A friend who has a relative that works at Ruger told me that there are over 1500 Ruger Mini-14s on order, that is close to 30 per state, I bet they may sell on average 5-10 per state per year. Something to think about.

I talked to the local shop and he has sold more guns since Obama took office then he did in the prior 3 years. I think the fear of losing the right to own guns is driving this.

I posted this a couple of weeks ago about the rise in weapons sales. It has gone up exponentially since O'Bama won the election. My friend who lives in Maine and reps for a dozen world-wide manufacturers can't keep pace with sales. He employs 23 from the Mississippi to the Atlantic Ocean and they are all out straight with order from dealers.

What's there to think about? The ignorant go on a frantic buying spree because "them thar crazy libs gonna be takin my guns away."

People forget that a very similar thing happened when Clinton was elected. It's not "The Obama effect." It's the "Bunch of Rednecks acting crazy because there's a Dem in the White House Effect."

What's there to think about? The ignorant go on a frantic buying spree because "them thar crazy libs gonna be takin my guns away."

People forget that a very similar thing happened when Clinton was elected. It's not "The Obama effect." It's the "Bunch of Rednecks acting crazy because there's a Dem in the White House Effect."

I think it would be naive to assume that the people we now have in charge will not restrict gun rights as much as they can. They do not believe in the Right to Bear Arms.

I think it would be naive to assume that the people we now have in charge will not restrict gun rights as much as they can. They do not believe in the Right to Bear Arms.

Yea, read this incredibly radical statement by our current President...

Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

If this doesn't tell you the police state is upon us you must really have your head in the sand.

At least all these gun shoppers are helping to rebuild our economy.

-spence

I don't trust a word he says. It's the actions that worry me, not the words.
I will bet anything you want, that they will be passing stronger gun control legislation within his first year.

Question: Why has Sen. Obama received a National Rifle Association “F” rating in the past?

Answer: Because those ratings were based on actual votes, not campaign rhetoric.

Taken from WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

I want to know why Obama is wants to take away Assault Rifles. Why did he hide this in his URBAN policy agenda.

The Constitution says right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!

I don't trust a word he says. It's the actions that worry me, not the words.
I will bet anything you want, that they will be passing stronger gun control legislation within his first year.

Question: Why has Sen. Obama received a National Rifle Association “F” rating in the past?

Answer: Because those ratings were based on actual votes, not campaign rhetoric.

Maybe its because he lives in the Southside of Chicago and has witnessed the tragedies of gun crime up close and personal. I believe there were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2008. Willing to bet 400 of those involved an illegal firearm.

In Massachusetts the other day, a court case was decided by a "liberal judge" who stated in his written decision to overturn another judges lower court ruling, stated in his ruling that " citizens of Massachusetts our residents have the right to keep arms in the home." Further those citizens have thee right to keep the weapons at the ready in other words, no trigger locks are required due to this case law decision. So much for the idea that all of our jurists are liberals in Mass. You might or could still be charged with keeping guns unlocked, but the case will now be thrown out.

I'm willing to bet over 400 of them involved people that should have been in jail to begin with. Sounds like the Democratic leadership in Chicago is doing a wonderful job of keeping things safe.

I'm willing to bet over 400 of them involved people that should have been in jail to begin with. Sounds like the Democratic leadership in Chicago is doing a wonderful job of keeping things safe.

So what does this have to do with Obama's NRA rating?

I want to know why Obama is wants to take away Assault Rifles.
...

The Constitution says right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!

The immediate response anyone gets when this is brought up is "laws against Assault Rifles does not infringe on a person's right to own a firearm for their own protection or for sport."

First, let me state that I'm 100% in favor of people that pass a thorough background check and are of sound mind being allowed to own a firearm.

Here's an ironic comparison. Many of the same people that want to lock up the pothead because pot makes him happy, don't want their Assault Rifles taken away. The Constitution also says the pothead has the right to pursue happiness. If weed is the only thing that makes him happy, and he's arrested for possessing weed, isn't that an infringement on his Constitutional Right to pursue happiness?

No. It is not.

Regardless of my position on drug policy (and I really don't want this thread to deviate as I used it only as an example), that pothead's avenue for the pursuit of happiness is restricted for the public's best interest. The government's opinion is that those actions will infringe on the rights of others and public safety.

This is easily transferred to "Assault Rifles." The Right to Bear Arms gives every citizen the right to possess a firearm. It does not state that it gives every citizen the right to possess any type of firearm they choose. Restrictions of ownership are put into place to protect the general populace.

Frankly, aside from "it's my Constitutional Right", what is a valid reason someone should be allowed to own an Assault Rifle?

Frankly, aside from "it's my Constitutional Right", what is a valid reason someone should be allowed to own an Assault Rifle?

Define "Assault rifle". Do you mean scary looking gun that will perform the same as your grandfathers hunting rifle?

So what does this have to do with Obama's NRA rating?

Um....you posted it as the reason Obama would want to vote anti-gun

Question: Why has Sen. Obama received a National Rifle Association “F” rating in the past?

Answer: Because those ratings were based on actual votes, not campaign rhetoric.
Usually these voting ratings are simple up and down counts. They don't even factor in if the gun legislation in question was part of a larger bill with other beneficial elements, how many votes its based on or if it was even good legislation to begin with.

I think it's quite rational to believe someone from a major city like Chicago wouldn't be voting to expand gun ownership very often.

I'd also wager that if the NRA was specifically representing metropolitan gun owners they'd probably factor things differently.

Ultimately though, does anyone really feel that their right to hunt or protect their home is being infringed under current law? I don't see things changing all that much. This is mostly paranoia to help political groups like the NRA fundraise.

-spence

I'm willing to bet over 400 of them involved people that should have been in jail to begin with. Sounds like the Democratic leadership in Chicago is doing a wonderful job of keeping things safe.

I ask you again, what does this have to do Obama's NRA rating? In particular, I think you need to reconcile the first sentence with your stance. They should be in jail to beigin with......BUT in the meantime they should be able to brandish automatic pistols.

If anything, Obama is trying to make sure guns stay out of the hands of these "400...that should have been in jail to begin with", the same Obama your faulting. Your reasoning seems to be circling in on itself.

Maybe its because he lives in the Southside of Chicago and has witnessed the tragedies of gun crime up close and personal. I believe there were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2008. Willing to bet 400 of those involved an illegal firearm.

This is what you said..."illegal firearm" would be....( help me out here) illegal, right. The thugs already lost their legal right to carry firearms by being criminals. The NRA stance is punish people that commit crimes with guns as hard as possible. It's really not that hard and it makes total sense.

This is what you said..."illegal firearm" would be....( help me out here) illegal, right. The thugs already lost their legal right to carry firearms by being criminals. The NRA stance is punish people that commit crimes with guns as hard as possible. It's really not that hard and it makes total sense.

