMT -4
Trying to drag us into the weeds with snopes "stats" hasn't distracted me. I know right? lol - watch out, Wiki will probably be next lol!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 12:31:41 GMT -4
Studies have shown that countries with stricter freedom of speech laws show a decreased rate of libel and slander. We should act now. The first amendment wasn't written with blogs or 24 hour TV news in mind. Again, still waiting to read what Loudness or tomb thinks an assault weapon is. Trying to drag us into the weeds with snopes "stats" hasn't distracted me. Sorry that facts won't deter you. Here you go - From an 'official' website too, so you can't pull it apart on that level. More facts that I'm sure you will not agree with: www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 5, 2013 13:05:20 GMT -4
Take from line 1 of the link you provided. These are the only true assault weapon in the whole list
THESE ARE ALREADY HIGHLY REGULATED!!!!!!!
You cannot own, as a private citizen, any selective fire arm made after 1984. All of those made prior to 1984 must be licensed as transferable (meaning sales are tracked). Anyone buying one goes through a rigourous background and paperwork hassle, and pays additional fees on top of the outrageous prices people are asking for Class 3 firearms.
The rifle used in the shootings at Sandy Hook was not an assault rifle. The rifles being sought for banning by the democrats are not assault rifles.
Like the link I posted earlier says, they are functionally no different than some of the most common hunting rifles sold. Now, having said that, I am not using hunting rifles to defend my right to other types. I don't need to. My 2A doesn't discriminate against what type of rifle I want.
The third section of your link about additional features of semi-automatic rifles is ALL COSMETIC. Bayonet lugs? When was the last time someone went around performing a mass bayonetting? Pistol grips? They aren't made to make shooting people any easier. They are about achieving a more comfortable position for your wrist and spreading a small portion of the recoil away from your shoulder and into your hand. Telescopic stocks aren't about making the gun concealable. The 16" mimumim barrel length makes that argument pretty hard to make. They are about making the rifle fit the shooter. People have different length arms. Flash suppressors and threaded barrels (when used to add a sound suppressor) are more about preserving a shooters vision in low light, and hearing during long range sessions. I assume you've never been around a gun fired with a suppressor on it, so let me enlighten you. They are still LOUD! If you fire a 5.56 rifle with even the best commercial suppressor available without any hearing protection on, it will still snap loud enough to hurt your ears. They don't make guns whisper silent like you see in movies. Grenade launchers? Those are already illegal to own, so who cares if my rifle has the ability to mount one?
If you support the assault weapons ban, one or both of the folliwing statements is true.
1. You don't know enough about firearms to make an informed decision
2. Your end goal is to ban all firearms.
That is the only way I can see it. This assault weapons ban is crafted by people who fall into one of those categories. They are either writing legislation for morons who don't know any better, and/or they are chipping one more piece off of our right to keep and bear arms.
To add to the above: I've heard these anti-gun democrats describe pistol grips as "designed to allow the shooter to fire wildly into a crowd from the hip".
To a non-shooter, this sounds scary.
To a shooter, this is ideal.
If I am ever in a crowd of people that some madman decides to start shooting into, I HOPE he is firing wildly from the hip. He is much more likely to miss that way. Shouldering the rifle and aiming is much more effective, and not at all slower.
