Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 87

Thread: "Assault weapons" ban may return

  1. #26
    God/dess
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 209 Times in 142 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Speaking as a Brit, I live in a (relatively) gun free society - you can't legally hold and carry a firearm and I'm more than happy for it to stay that way. I feel damn safer over here knowing that in 99% of the places I go there won't be any firearms. (The other 1% are dodgy areas and I avoid those anyway).

    The points been well made earlier that your constituton was framed over two centuries ago by people who had no idea of its effect two hundred and fifty years later.

    Part of the original reason was to allow the then citizens to hold firearms to defend the fledgling US against external agression (like from us Brits after you booted us out in the War of Independence). Who's going to invade you now? The needs gone away.

    If you do want a reasonable right to self defence in (say) your home:

    (1) Why do you need an assualt rifle? A .45 calibre revolver will do the job perfectly adequately.

    (2) You say you need the guns to defend yourself against other US citizens who also have the right to bear guns - that sounds a pretty circular arguement to me.

    Why not pass a law saying anyone found carrying a weapon goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years - I'll bet that would stop a lot of people carrying weapons, and if they don't have them, you don't need them.

    And finally - to defend yourself against the state? To overthrow a despotic government?

    In the red corner, Joe Citizen with his army surplus M15 and in the blue corner the US military with an Abrahams tank. My money's on the tank every time.

    I thought that's why you had elections - to give you the option of booting out a goverment of which you didn't approve. Seems a far more democratic way than saying "this is a despotic government - I'll pick up my M15 and overthrow it"

    Phil.

  2. #27
    AlexxaHex
    Guest

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    I don't think the ammendments should be tampered with or taken to mean anything other than their original intent in ANY way. This country was founded on dissent and it should remain in that spirit. We have a hard enough time with our government being the way it is; I'd like to see more power to the people.

    Edit: This country is no more safe or dangerous today than it was when the constitution was written.

  3. #28
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Why not pass a law saying anyone found carrying a weapon goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years - I'll bet that would stop a lot of people carrying weapons, and if they don't have them, you don't need them.
    The problem is that only people who would obey the gun laws are well...the same people who obey the laws in general. An extra 10 years in jail for someone intent on rape or murder is pretty small peanuts.

    Those intent on using the verboten device to do harm to their neighbors will just find a black market means of acquiring it, or if that should fail just use the next available device that is legal to continue their crimes. Look at illicit drugs. They've been illegal for decades and carry stiff legal penalties to possess them, but people still get their hands on them quite easily. There simply isn't enough law enforcement presence to stop all of it.

    In short, if miscreants have a means of getting a gun, well law abiding people will always need them to protect themselves.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  4. #29
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Speaking as a Brit, I live in a (relatively) gun free society - you can't legally hold and carry a firearm and I'm more than happy for it to stay that way. I feel damn safer over here knowing that in 99% of the places I go there won't be any firearms. (The other 1% are dodgy areas and I avoid those anyway).

    The points been well made earlier that your constituton was framed over two centuries ago by people who had no idea of its effect two hundred and fifty years later.

    Part of the original reason was to allow the then citizens to hold firearms to defend the fledgling US against external agression (like from us Brits after you booted us out in the War of Independence). Who's going to invade you now? The needs gone away.

    If you do want a reasonable right to self defence in (say) your home:

    (1) Why do you need an assualt rifle? A .45 calibre revolver will do the job perfectly adequately.

    (2) You say you need the guns to defend yourself against other US citizens who also have the right to bear guns - that sounds a pretty circular arguement to me.

    Why not pass a law saying anyone found carrying a weapon goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years - I'll bet that would stop a lot of people carrying weapons, and if they don't have them, you don't need them.

    And finally - to defend yourself against the state? To overthrow a despotic government?

    In the red corner, Joe Citizen with his army surplus M15 and in the blue corner the US military with an Abrahams tank. My money's on the tank every time.

    I thought that's why you had elections - to give you the option of booting out a goverment of which you didn't approve. Seems a far more democratic way than saying "this is a despotic government - I'll pick up my M15 and overthrow it"

    Phil.
    Its cool to hear from someone from another country on this. Honestly I never have before. Its intresting that the UK has had absolutely no benifit showed from their gun laws. They have had a rise in homicides comited with guns since they banned them, not a drop. Truth is criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns. Hell you can make one if need be. We already have laws against illegal firearms. This doesnt stop bad guys from doing bad things. I do not own guns to protect myself from other law abiding citizens that own them. I worry about the non law abiding citizen. Why is it believed that if we ban some or all guns that criminals will not have them anymore? Lets use a bad drug as an example. Who here thinks they cant buy heroin? Ite been illegal for a long time yet is still readily available.