So, assuming Federal Law is enforced, the real question here is if the State or City has the right to enact gun laws more strict than Federal law if they deem it's necessary to protect the population.

Some on the Right will loudly say no, but to think that East St. Louis and Anamosa Iowa are one in the same sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Great pheasant hunting in Anamosa by the way, brings back memories.

-spence

Usually these voting ratings are simple up and down counts. They don't even factor in if the gun legislation in question was part of a larger bill with other beneficial elements, how many votes its based on or if it was even good legislation to begin with.

I think it's quite rational to believe someone from a major city like Chicago wouldn't be voting to expand gun ownership very often.

I'd also wager that if the NRA was specifically representing metropolitan gun owners they'd probably factor things differently.

Ultimately though, does anyone really feel that their right to hunt or protect their home is being infringed under current law? I don't see things changing all that much. This is mostly paranoia to help political groups like the NRA fundraise.

-spence

My 75 year old Uncle that had a restraining order placed on him 15 years ago by a vindictive girl friend, can't get an FID card in Ma. All he ever wanted to do was go to Maine once a week and hunt with his family. So the answer is yes, our rights are being infringed.

I think the NRA logic is the same as pro-choice logic. Any infringement is a start down the wrong path.

So, assuming Federal Law is enforced, the real question here is if the State or City has the right to enact gun laws more strict than Federal law if they deem it's necessary to protect the population.

Some on the Right will loudly say no, but to think that East St. Louis and Anamosa Iowa are one in the same sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Great pheasant hunting in Anamosa by the way, brings back memories.

-spence


I think there was a ruling by the SPC last year that stated just that.

:soon:

:soon:


Thats what I use on rabbits:nailem::nailem:

:huh:

This is what you said..."illegal firearm" would be....( help me out here) illegal, right. The thugs already lost their legal right to carry firearms by being criminals. The NRA stance is punish people that commit crimes with guns as hard as possible. It's really not that hard and it makes total sense.

assuming they have been convicted of a felony. The fact the gun is illegal does not stop hinder its accessibilty. Accessibility is what I'm talking about. For example, you can cross to the Potomac and go over to Virginia and purchase a trunk full of handguns at gun show. The next day, you can drive back across the potomac to DC and unload your stash like your ice cream truck on a bunch of kids who may or MAY NOT BE convicted felons. Is this registering yet?

assuming they have been convicted of a felony. The fact the gun is illegal does not stop hinder its accessibilty. Accessibility is what I'm talking about. For example, you can cross to the Potomac and go over to Virginia and purchase a trunk full of handguns at gun show. The next day, you can drive back across the potomac to DC and unload your stash like your ice cream truck on a bunch of kids who may or MAY NOT BE convicted felons. Is this registering yet?

I don't know the laws down ther but I will assume your right.

I say when you catch the smuggler, lock him up for life. I don't think he will be selling anymore guns.

Why is that Virginia has few gun laws and very little gun violence? I'm not saying that everyone having a gun makes things safer but it does question why law abiding people being prevented from owning a gun makes things less safe.

This ban is less permissive than the gun-control laws in Iraq. It appears our government will let an Islamist fanatic own an AK-47 in wild and woolly Iraq, but it wont give that same right to Americans.

This ban is less permissive than the gun-control laws in Iraq. It appears our government will let an Islamist fanatic own an AK-47 in wild and woolly Iraq, but it wont give that same right to Americans.

My question, is why do you feel you need an Uzi or AK-47/M-16??

I have zero problem with hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns for sporting, hunting and home defense, but I have never understood the need for fully automatic weapons...

My question, is why do you feel you need an Uzi or AK-47/M-16??

I have zero problem with hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns for sporting, hunting and home defense, but I have never understood the need for fully automatic weapons...

Ergo, if person A feels he needs X, on the basis that you do not understand his need for X, he should be banned from getting it?

This ban is less permissive than the gun-control laws in Iraq. It appears our government will let an Islamist fanatic own an AK-47 in wild and woolly Iraq, but it wont give that same right to Americans.

Well lots of Iraqi's die every day because AK-47s are everywhere. I dont suspect that is a good thing. There are a lot of AK-47s in New Orleans and its has murder rate comparable to cities in south america.

Plus its a cultural thing, the AK-47 means a lot to those former european colonies around the world. More so than the rule of law. I think Mozambique even has an AK-47 on the country flag.

Well lots of Iraqi's die every day because AK-47s are everywhere. I dont suspect that is a good thing. There are a lot of AK-47s in New Orleans and its has murder rate comparable to cities in south america.

Plus its a cultural thing, the AK-47 means a lot to those former european colonies around the world. More so than the rule of law. I think Mozambique even has an AK-47 on the country flag.

I don't know if "lots of Iraqi's" are still dying every day, certainly a lot less than a few months ago, but, if so, is the reason "because AK-47s are everywhere"? And if the AK-47s are the reason, how come the number of deaths has dramatically gone down?

Plus its a cultural thing, the AK-47 means a lot to those former european colonies around the world. More so than the rule of law. I think Mozambique even has an AK-47 on the country flag.

From wikipedia:

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, Communist China and the United States supplied arms and technical knowledge to numerous client-state countries and rebel forces. While the United States used the relatively expensive M-14 battle rifle and M16 assault rifle during this time, it generally supplied older surplus weapons to its allies. The low production and materials costs of the AK-47 meant that the USSR could produce and supply client states with this rifle instead of sending surplus munitions. As a result, the Cold War saw the mass export, sometimes free of charge, of AK-47s by the Soviet Union and Communist China to pro-communist countries and groups such as the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Vietcong. The AK design was spread to over 55 national armies and dozens of paramilitary groups.

The proliferation of this weapon is reflected by more than just numbers. The AK is included in the flag of Mozambique and its coat of arms, an acknowledgement that the country's rulers gained power in large part through the effective use of their AK-47s.[31] It is also found in the coat of arms of Zimbabwe and East Timor, the revolution era coat of arms of Burkina Faso, the flag of Hezbollah, and the logo of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. "Kalash", a shortened form of "Kalashnikov", is used as a name for boys in some African countries.[citation needed]

Western cultures, especially the United States, have seen the AK-47 most often in the hands of nations and groups the United States condemns; first the Soviet Army, then its Communist allies during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union became the principal arms dealer to countries embargoed by the United States, including many Middle Eastern nations such as Syria, Libya and Iran, who were willing to ally with the USSR against U.S. interests. After the fall of the Soviet Union, AK-47s were sold both openly and on the black market to any group with cash, including drug cartels and dictatorial states, and most recently they have been seen in the hands of terrorist factions such as the Taliban and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan and Iraq. The AK-47 has thus garnered a reputation in Western nations as a symbol of anti-Americanism, and has gained a stereotypical role as the weapon of the enemy. In the United States, movie makers often arm criminals, gang members and terrorist characters with AKs.