Only people who don't know what they are doing fire their rifles from the hip.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 5, 2013 14:13:34 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 5, 2013 14:27:09 GMT -4
Just an interesting tidbit of information
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 5, 2013 16:03:10 GMT -4
Guns are meant to kill, and even that is a 'no" in the bible. Actually - no, sorry. The Bible does not say that it is forbidden to kill. The Bible says that it is forbidden to murder. The old the King James translation is unfortunately misunderstood and misused by people who are not familiar enough with the entire context of the Book who will try to pick and choose verses with no regard for meaning in order to try and win an argument. Context and understanding of the meaning are critical. For example, God gives us the right of self-defense and sometimes in that self-defense, it is necessary to kill someone. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether or not is lawful or not. If a murderer is sentenced to death in a lawful manner via the law of the land, then it is not murder. However, if a person were to rob someone else and kill him in the process, that is not a lawful taking of life and is murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 16:37:08 GMT -4
Oh, now I'm a Democrat because I agree with them on this issue. Keep trying to make people like me a villain. I used to be very Republican, until the cuckoo factor shifted from D to R after Reagan's first term. To me the loonies are the religious right, gun nuts, and anti-abortionists who have taken control of a once great party that looked to streamline the government and limit wasteful spending. If they could snap their fingers and have their way, it would be the old west with guns everywhere, religion pushed in schools, women having no reproductive rights, gays would still be second-class citizens, and certainly no black man in the White House. If the Dems had their way, we would be taxed to the hilt and there would be a government program for every minor b.s. thing that would further create a culture of laziness. Ideally, I wish that there was another choice, but this is what we are stuck with. Stone age thinking on one side, and apologists on the other. So, am I Dem? No, like most of the country I am somewhere in the middle.
On gun control; If I could snap my fingers and change the current laws (since the Constitution is a living document, hence 'amendments') I would absolutely outlaw guns. They are not necessary and only contribute to crime and accidents. I would go after the manufacturers and eliminate them, as well as bullets and any ammo used. My reasoning for intruding on the hobby of some would be to protect the greater good. Now, since that will NEVER happen, I just hope that we can come to a reasonable compromise across the board. Education, Hollywood, Gamers, etc. It will take a lot to even shift this gun culture a tiny bit, but it's worth doing to more than half of the people in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 5, 2013 17:00:36 GMT -4
Guns are meant to kill, and even that is a 'no" in the bible. Actually - no, sorry. The Bible does not say that it is forbidden to kill. The Bible says that it is forbidden to murder. The old the King James translation is unfortunately misunderstood and misused by people who are not familiar enough with the entire context of the Book who will try to pick and choose verses with no regard for meaning in order to try and win an argument. Context and understanding of the meaning are critical. For example, God gives us the right of self-defense and sometimes in that self-defense, it is necessary to kill someone. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether or not is lawful or not. If a murderer is sentenced to death in a lawful manner via the law of the land, then it is not murder. However, if a person were to rob someone else and kill him in the process, that is not a lawful taking of life and is murder. Actually, God killed, or had killed many people. God had the Isrialites kill every man, woman and child in Amorite. He killed every first born in Egypt. Or opening up the earth to swallow 250 families including woman and children allowing them to fall into the fires of hell. "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." (Psalms 68:21-23)"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)"And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:3-4)
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 5, 2013 17:20:31 GMT -4
I never called you a Democrat, loudness. I was referring to the Democrats in Congress proposing this legislation.
As for your wish to rid the world of all guns, I don't think you're being realistic, but if you wish to live somewhere with no guns there are plenty of countries that will take you. Your ideals are clearly not in line with what this country stands for.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 5, 2013 17:46:27 GMT -4