  5. #30
    AlexxaHex
    Guest

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by ResQ View Post
    Hell you can make one if need be.
    My dad makes rifles patterned after Civil War antiques. They are quite beautiful works of art.

  6. #31
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    In the red corner, Joe Citizen with his army surplus M15 and in the blue corner the US military with an Abrahams tank. My money's on the tank every time.

    I thought that's why you had elections - to give you the option of booting out a goverment of which you didn't approve. Seems a far more democratic way than saying "this is a despotic government - I'll pick up my M15 and overthrow it"

    Phil.
    Take a current look at Iraq. An orchestrated resistence can be quite effective. You can't necessarily "beat" the tank, you just nibble away at it.

    As for elections, that is another topic. Election systems are far from perfect. Even so, I am not advocating an armed struggle here. I am just making a point.

    I still hold that it is wrong to make criminals of people that are not harming anyone.

  7. #32
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexxaHex View Post
    I don't think the ammendments should be tampered with or taken to mean anything other than their original intent in ANY way. This country was founded on dissent and it should remain in that spirit. We have a hard enough time with our government being the way it is; I'd like to see more power to the people.

    Edit: This country is no more safe or dangerous today than it was when the constitution was written.
    You rock (I like this statement a lot)!

    The US Constitution has a process for making changes to it and the amendments. It is difficult to make these changes for a reason.

  8. #33
    Featured Member amylynnej's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    797
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    its unconstitutional to ban weapons.


    people who want to band weapons are generally weak losers.
    AmyLynne

  9. #34
    God/dess Embyr's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Schlong Beach, Cauliflower
    Posts
    2,558
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by amylynnej View Post
    its unconstitutional to ban weapons.


    people who want to band weapons are generally weak losers.
    .... want to support your emotionally-charged opinion with actual facts, or are we just throwing around insults?

  10. #35
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Phil,
    Before I get started let me say I enjoy getting opinions from People from other countries. Different perspective and all. Saying that I am about to vehemently disagree with you on most Points and point out flaws caused by such a ban in your own country. Not an attack on you personally and I have had many fine opportunities to work with the good People of your own Armed Forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Speaking as a Brit, I live in a (relatively) gun free society - you can't legally hold and carry a firearm and I'm more than happy for it to stay that way.
    You don’t actually live in a gun free society. When did the Manchester and Liverpool Constabulary (or is it Police?) begin carrying side arms? After firearms where prohibited for Her Majesty’s Subjects. Hooliganism exploded in a national epidemic, Criminal gangs from Eastern Europe are profiting importing weapons, all your violent crimes went up. Everybody started carry guns; when guns were made illegal except the average law abiding Subject. The Persons besides the Police who need a firearm for legitimate purposes, their own protection!

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    I feel damn safer over here knowing that in 99% of the places I go there won't be any firearms. (The other 1% are dodgy areas and I avoid those anyway).
    Well we have dodgy areas too. While I don’t recommend entering those areas; that can be unavoidable upon occasion, for any number of reason for business or what not. You don’t a feel safer. You tell yourself this because you try to remain in areas that make you FEEL safer. I don’t mean that as an insult. It is one of those little white lies every person tells themselves. Fact is you’re not safe from violent crime standing in a Police Station let alone on a darkened street. One can be Assaulted by a person with out a weapon and killed. Literally beaten to Death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    The points been well made earlier that your constitution was framed over two centuries ago by people who had no idea of its effect two hundred and fifty years later.
    As was the Magna Carta; the starting point for the US Constitution as a means of creating a more Democratic Rule of Law. It is a Brilliant document when you consider there was no contemporary Government of its kind to reference too. Would it be different with 250 years of hindsight? Undoubtedly. The Original Framers of the Document held a Vote. What would be the National Language be? Lucky for you Phil, Deutsch lost.  It would not have occurred to them to make English the Official Language or that the First Amendment would be used to protect a Religion that was not Christian. [/QUOTE]











    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Part of the original reason was to allow the then citizens to hold firearms to defend the fledgling US against external agression (like from us Brits after you booted us out in the War of Independence). Who's going to invade you now? The needs gone away.
    That’s half of it. The Well Regulated Militia without a doubt. Had it not been for protectionist Laws and Tarrifs to protect businesses in England there would have been an American War of Independence. Unintended Consequences. The other half is like I have already stated that among the Checks and balances spelled out in the Constitution to make it Tripartite power sharing is this Check against the Government itself going awry. The means to depose that Government when it becomes despotic and the ballot box if rendered ineffective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    If you do want a reasonable right to self defence in (say) your home:

    (1) Why do you need an assualt rifle? A .45 calibre revolver will do the job perfectly adequately.
    A .45 Caliber hand gun is a fine choice. One on One confrontations, yes. If criminals are cooperative, come in groups of less than six and agree to remain motionless when said handgun is discharged at them. A 45 Caliber would be ideal, however you can see where it falls short. Then there are times of catastrophe like hurricane Katrina where the criminal element comes out in force. That’s when owning your own Semi automatic rifle such as an AR-15 become invaluable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    (2) You say you need the guns to defend yourself against other US citizens who also have the right to bear guns - that sounds a pretty circular arguement to me.
    Not the law abiding ones, just the criminal element. Add to those criminals that are here illegally. Google MS-13 sometime.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Why not pass a law saying anyone found carrying a weapon goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years - I'll bet that would stop a lot of people carrying weapons, and if they don't have them, you don't need them.
    We have hundreds of Laws. More Laws in fact than some of the most repressive Regime currently in Existence. The law your Propose is already in effect in California and New York. Since the Criminal element is not concerned about the penalties for Murder, Kidnapping, or any number of violent crimes that can take place without a firearm; what’s ten more years on a Life sentence. As was stated by another poster; why create criminals out of people who have no intention of harming anyone else except to protect themselves or another.








    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    And finally - to defend yourself against the state? To overthrow a despotic government?

    In the red corner, Joe Citizen with his army surplus M15 and in the blue corner the US military with an Abrahams tank. My money's on the tank every time.
    Hmmmmm there a plenty of treatises by person with advanced studies in Tank Destroying. (Google – Anti Armor) it remains that an Abrams has to have a crew. That has to eat, sleep, perform maintenance, and refuel the tank in a normal day. What do you call a tank without Infantry to protect it? Dead. This would have been a bad bet. Tanks are a death magnet. Everybody hurls everything at Tanks. Best to stay a ways away.

    The Active US Army is in the realm of 750,000. The National Guard and the Reserves bring in the neighborhood of a million a piece to the party. There are 80 Million legal law abiding Citizens with firearms of one sort or another. That is one whopper of an insurgent force if Government tries to usurp the Constitution. Did you know our Military Oath is to the Constitution? Not to the government, with the proviso to obey only lawful Orders. This means that Abrams Tank is just a s likely to march on DC as an angry Citizenry to overthrow a despotic government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    I thought that's why you had elections - to give you the option of booting out a goverment of which you didn't approve. Seems a far more democratic way than saying "this is a despotic government - I'll pick up my M15 and overthrow it"
    The Second Amendment gives the ballot box the “Force” to back it up, should a despotic Government attempt to disregard it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Phil.
    Paul

  11. #36
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Has anyone read Saul Cornell's "A Well Regulated Militia"? I don't have a huge interest in the 2nd amendment but it is on my list to read.
    Frankly, I'm tired of the arguments of both sides. The framers did not want a strong federal government and put defense into the hands of state militias manned by citizens. not soldiers. While Jefferson may have expressed, in letters, the idea of the citizenry's duty to abolish a government not working for the people, I doubt he was advocating anarchy.
    If a despotic government is coming for you, they will not be marching soldiers to your doorstep. Instead, men in dark suits will knock on your door with information data-mined without a warrant and you will be whisked off, denied your writ of habeus corpus to be held at the government's lesiure. Yes, there is a fourth amendment too. So I say, if you're inclined to believe the 2nd amendment is the people's check and balance tool, grab your AR-15 and get your ass to Washington!

  12. #37
    God/dess Will's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Boston-ish
    Posts
    2,328
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 505 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    Good idea because of the following things which are mentioned in the OP link-

    'Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features:
    As they should be. One should not get their facts from the Brady Bunch web site as they have no interest inreality. "Assualt" "Hunting" it's all moot. What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

    A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

    The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

    In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

    So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it’s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:

    “History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.


    Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away.

    Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;

    "A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

    And:

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
    make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
    for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

    And a more recent opinion:

    "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell


    This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.


    Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.
    A cunning linguist...

  13. #38
    Veteran Member redvelvetrose's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2005
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    If you use knives you never run out of ammo...

  14. #39
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Cars don't kill people, people kill people. And, I think, any time Hitler is introduced into a discussion to bolster or defend a position, that position is weakened. Guns are in no danger of being banned. The Supreme Court, however, has allowed, and will continue to allow, gun control through legislation.