In 2006, Colombian musician and peace activist César López devised the escopetarra, an AK converted into a guitar. One sold for US$17,000 in a fundraiser held to benefit the victims of anti-personnel mines, while another was exhibited at the United Nations' Conference on Disarmament.[32]

I don't know if "lots of Iraqi's" are still dying every day, certainly a lot less than a few months ago, but, if so, is the reason "because AK-47s are everywhere"? And if the AK-47s are the reason, how come the number of deaths has dramatically gone down?

Firearms are without question a contributing factor to the murder rates wherever there is ease of accessibility; Iraq or Miami. Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss. But again, like most social phenomena, there are lots of variables to control for. Is there a distinct cause and effect relationship that can be be isolated with regard to AK-47s specifically...now that I don't know. But with regards to firearms generally, I think we both know the answer to that question. Anybody can pull a trigger....now stabbing someone to death, now were playing with an entirely different set of balls.

The drop in the civilian death toll is without question a remarkable thing. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but much has transpired in Iraq over the past few years including substantial uprooting and ethnic cleansing. Maybe there are just less people to kill or maybe US troops are better at protecting the civilian populace. Its a combination of all these things and more. Why does it have to be black and white?

. There are a lot of AK-47s in New Orleans
Plus.

How the hell do you know this?

Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss.

Then why is it that states with fewer restrictive gun laws are safer.

The most dangerous cities have the most restrictive laws.

It would be easy for any of us to take a life. We choose not too.

...And now for the personal anecdote.

My step-brother was a good kid even if he was a little brat. He played basketball for Charlestown high and at 6'2 to 220lbs he was formiddable small forward. I don't know many high schools in this state that has sent more players to NCAA division 1 basketball teams than charlestown high. Anyway, For reasons unknown some guy's rage exploded into a hail of gunfire from his automatic pistol as my step brother sat on the front steps with a few of his boys one summer. My step brother was hit in the shin, which was instantaneously shattered. He was also hit in the thigh and he said before blacking out, he thought his leg was on fire. His friend, was hit in the pelvis. He has been s******* in a bag for 6 years now. Needless to say, neither of them will play much basketball in the future.

With that being said, you can keep your grandfathers muskets for quite frankly their lawful discharge is irrelevant to the experience that I know.

You can call me biased, but the city of Boston can ban handguns and I wouldn't give a rats ass. For one thing, my stepmothers neighborhood would be a lot safer.

How the hell do you know this?

Maybe because I was born there

My mother saved me by moving to Cambridge where I had a real shot at creating a meaningful life for myself.

Then why is it that states with fewer restrictive gun laws are safer.

The most dangerous cities have the most restrictive laws.

It would be easy for any of us to take a life. We choose not too.

Which cities are you referring to. Houston, TX, Little Rock, AR, or Birmingham, AL

Maybe because I was born there

My mother saved me by moving to Cambridge where I had a real shot at creating a meaningful life for myself.

And you counted AK-47's?

Sorry to hear that. About both places. I AM JUST KIDDING

Which cities are you referring to. Houston, TX, Little Rock, AR, or Birmingham, AL


How about.. D.C., Chicago, and Boston. I think these cities have restrictive laws because of knee jerk reactions to gun violence.

I don't think you can be for gun control and against long manditory sentences for crimes commited with guns. I say, you commit a crime with a gun you get locked up and they throw away the key. Once the cowardly thugs are locked up, watch the crime rate drop.

No offense taken playboy.... The cambridge jokes are amusing.

But seriously, I think Gary, Indiana has the highest murder rate in the country (Which just so happens to be right outside of Obama's hometown of Chicago). Indiana has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. You can buy a handgun and shottie without a permit and they do not have to be registered.

You see were I'm going with this.

i'm checking the facts now...

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

Firearms are without question a contributing factor to the murder rates wherever there is ease of accessibility; Iraq or Miami. Its quite simple, restrict the ease with which one can take a life and then less lives are loss. But again, like most social phenomena, there are lots of variables to control for. Is there a distinct cause and effect relationship that can be be isolated with regard to AK-47s specifically...now that I don't know. But with regards to firearms generally, I think we both know the answer to that question. Anybody can pull a trigger....now stabbing someone to death, now were playing with an entirely different set of balls.

The drop in the civilian death toll is without question a remarkable thing. I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but much has transpired in Iraq over the past few years including substantial uprooting and ethnic cleansing. Maybe there are just less people to kill or maybe US troops are better at protecting the civilian populace. Its a combination of all these things and more. Why does it have to be black and white?

It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.

As far as "firearms are WITHOUT QUESTION a contributing factor to the murder rates . . ." there are unique contributing factors to every single case. To which order of importance firearms should be attributed, I don't know. I believe the prime factor in all but the most random or insane cases is MOTIVATION. If you're motivatedto kill, you may find it easier to use an AK, though that would be more expensive and noisier than a club. And, as far as MASSIVE killing, such as occured in Iraq, that phenomenon is almost exclusive to governments, revolutions, and religioius wars.

Damn, my boys down in Shreveport, LA are killing folks like they are in North Philly.

It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.

As far as "firearms are WITHOUT QUESTION a contributing factor to the murder rates . . ." there are unique contributing factors to every single case. To which order of importance firearms should be attributed, I don't know. I believe the prime factor in all but the most random or insane cases is MOTIVATION. If you're motivatedto kill, you may find it easier to use an AK, though that would be more expensive and noisier than a club. And, as far as MASSIVE killing, such as occured in Iraq, that phenomenon is almost exclusive to governments, revolutions, and religioius wars.

Well lets take suicide for example. That takes a lot of motivation does it not. Why do you think more people shoot themselves or overdose on pills than say cut their wrist or hang themselves. Because pulling a trigger is easier. Its that simple. Your not going to club your cranium till you die right, when you can shoot yourself. I see no reason to believe homicide is any different.

[QUOTE=detbuch;668127]It is rather black and white to say that lots of Iraqis die everday BECAUSE AK-47s are everywhere.
QUOTE]

And spare be the semantics.... the AK's are the tool that make killing easier.

The fact of the matter is. I own guns and I am no more a risk to anyone then you are. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. It is the total lack of respect and values and for life itself. I see people step in front of moving trains but you don't ban trains. I would be willing to bet the loser that shot your step brother was a thug with a record a mile long and losers for parents. So I should have my rights restricted because of him?

On a side note; very few killings in the U.S. are committed with"AK-47's. It's a scare tactic and catch phrase to scare people into banning guns.

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

If the highest rate of homicide is 57.7 per 100,000, it is evident that an automatic weapon was either not used, or not needed to achieve that number. As far as comparing rates, it is significant if there are consistently large differences between types. It seems that half the cities you cite have restrictive gun laws, so there is no consistent difference. I don't know what the rate per 100,000 is in each city, but if it isn't consistently more than 5 points, or more, than the RANKING is not so notable. If the Ranking between N and XN is within a small point difference--big deal!