I am curious, as to what category he would put me under (other than the painfully unoriginal ones, I am sure) - since I am neither "Republican", "religious", "anti-abortionist" or "loony", yet hold strongly to the fact that the Constitution of The United States of America says I have a right to bear arms and I know, for a fact, the Government does NOT have the right to take any law-abiding citizen's guns away from them and that I do not want the Government (this particular joke of an administration or any other for that matter) sticking its' nose in my private business and telling me "they are doing it for my own good". What do they call women who have a strong faith and aren't afraid to say so, can make intelligent, well-informed, independent decisions based on fact and accept responsibility for their own actions? Oh...wait I know the answer to that one (back to the boring old standard insults) It's this simple - if you don't want to own a gun, don't own one. It's not like there is a law forcing you to. The wild-eyed media frenzy of "BAN ALL DA GUNZ" people is absolutely a riot. The have NO logical, fact based information and can only throw regurgitated info-opinions at honest, law-abiding people (who can simply point at the Constitution and say - "It says it right THERE"). They seem to think that only Republicans want to own guns....of course, they are wrong. They seem to also think that making guns illegal will affect some change in criminal behaviors....again, they are wrong. It's knee-jerk hysteria at it's best. No reason....just....for our own good. For the sake of the argument....(and ONLY for the sake of the argument) let's just pretend that they ever COULD ban weapons....for our own safety - - of course .....follow the slippery, yellow-idiot road: What else do we need taken away from us - to protect us of course! - Freedom of Speech? I mean, people say some terrible things that cause other people to do some pretty bad stuff...let's ban that. Don't you feel safer already? Oh! I know....Freedom of Religion - you know how dangerous all of those loonies are - the religious right, gun nuts, and anti-abortionists who have taken control of a once great party! Get rid of THAT whole thing....we'll be even safer THEN! Oh! Oh! What about Freedom of the Press??? Have you SEEN the terribly sad, violent things they are printing these days??? We need our government to only tell us good things that will make us happy! Imagine how blissful and safe we will all be THEN! Think that sounds nice? Terrifyingly enough.....too many people would be content to let it happen. It all starts with one step.... I am not one of 'em and I won't support that step.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 5, 2013 18:49:37 GMT -4
If a magic wand could be waved, and all guns were removed from the earth (because that is the ONLY way it is going to happen) something would fill the vacuum left behind.
Guns are not inherently good or bad. They are just inanimate objects. A gun is a tool. Without that tool, something else currently in existence would be used, or something new would be invented. You cannot legislate away some people's desire to threaten, harm, or kill others.
You cannot legislate away all guns. You cannot even legislate away just the "scary ones". You can only make them illegal. Criminals who have them will keep them. Honest citizens who have them will either chose to get rid of them or become criminals themselves. I know my choice. If you can't figure it out, you haven't read my signature line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 19:32:44 GMT -4
You just can't argue with these people.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 5, 2013 21:10:25 GMT -4
Clearly you're out of your league in this debate if that is all you have to fall back on.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 5, 2013 21:53:46 GMT -4
You just can't argue with these people. *or anyone that thinks this is representative of everyone that is pro 2A
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 1:25:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 6, 2013 7:33:45 GMT -4
What is your point? 3 year olds shouldn't have access to firearms no matter what color they are painted.
Whenever you get ahold of one of those straws you're grasping at, be careful. You'll be in possession of a dart gun.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Feb 6, 2013 9:00:57 GMT -4
I doubt very seriously any of those "rednecks" illegally got their guns or used against the human race in anway form or fashion.... If you wanted to make a point....You should have posted this: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Feb 6, 2013 9:13:25 GMT -4
I saw this and immediately thought of you loudness. This has anti-gun nut written all over it. We need to get firearms out of the hands of monkeys! If you've seen 'Planet of the Apes', you know how this will turn out.
|
|
|
Post by freefallin on Feb 6, 2013 12:29:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by georgej202 on Feb 6, 2013 19:17:45 GMT -4
Is it just me... or do "TomC" and "Loudness" have very similar points of view? Ya think?
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Feb 6, 2013 21:49:43 GMT -4
A friend who works with the state legislature today told me over 2,400 people signed up to testify AGAINST O'Malley's gun control bill. At the time she looked at the sheet, 15 people signed to testify FOR O'Malley's bill.
|
|
|
Post by grova on Feb 9, 2013 0:54:14 GMT -4
Found this interesting....
NEWS RELEASE: 02/08/2012 LEANDER, TX.
Updated Policy for State and Local Agency Law Enforcement Sales:
Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies.
Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.
State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations.
We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm's sales - and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Mark LaRue
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Feb 9, 2013 9:38:54 GMT -4
Nice. Good on them. I wish more gun manufacturers and dealers would follow the Ronnie Barrett rule.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Feb 9, 2013 11:55:36 GMT -4
Nice. Good on them. I wish more gun manufacturers and dealers would follow the Ronnie Barrett rule. Yep.
|
|