    Just like the political parties themselves, the extremists on both ends of this issue tend to run the debate, while the reasonable majority in the middle sits idly by, without a voice, because it's difficult to pull on a rope from the middle when the ends of the rope are manned by those determined to run in opposite directions.

  15. #40
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Guns are absolutely in danger of being banned. The assault weapons ban is simply to start getting us used to it. Look at other countries that have banned guns to see how it happened.

  16. #41
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    whine country
    Posts
    812
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 253 Times in 139 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Ahh, someone holding one end of the rope. I suggest you
    un-indoctrinate yourself from the NRA "sky is falling" position and look at the realities of such an attempt as to ban all guns. It just isn't realistic. Then go down to your local P.D. and ask a cop whether he wants any ol' dirtbag to wander over to the traveling gun show at the fairgrounds and load up on weapons, unchecked, which render his vest useless. You may think you're entitled to own any gun manufactured, but I'll bet a large portion of the first responders in this country, whose life is on the line everyday, don't have a problem with regulating access to some of the weaponry out there.

  17. #42
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Ernie View Post
    Ahh, someone holding one end of the rope. I suggest you
    un-indoctrinate yourself from the NRA "sky is falling" position and look at the realities of such an attempt as to ban all guns. It just isn't realistic. Then go down to your local P.D. and ask a cop whether he wants any ol' dirtbag to wander over to the traveling gun show at the fairgrounds and load up on weapons, unchecked, which render his vest useless. You may think you're entitled to own any gun manufactured, but I'll bet a large portion of the first responders in this country, whose life is on the line everyday, don't have a problem with regulating access to some of the weaponry out there.
    People that say it isnt realistic obviously pay no attnetion to other countries and history.

    That being said I could care less what the local PD thinks. I care what our rights as americans are.

  18. #43
    God/dess Will's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Boston-ish
    Posts
    2,328
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 505 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Ernie View Post
    Cars don't kill people, people kill people.
    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Ernie View Post
    And, I think, any time Hitler is introduced into a discussion to bolster or defend a position, that position is weakened.
    According to who and based on what? You know what they say about those who ignore history, and Hitler's lesson is a clear one*

    How about The Dalai Lama who said:

    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." **

    Perhaps Gandhi who said

    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."


    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Ernie View Post
    Guns are in no danger of being banned.
    Sorry, anyone who thinks that ignores history both recent and long past.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Ernie View Post
    The Supreme Court, however, has allowed, and will continue to allow, gun control through legislation.

    Just like the political parties themselves, the extremists on both ends of this issue tend to run the debate, while the reasonable majority in the middle sits idly by, without a voice, because it's difficult to pull on a rope from the middle when the ends of the rope are manned by those determined to run in opposite directions.
    I supplied data and historical fact. You supplied opinion based on nothing. I agree, the extremes on both sides make it hard for more moderate people to enter the debate.


    * Hitler’s Control The lessons of Nazi history.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp

    ** The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
    A cunning linguist...

  19. #44
    God/dess
    Joined
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 209 Times in 142 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Ok, let me suggest a thought experiment.

    Let's suppose that an inventor develops a machine that can locate EVERY firearm in the US and that all firearms apart from (say) the military and a small proportion of policemen could potentially be brought in and either stored or destroyed.

    In my theoretical universe it would then be possible to make the US gun free (with the above exceptions).

    In those circumstances, would you support the right for every citizen to bear arms?

    Phil.

  20. #45
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Do people who oppose an assault weapons ban support any form of of weapons control at all?

    Are all forms of weapons acceptable for anyone to own and use?

    Are there ANY limitations that you agree should be in place?

  21. #46
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Ok, let me suggest a thought experiment.

    Let's suppose that an inventor develops a machine that can locate EVERY firearm in the US and that all firearms apart from (say) the military and a small proportion of policemen could potentially be brought in and either stored or destroyed.

    In my theoretical universe it would then be possible to make the US gun free (with the above exceptions).

    In those circumstances, would you support the right for every citizen to bear arms?

    Phil.
    I would be entirely against it. The right to keep and bear arms was also for the citizen to protect themselves from the government in the event they went off the deep end. Then only the Gov would have guns. Not to mention criminals would be making them.


    Do people who oppose an assault weapons ban support any form of of weapons control at all?

    Are all forms of weapons acceptable for anyone to own and use?

    Are there ANY limitations that you agree should be in place?
    I am all for background checks. If you have commited a violent crime you do not deserve to own a weapon. THat is probably the only form I like that I can think of right now

  22. #47
    God/dess Will's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Boston-ish
    Posts
    2,328
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 505 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil-W View Post
    Ok, let me suggest a thought experiment.