The fact of the matter is. I own guns and I am no more a risk to anyone then you are. It is not the guns or the availability of guns. It is the total lack of respect and values and for life itself. I see people step in front of moving trains but you don't ban trains. I would be willing to bet the loser that shot your step brother was a thug with a record a mile long and losers for parents. So I should have my rights restricted because of him?

Absolutet Not. You should not have your rights taken away. But if a city were to decide to band handguns, and provide reasonable justification for doing so, why not? I dont think you, as a law abiding citizen, are within the intended scope of anti-handgun legislation and any laws should be tailored to make sure your rights are not infringed upon.

I agree that sentences should be longer for unlawful possession and discharge.

This is not an easy question..balancing our rights under the 2nd amendment and the right of the public to be free from gun violence and IMO it's an area where compromise can truly address everyones concerns. Lack of compromise is the reason that as a gun owner I support neither the NRA or the far left of Ms. Pelosi and others of the "more gun control" group. In the above posts there have been several mis-truths stated from both sides of this issue. 1st..nobody possesses an "automatic" weapon without some very serious ATF review and restrictions. You will not be buying an AK 47 at your local gun shop; you may be able to purchase a semi auto which is in fact no different than your standard Rem. 1100 shotgun in that it is an auto loader not an auto firing weapon. Blame the media (can't believe I said that!) for that mis-truth. 2nd- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. If someone tells you this they're lying..and they have some other felony issue in their past. That being said, my best hunting buddy no longer can own a gun in MA because of a pot bust @ 17...he's 57! Guns are aquired illegally every day and the number of guns on the street contributes to this as do many uncontrolled sales of firearms but before we start talking about new laws that restrict "legal" ownership how about some serious enforcement 1st.

But if a city were to decide to band handguns, and provide reasonable justification for doing so, why not? I dont think you, as a law abiding citizen, are within the intended scope of anti-handgun legislation and any laws should be tailored to make sure your rights are not infringed upon.



Your statement contradicts itself

Your statement contradicts itself

I'm just trying to find compromise, between you the lawful gun owner and the thugs in the street. Its not trying to make this a black & white thing. I think you agree that more can be done to curb gun violence in the inner city without you feeling the pinch.

Ya, lock them up

If the highest rate of homicide is 57.7 per 100,000, it is evident that an automatic weapon was either not used, or not needed to achieve that number. As far as comparing rates, it is significant if there are consistently large differences between types. It seems that half the cities you cite have restrictive gun laws, so there is no consistent difference. I don't know what the rate per 100,000 is in each city, but if it isn't consistently more than 5 points, or more, than the RANKING is not so notable. If the Ranking between N and XN is within a small point difference--big deal!

well I hope you noted Boston's compared to say Birmingham, ALABAMA.

- You will not lose your MA gunownership rights for a restraining order from years ago. .

Depends on the Chief of police.

well I hope you noted Boston's compared to say Birmingham, ALABAMA.

The key is CONSISTENT. You can find invidious comparisons of given cities either way.

The key is CONSISTENT. You can find invidious comparisons of given cities either way.

Well Birmingham a city of only 250,000 has had a CONSISTENTLY higher homicide rate per 100,000 people than both Boston and New York City for the last decade, the latter being in states with stricter gun laws. Explain that for me pimp.

Well lets take suicide for example. That takes a lot of motivation does it not. Why do you think more people shoot themselves or overdose on pills than say cut their wrist or hang themselves. Because pulling a trigger is easier. Its that simple. Your not going to club your cranium till you die right, when you can shoot yourself. I see no reason to believe homicide is any different.

You are right. It takes a lot of motivation to commit suicide. If a gun is not handy, the deed will be done. The fact that a gun makes it easier doesn't mean that banning guns will significantly reduce suicides. And if there is no reason to believe that homicide is any different, then why should we believe that banning guns will make us significantly freer from homicide?

If it is about reducing numbers, about statistics, then the more draconian the government bans, the safer from homicide we are. Is it more important in a free society to reduce homicide rates by X?%? If so, at what number do we decide that it is "just right?"

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Depends on the Chief of police.

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

Buck - If a Chief denies based on an inactive restraining order he is interpreting the law incorrectly. While there are some limited areas covered by chiefs disgression this is not one of them. Only an active restraining order requires surrender of firearms and any applicable permits. Your relative should contact GOAL for the name of an attorney well versed in gun laws.

I believe you. He's just not up for the fight. I bring his gun up for him and he's good to go. It's just kind of sad. He took the course with me back when the state passed the new laws then got denied . Dedham's the town.

Well Birmingham a city of only 250,000 has had a CONSISTENTLY higher homicide rate per 100,000 people than both Boston and New York City for the last decade, the latter being in states with stricter gun laws. Explain that for me pimp.

Sticks and stones, and even guns, will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Is there, perhaps, a city with laxer gun laws that consistently has lower homicide rates than some other city that has stricter gun laws? Or do ALL cities and states with laxer gun laws have higher homicide rates that ALL cities and states with strict gun laws?

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.


I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

Define "Assault rifle". Do you mean scary looking gun that will perform the same as your grandfathers hunting rifle?

My definition is the as that used by the government:
any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

I believe the 2nd amendment was designed to allow the people, "the militia" the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

These arms should be of equivalent to our common day weaponry used by the common day rifleman/soldier.

I think our founding father's wanted the people/militias well armed and totally capable of defending ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??

In 2002 Gary had the highest rate of homicide in the country at 57.7 per 100,000 people.

Followed by: Compton, New Orleans (dixie baby), DC (Virginia being right across the potomac) and Detroit.

More importantly Boston was 87, below Providence. See for your self. Also, notice smalltown dixie peppered throughout that list.

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

Interesting statistic: 13th Century Europe had an estimated homicide rate of 60 per 100,000.

Japan, with strict gun control, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Homicide by gun in this country is much higher in the teen and young adult population than in the 25 and older set. In the latter, homicide by gun and by non-gun are much closer statiscally than in the younger set. If we MUST have stricter gun laws, maybe it should be age restrictive.

A year ago John Stossel did a 20/20 show that revealed violent crime and murder rates were similar in both strict gun control and laxer gun control states.

What is the *need* for the average citizen to own an Assault Rifle??
the rules are set. Some are defined as un-changeable (as in unalienable or inalienable, which ever the case may be). We post them in the Bill of Rights. Some can be changed, but only by a lengthy and cumbersome process; a good idea when it comes to the rules of the game of Liberty.

When some try to trivialize Liberty, the Second Amendment or the Citizen role in the American Militia, take notice of this. Take it as a warning too. What do they fear? They may just want to secure their hold on power and control of the civilian masses by disabling the Citizen ability to speak with force to correct tyranny. I guess you would call that Second Amendment First Amendment Rights, free speech and a petition to redress grievances backed by force.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

Anyone that has done even basic study of Constitutional law would have a field day with you. I wish I had the time to reply to the half dozen ways in which these statements are wrong. Really, you're just spouting out silly propaganda that's handed out by the NRA.

Three times in this thread the question has been asked, yet no one has answered.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

I don't think the founding fathers were envisioning up to 800rds/minute either...

I wonder if a personal land-owner could have legally have had a cannon... I really don't know the answer to that...

I pretty sure the personal land-owning "militia members" owned cannons.

My definition is the as that used by the government:

But they are just not used that often in crimes.

What is the need of the average citizen to own a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet? What is the need of the average citizen to eat a Big Mac? What is the need of the average citizen to own a $200,000 home? Are we guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or are we only allowed what someone else thinks we need?

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

I just watched Dobbs on CNN and he was talking about the Democrats trying to register all handguns right now. Well, that didn't take long. Pay-up

If a gun is not handy, the deed will be done.

If the person has the heart, the deed will be done. Shooting someone does not have the same intimacy that stabbing or beating someone to death does. It simplifies the procedure for the murderer, thus making murder more accessible.

The fact that a gun makes it easier doesn't mean that banning guns will significantly reduce suicides.

Research has confirmed that when suicide is more difficult, it reduces its incidence. For example, a study was done by a professor at UC Berkeley that showed that of 515 people who were prevented from committing suicide, 94% of them never lived another 2+ decades and died of natural causes. However, these persons did not intend on using a gun to take their own lives. For we both know there just aint no comin' back from that. Also, considering that a gun is involved 50% or more of suicides for men 20 or older, I suspect that limiting their accessibility might not be a bad place to start saving lives.

And if there is no reason to believe that homicide is any different, then why should we believe that banning guns will make us significantly freer from homicide?

75% of all homicides involving 17 year olds involve a gun. So maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of children....which has sort of been my contention all along.

If it is about reducing numbers, about statistics, then the more draconian the government bans, the safer from homicide we are. Is it more important in a free society to reduce homicide rates by X?%? If so, at what number do we decide that it is "just right?"

Statistics don't exist in a vacuum and of course, a handgun ban across the board is not politically feasible. But what is the problem if crime plagued cities enact handgun bans to protect teenagers from each other. The policy has to be measured and tailored and i'm sure their are lawyers that are bright enough to think up comprehensive legislation that can address youth handgun violence and maintain constitutional safeguards.

Interesting statistic: 13th Century Europe had an estimated homicide rate of 60 per 100,000.

Japan, with strict gun control, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S.

Homicide by gun in this country is much higher in the teen and young adult population than in the 25 and older set. In the latter, homicide by gun and by non-gun are much closer statiscally than in the younger set. If we MUST have stricter gun laws, maybe it should be age restrictive.

A year ago John Stossel did a 20/20 show that revealed violent crime and murder rates were similar in both strict gun control and laxer gun control states.

Suicide in Japan is of an entirely different nature, in some cases it is even ritualistic. Apples and Oranges on that one.

I'm sure if glock 9's were available to english serfs the homicide rate would have been much higher. Oh thats right, they only had stabbing weapons and arrows.

As far as 20/20 is concerned, I think its interesting that cities like Little Rock, AK and Shreveport, LA have higher incidences of homicide than Americas largest city. I do know that if you are caught unlawfully packing in NYC, your looking at serious time. Ask Plaxico Burress. Draconian measures....maybe.... a disincentive to carry an illegal firearm, without question.

Sticks and stones, and even guns, will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Hmmm.... now that sounds familiar

I think I've heard that before. You wouldnt happen to have an ALTERNATE user name and profile now would you.....:jester::tooth:;)

Johnny D - Define what you feel an assault weapon is? The reality is an "assault" weapon is nothing more than your average semi auto used by many waterfowl hunters or deer hunters dressed up in fancy clothes. Many of todays turkey hunting guns meet the definition of assault weapon..pistol grip, etc. I frankly don't see why anyone would want one unless they're into a particular type of target shooting. I'll take my SxS and O/U thanks but if you want to shoot some plastic stocked ugly weapon so be it.
I'm also a firm believer that to take away a constitutional right from millions of your fellow citizens is a dangerous practice. What right will become "unpopular" later...maybe one that you cherish. The constitutional law question was recently answered by the Supreme court..Bush court or not ..like it or not...it's your court too. For every scholar that says militia doesn't mean your average citizen I can show you one who says it does. Most scholars of the bill of rights will remind you that every other right is a personal right...ever wonder why some interpret the 2nd amendement as a "collective" or state right? My guess is they interpret it that way for their own narrow purpose.
Here's a question..if we suddenly fall into a huge national crisis... riots resulting from no jobs, a bird flu epidemic, etc. and someone decides to kick in your door and the doors of all your neighbors who are you going to call...the police? They're across town stopping the riot over there...911's on hold. I'll bet you'll be glad you're my neighbor at that point. Now I'm far from a right wing gun nut and I do believe compromise is required but you have to recognize that there are MANY people who would take every gun if they could and that is a problem recognized by the legal gun owning community. There is no compromising with those folks just as there is no compromising with a "gun nut". Neither is going to come out a winner.

Johnny D - Define what you feel an assault weapon is? The reality is an "assault" weapon is nothing more than your average semi auto used by many waterfowl hunters or deer hunters dressed up in fancy clothes.

I've already answered this question, quite explicitly actually. However, all the "Pro-assault weapons" folks here still continue to dance around my question of "what is the need for the average citizen to own an assault weapon?"

Restricting possession is not an infringement on a Constitutional right. You will be arrested for walking into a movie theater or busy restaurant and yelling "Fire!!!!" Does that arrest impeded on your Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech??

Tomatoes to tomatoes.

Also, there is very little Case Law based on the right to bare arms. The Supreme Court, Bush's Court as you put it, has refused to hear numerous cases brought on by the NRA about this topic because it is not an infringement.

I hate googling responses but... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260
I agree that there are circumstances that require regulation..no problems with a "reasonable"background check..hell they do CORI's on school bus drivers. The key here is reasonable, not a system that seeks to exclude without proper cause. As far as dancing around your question..I think you're just not hearing the answer you want. Again..if I buy an aftermarket stock and throw it on my old Rem.1100 it meets the definition of assault weapon...it's no different than a "street sweeper" except for how it "looks" There is no public "machine gun" ownership without extensive ATF review which effectively eliminates most public ownership. MA's high capacity magazine reg.is a law that I think gun owners should be willing to live with that would satisfy many opposed to "assault weapons" but gun laws being made by those with no knowledge of what they are talking about are unacceptable. Do you like lawyers making medical decisions... politicians making education decisions?

What's the best legally available assault weapon if you're thinking of going up in a bell tower for a little Texas-style target practice?

I want something accurate with knock-down power. It has to be automatic with a large capacity clip because I've noticed the filth tend to run like the #^&#^&#^&#^&ens once you open up on them.

Might want to add a little :jester: when making statements like that!

:eek5: Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle...US military approved..they can run but they can't hide! :hihi:
I now resume my usual "liberal" programming.

:cool:

:eek5: Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle...US military approved..they can run but they can't hide! :hihi:
I now resume my usual "liberal" programming.

:cool:

That .50 cal could probably cut someone in half at 1000 meters. Quite a sexy piece of machinery.

So for a third time, you're going to skirt around the issue without answering it. As I have said before, the Constitution does not provide for the protection of unlimited avenues in order to pursue "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

You're welcome to attempt to quote the Constitution all you'd like. But, I'm not going to answer your last statement since I already answered that poor argument 2 pages ago... twice actually.

Going forward, anyone who cannot give a valid reason (doesn't even have to be good), will be ignored for the rest of this thread.

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. I apologize if my answer was not valid nor good. So I will try again. I, personally, do not like guns. I am very uncomfortable in the presence of someone holding a gun. So my answer will be as a devil's advocate, not with great conviction.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.
Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

If the person has the heart, the deed will be done. Shooting someone does not have the same intimacy that stabbing or beating someone to death does. It simplifies the procedure for the murderer, thus making murder more accessible.



Research has confirmed that when suicide is more difficult, it reduces its incidence. For example, a study was done by a professor at UC Berkeley that showed that of 515 people who were prevented from committing suicide, 94% of them never lived another 2+ decades and died of natural causes. However, these persons did not intend on using a gun to take their own lives. For we both know there just aint no comin' back from that. Also, considering that a gun is involved 50% or more of suicides for men 20 or older, I suspect that limiting their accessibility might not be a bad place to start saving lives.



75% of all homicides involving 17 year olds involve a gun. So maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of children....which has sort of been my contention all along.



Statistics don't exist in a vacuum and of course, a handgun ban across the board is not politically feasible. But what is the problem if crime plagued cities enact handgun bans to protect teenagers from each other. The policy has to be measured and tailored and i'm sure their are lawyers that are bright enough to think up comprehensive legislation that can address youth handgun violence and maintain constitutional safeguards.

I am, by no means, a gun advocate. I don't own, don't like guns. But I wouldn't mind if some bolder, righteous, gun owner saved my timid ass if I were mortally threatened by a bad guy. And the saver wouldn't have to be a cop since police usually aren't around at the critical time. And that one time in my life that such may happen would be far more important to my selfish soul than reducing suicides.

I absolutely agree with you that we should keep guns out of the hands of children.

Suicide in Japan is of an entirely different nature, in some cases it is even ritualistic. Apples and Oranges on that one.

I'm sure if glock 9's were available to english serfs the homicide rate would have been much higher. Oh thats right, they only had stabbing weapons and arrows.

As far as 20/20 is concerned, I think its interesting that cities like Little Rock, AK and Shreveport, LA have higher incidences of homicide than Americas largest city. I do know that if you are caught unlawfully packing in NYC, your looking at serious time. Ask Plaxico Burress. Draconian measures....maybe.... a disincentive to carry an illegal firearm, without question.

Wasn't comparing Japan to the U.S. Just demonstrating that high suicide rates don't need guns. Most aren't ritual. Just movin on out.

English serfs who were the victims of homicide were probably killed by someone stronger or better armed. Guns tend to equalize that strength thing. If all the serfs had glocks, the homicide rates might not, as you are sure of, gone up, but down. The "Wild West" was not as wild as we are told--mostly dime novel myth. Everyone was armed and it was actually more civil than some of the many mean streets of today. Probably why Plaxico was packing, in spite of NY laws.

What 20/20 demonstrated is that violent crime and homicide rates, OVERALL, were about the same between states with or without strict gun control. That makes it even MORE INTERESTING that some smaller lax gun control cities have a higher homicide rate than NY. It must mean there are a whole bunch of smaller cities with laxer gun control that have a LOWER HOMICIDE RATE THAN NY, thereby helping to equalize the homicide rates between strict and lax gun control states.

Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

I'm not on that slope. I don't own a gun. I'm just, as I say, playing devil's advocate to give a point of view, frightening as that view may be to you, and to me as well. I am sure that the vast majority of those who hold that point of view, despise Timmothy McVeigh. He did not start a revolution, he just killed a lot of innocent people.

Hmmm.... now that sounds familiar

I think I've heard that before. You wouldnt happen to have an ALTERNATE user name and profile now would you.....:jester::tooth:;)

If it sounds familiar because it is my twist on an old cliche, well, cliches are intended to be so.

If you mean that you heard it before, not as a cliche, but as a response to being call a name (i.e.--pimp), then, no, I am not that person. I don't have an ALTERNATE user name (don't know what that is--am new to this computer chat stuff).

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution.

I completely understand your position. However, to be completely blunt, the Constitution is law - the Declaration of Independence is not.

http://geekpolitics.com/assault_weapons_ban_is_baloney/
These Rules Don’t MEAN Anything.

During the period the AWB was active no one stopped selling ‘Assault Weapons’ instead these guns were altered slightly so that they no longer offended legislators delicate sensibilities and life went on without a hitch. Firearm manufacturers stopped putting threaded barrels on their guns and stopped selling magazines that held more than the requisite 10 rounds. They renamed these new versions of their firearms and kept selling them; The AR15 became the XR15 and the firearm industry didn’t even notice this bill.
In fact the legislative director of the “Violence Policy Center” even pointed out the legislation did nothing saying,
“The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”


The most laughable thing, however, is that it is specifically SEMI-automatic firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban had no bearing on fully automatic weapons. These weapons remain under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act). Not to mention the belief that these ‘Assault Weapons’ are somehow more dangerous than any number of other semi automatic weapons that existed at the same time and fired the same ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14) simply because they had a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.

All gun control does is weaken the people. Take a look at some of our history.

Its the current administrations agenda to appear tough on guns. government says assault rifles=evil, assault rifles have been portrayed by the gun grabbers as this evil unnecessary item in our so called free society...

what bothers me is this gives non gun loving people the wrong idea... it sets up a malicious trend....1st my AK is evil next on the list... .50 caliber "sniper" rifles, assault style shotguns, handguns ect.......eventually what can we have...a muzzleloader? how bout a plastic spork??

same with lautenberg law... for example (people i know have lost rights) one for spanking his child, the other called his significant other (gf) a "C" word infront of the wrong person, or the girl who fought back in a fight with her abusive boyfriend..she was charged and convicted too. These people all lost their rights....now because of these minor infractions/past issues these can never defend their home/family with a firearm. is this serious?? this is out of control......and im not trying to give a unbalanced message, i do believe woman bashers should not have guns...But the way this law is working it seems to have been just set up to slowly strip the masses..... there should be rules incorporated into this law that restricts the repeat offender, or one who does serious bodily harm to someone (these people shouldn't have guns, they are out of control)....but for someone to lose their firearm right because they threw a lamp across the room or broke a piece of glass or something during a domestic dispute is just wrong. this law is a good example of how gun control is out of control...oh yeah an in the meantime, while felons can get expungements in some states, some states like Illinios will not allow expungements of these misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. So a felon in RI can technically own a firearm in 10yrs, while some unfortunate guy who gave his ex-wife a bear hug in Chicago is condemned by the feds to no longer posses a firearm for the rest of his life...how is this a fair law?

whats even scarier about this law is a stepping stone, almost like a gateway drug (gun grabber momentum) the next step will be removing firearms from those who have minor convictions of simple assault, or disorderly conduct..ect..... how many of us have gotten into a fight or two in their life?

So you ask....

Why the need for assualt rifle? The AK-47 is the most common and widely used firearm in all of the world... I think the 2nd amendment should at least give us the semi-auto version....

If our enemies have them so should we....Do you know how easy it is to build an AK-47???? Criminals will just make them, or continue to import them.

I was in the military and I was an expert marksman, I learned how to shoot and trust my life with my weapon. Like someone said previously you may just thank me someday for saving your ass!

do you know how many thousands of large magazines and millions of 762 ammo in circulation alone?

how many of AKs are in circulation in the world milions(our enemies? foreign & domestic will always have them) Making pot illegal never stopped people from smoking it and certainly didnt hurt drug trade or did it?

put it this way...if 5or6 armed thugs are preparing to invade your home, take your stuff, threaten your liberty? Are you gonna lock the doors and call 911? Yes, Are they going to wait for the police to show up....Hell no...now, the bad guys are on a mission.....and my thoughts are this... I could possibly fight/scare them off with my mossberg590 (thats a shotgun, liberals), The problem is if they are well armed (with say... evil "illegal"assualt rifles) The weapon I'm gonna need is my AK.

so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R :happy:

and really how many of you out there think people go out to legally buy an assault rifle to commit mass murder? If this were the case there would be alot more homicides because there are a sh*$L$&% of assault weapons out there..

the fact is the majority of these haneous crimes are committed with illegal firearms in the first place....those people who have lost their rights to posess/carry have become victims to the criminals with nothing to lose and all to gain by committing a crime using a illegal firearm.

How many criminals do you think hold up banks/commit crimes with the gun they purchased legally?

On top of that....How many of those same criminals would hold up a bank if they thought 1/2 or 1/3 of the people there were carrying? or how many Rednecks would stop beating their woman if she had a gun and knew how to use it.

Todays society is to dependent of their own government. Cops do a good job for the most part but they cant be everywhere all the time. Why cant people take care of themselves anymore?

Sheez, Chicago thugland has some pretty tough "gun laws"yet still has over 400 murders per year. Gee I hope PBO & Crew brings this to America where it seems most likely the murder rate would go up. Sarc Off.

Also Why do we need trucks/autos, motorcylces that go over 55-65Mph?

Why own a gun/assualt weapon? Because I do not want to be a victim, a slave of the state or depend on LE to be there.

Go off & die you liberal POS

:smash: I was going to reply to your post. Until you displayed you're an ignorant a*s, completely incapable of grownup discussions. You're an idiot.

"Why cant people take care of themselves anymore?"

That is a great question.

The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.

Which militia? The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.


so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R :happy:


You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?

Go off & die you liberal POS

Nice attitude.
:hs::hs:

Why own a gun/assualt weapon? Because I do not want to be a victim, a slave of the state or depend on LE to be there.

Because you are the worst shot on earth? I guess so!

Go off & die you liberal POS

Do you need a hanky?
A Tissue?
We have them.
We can help you.

Go off & die you liberal POS

Even I don't want them dead:hihi:

Even I don't want them dead:hihi:
youd have no one to listen to but the voices in your head...Rush and ann caulter.

youd have no one to listen to but the voices in your head...Rush and ann caulter.

point well made except .....I don't listen to Rush and the bitch

point well made except .....I don't listen to Rush and the bitch

:claps:

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/curves/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?p=668193#post668193)
The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.
Which militia?
You're right the majority of the people don't even realize they are the militia.

The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.

not every kook is from Michigan...
for example, google ARWM

perhaps i should move there though, and prepare for the kooks to fight the government back, or the next terrorist attack. something tells me one day these gun nuts might actually attempt to overthrow the government...what do i know...all i know is if there was a major uprising all s%@* will hit the fan as we know it and people will need guns to protect their liberty....

President Obama takes office, and gun sales are off the charts....why?....
I havent seen a buying frenzy like this in a while

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/curves/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?p=668705#post668705)
so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R :happy:

You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?\\

if you say so buddy,

1st Bn 6th Marines :eek:

expert rifleman and pistol sharpshooter :devil2:

What facts do you have that prove me wrong?

:yawn:

if you say so buddy,

1st Bn 6th Marines :eek:

expert rifleman and pistol sharpshooter :devil2:

What facts do you have that prove me wrong?

:yawn:

Expert in both eh?

Rock and roll don't get you the 10 ring.

wtf are you talking about...

apparently all you want to do is insult me. we're way off topic here.
I dont have time for this $%*^

hes just mad that you bought the slam pig. ;)

President Obama takes office, and gun sales are off the charts....why?....
I havent seen a buying frenzy like this in a while

This has already been addressed. I'd repeat it, but I'm tired of the "Pro" crowd refusing to actually read responses, repeating questions and still refusing to *logically* answer any questions in return.

I'm also tired of people talking without any facts to back their comments.

just as a side note. I purchased a 580 seires Mini-14 last year. I was impressed. Much more accurate than my pop's older version.

sean

wtf are you talking about...
I'd be curious to know if you really even know how to ride a motor bike.

Certianly you're not a cowboy. I'm a cowboy and it takes one to know on.

-spence

Certianly you're not a cowboy. I'm a cowboy and it takes one to know one. -spence

I just spit my coffee out. too funny!
:cheers:

Ok...just to get things back to a "civil discussion" around here...as someone who still has a KTM 495 and CR 250 sitting in the cellar.. a pair of Tony Lama's in the closet... and my "liberal gun owner" credentials in my wallet... I'm gonna personally vouch for MXcowboy. And even if that's not you crossed up 20 feet in the air....maybe you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. ;-) And Spence...MOTOR BIKE!!...you been listening to old beach boys records?

This has already been addressed. I'd repeat it, but I'm tired of the "Pro" crowd refusing to actually read responses, repeating questions and still refusing to *logically* answer any questions in return.

I'm also tired of people talking without any facts to back their comments.

Come on, They have been answered over and over. You just aren't hearing it. Let's just say the Pro Choice of weapon people use the same thinking that the Pro Choice of abortion people use.

Geez...this could be bad...I find myself agreeing with you on this one Buck! :-0 Of course I think BOTH arguements are valid...did you just talk yourself into a corner!! ;-)

Come on, They have been answered over and over. You just aren't hearing it. Let's just say the Pro Choice of weapon people use the same thinking that the Pro Choice of abortion people use.

The reason people should be allowed to own them is because it's their body so it should be their choice?:hihi:

Seriously though, the consistent answer has basically been "because we should be allowed to" or "it's an infringement of my constitutional rights" which is false, or "why not?"

None of those are "These are the benefits of me being allowed to own an assault weapon." This isn't some 3rd world country where a government uprising could occur at any moment - even though the South would like you to think otherwise.

Geez...this could be bad...I find myself agreeing with you on this one Buck! :-0 Of course I think BOTH arguements are valid...did you just talk yourself into a corner!! ;-)

Why yes, I believe I have :uhoh:

I'd be curious to know if you really even know how to ride a motor bike.

Certianly you're not a cowboy. I'm a cowboy and it takes one to know on.

-spence

i ll ride circles around u :musc:, bring it on b%^&@ :lama:

"cowboy" was my old dog's name, he loved I/Gs horses..

Heres a photo of him guarding my bike, oh look its the same bike in the avatar..

Ernie was a cool horse, I/G taught me how to jump with him.

:bshake:

Ernie looks like he's having fun in that picture. You look scared %$%$%$%$less.

No real cowboy would ever name their dog cowboy. It would create a rip in space time and both you and the dog would go poooof...

-spence

From the mouth of a gunban proponent:


http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com/2007/03/englands-gun-ban-proponent-admits-he.html


THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
England's Gun Ban Proponent Admits He Was Wrong

From Scotland's Sunday Herald. Be sure and read the comments below the article. I'm copying it here verbatim in case it disappears from the web:

Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell

ALMOST 11 years now. Kids grow up, life changes, leaves rot on the branch, and all memories decay. Stuff happens. Almost 11 years ago, on the morning after, I told myself that I had sworn off the vampire habit. You know the sort of thing. Something vast and terrible and inexplicable happens. The journalist dusts down his purple prose and sets out, consciously and deliberately, to feel everyone's pain. Inexcusable, really.

For example: they gave me a prize for Dunblane. To this day, I have never understood why I am the only person I know who finds the fact unsettling. WH Auden, born a century ago last week, said famously that poetry makes nothing happen. He should have tried journalism.

Facts: In mid-March of 1996 Thomas Hamilton, 43, warped, morally crippled, dead in his soul, certainly disgusting, the suicide-in-waiting who should have done us all a favour in the privacy of his own nightmare, went into the precincts of Dunblane primary, and into the gym class, with all his precious sex-toy handguns.

He killed 16 infants, then their teacher, then himself. He accomplished all this with four weapons, in three short minutes. Lots of official things - never adequately explained, for my money - had gone wrong before the event. Somehow that ceased to be the point. Half the world was staggered, but Scotland went into a state of near-clinical shock. The human ability even to begin to pretend to comprehend was defeated.

All over the country, people did irrational things, knowing them to be irrational. They turned up at schools, 100 miles from the scene, just to convince themselves that their own infants were safe. They called home from work, or called people at work, simply to prove that sanity still prevailed. Many could not face the idea of the working day. Strangers in the street, caught unawares by the news, were in tears. If you happen to be too young to remember, trust this: I'm not making it up.

Explanation and analysis, journalism's default responses, were worse than pointless. Those rituals, too, seemed insulting. Joining the world's media on the streets of Dunblane to ask people "how they felt" was worse than ghoulish: I refused that request. To their credit, nobody pressed the point. There was still the usual column to be written, however.

In fact, over the days and weeks that followed, there was more than one. I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

I'm still not convinced, or not entirely. A rueful young man in Los Angeles told me once that his city boasted more cars than people, and more guns than cars. "Current population?" he added. "Eleven million, give or take." To him, the notion of a country patrolled by unarmed police officers was a kind of fantastic dream. To him, equally, the fact that nice kids could lay hands on the family pistol - bought for "self-defence" - and die while simply messing around in the back yard was not an example to be envied, or copied.

"You know what guns do?" he asked. "They go off. You know what guns are for? To kill. That's their purpose. Only the rhetoric is harmless."

Back then, I believed every word. America had, and has, too many of the instruments that Thomas Hamilton found so alluring. Yet almost 11 years on, what do I read, and what do I say?

I read of three London teenagers murdered in the space of 11 days. I read of firearms "incidents" spreading like an epidemic across our cities. I read of Tony Blair holding a Downing Street summit on a crisis that seems - call me naive - a greater threat to many communities than any terrorism.

What I say then becomes obvious: my idea didn't work. In fact, I begin to thread certain fears together, like links in a chain. Here's one: if even London teenagers can provide themselves with the means to kill 15-year-old Billy Cox in his bedroom, guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly.

That's a nightmare for another day, however. We can worry about what might happen after we think of what is actually happening.

David Cameron's Tories argue the issue is societal, a problem of parenting and family breakdown. John Reid, home secretary, speaks of people "working together" for a gun-free world while he hints at new laws. Menzies Campbell, of the Liberals, says we need more and more effective policing.

Each of these opinions may have some value. I'd like to think so. Yet why do they sound like the words of men who have only the faintest idea of what life might be like in Harlesden or Moss Side? It is entirely proper to talk of youths who have become detached from society. You may, however, need to qualify the statement with a question: who is detached from whom?

A weapons fetish escalates for a fairly obvious reason. Many things may have changed since my working-class youth, but I am certain that one piece of logic persists. If he is armed, you had better be armed too. Knives become swords, swords become pistols. Status, respect and "security" follow. If you live. Having a father in the household, or access to a youth club, or hopes of a decent education can seem minor, by comparison, on a dark Saturday night.

Saying so solves nothing, obviously. Perhaps journalists, far less politicians, should make that confession now and then. We could all demand a better world - preferably by tomorrow lunchtime - but always bear our fallibility in mind. It goes back to the question I refused to attempt almost 11 years ago. If I could not explain Thomas Hamilton any more than I can explain the killers of Billy Cox, perhaps I have nothing useful to say about anyone's desire to kill.

I can guess, for all that, that there is something unreasonable, even bizarre, about declaring a youth crisis if teenagers are simply as we have made them. It's Tony Blair's fault, if you like. It's my doing, if you prefer. It's schools, or a lack of discipline, or insufficient policing, or new sets of laws, or just society.

If that last word still means anything, however, then we are all, in fact, culpable. Who turned Thomas Hamilton into a beast? God isn't talking. That leaves the rest of us. I cling, nevertheless, to one near-instinctive conclusion from 11 years ago. Guns breed guns. When they enter a society they multiply like a pestilence.

Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

Maybe its because he lives in the Southside of Chicago and has witnessed the tragedies of gun crime up close and personal. I believe there were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2008. Willing to bet 400 of those involved an illegal firearm.

and drugs and minorities....