    Let's suppose that an inventor develops a machine that can locate EVERY firearm in the US and that all firearms apart from (say) the military and a small proportion of policemen could potentially be brought in and either stored or destroyed.

    In my theoretical universe it would then be possible to make the US gun free (with the above exceptions).

    In those circumstances, would you support the right for every citizen to bear arms?

    Phil.
    Congratulations, you have just created the perfect police state. It is stunning to me how people like yourself forget history and how much faith they have in their police and government. Statistically, you are FAR more likely to be murdered by your own government than you are by a criminal or an invading army. The four most dangerous words ever spoken by any human being are “It cant happen here.” I can think of no worse scenario than the one you describe.


    The Next International Right
    Thursday, October 17, 2002
    By Glenn Harlan Reynolds


    The past century was one of barbarism and mass murder, one in which the world stood by while large populations were exterminated by governments bent on power and possessed of the means of killing.

    After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers.

    Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975), though Rwanda was originally covered by Belgium’s agreement in 1952, when Rwanda was a Trust Territory administered by Belgium.

    These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of genocide in the second half of the 20th century. (China's mass murders and starvation under Mao are more properly called "democide," as they did not single out a particular group or culture.)

    In every case, the "international community" stood aside while the genocide took place unimpeded by the parchment barriers of international agreement. Tea, sympathy and peacekeeping forces were provided after the killing was done, but no action was taken to seriously inconvenience the killers while they were at work. International agreeements, and the international community, have proved as useless as the League of Nations was in confronting Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

    As one article on the Rwandan genocide in Foreign Affairs puts it:

    As reports of genocide reached the outside world starting in late April, public outcry spurred the United Nations to reauthorize a beefed up "UNAMIR II" on May 17. During the following month, however, the U.N. was unable to obtain any substantial contributions of troops and equipment. As a result, on June 22 the Security Council authorized France to lead its own intervention, Operation Turquoise, by which time most Tutsi were already long dead.

    Nor have efforts to deter genocide by trying killers after the fact done very well. As the magazine Legal Affairs reports, Rwandan killers have turned up actually on the payroll of the "International Court" designated to try war criminals. It is, said one observer, as if Klaus Barbie had turned up on the staff at Nuremberg. Pol Pot, meanwhile, apparently died in bed.

    This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn’t something that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:

    The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."

    Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.

    Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. (Emphasis added).

    The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."

    Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm, and those who are afraid of the conflict’s spread will support (as Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be bothered to intervene out of compassion.

    It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm the people.

    Current events in Zimbabwe appear to be playing out in the fashion that Polsby and Kates warn against. If this is the case, then surely the human rights community could be expected to take on the subject of armed citizens, particularly as the right to arms is far closer to the individual rights that make up the "first generation" of internationally recognized human rights.

    After all, the human rights community has long argued that all sorts of dramatic changes in international law are justified if they might make genocide unlikely and has been nothing less than flexible in discovering such "post-first-generation" human rights as "developmental rights," "environmental rights" and a "right to peace."

    In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue -- but from the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s effort to put in place a global gun control regime "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms."

    In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world.

    It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living" body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure important goals -- chief among which is the prevention of genocide. Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed.

    It may seem odd to make such an argument at a time when D.C. is being terrorized by a mysterious gunman. But no one should pretend that rights do not have costs. We recognize the right to free speech not because we believe that speech does no harm, but because we believe that free speech has benefits that outweigh the harm. We recognize the right to abortion not because we believe that it is costless, but because the cost of having the state supervise women’s pregnancies is seen as worse. And we recognize the freedom of religion not because religion is safe -- it can and does lead to violence, as the worldwide epidemic of Islamic terrorism demonstrates -- but because having the government prescribe what is orthodox is worse.

    Similarly, an armed populace might conceivably lead to more crime (though the criminological evidence suggests otherwise). But even if one believes that widespread ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens leads to somewhat more crime, that is not by itself an argument against creating such a right, merely a cost to be set against the increased protection from genocide that such a right would provide.

    Given the high value that we (supposedly, at least) place on preventing genocide, it seems unlikely that minor increases in crime rates could justify eliminating such a protection.

    I wonder if the Bush administration’s diplomatic corps will have the nerve and the integrity to push this argument at the U.N. and elsewhere, not merely as an argument in opposition to global gun control, which they have been making already, but an argument in favor of a positive right to be armed as part of international human rights law? Perhaps they will, if enough Americans encourage them to.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and publishes InstaPundit.Com. He is co-author, with Peter W. Morgan, of The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society (The Free Press, 1997).
    A cunning linguist...

  23. #48
    God/dess Will's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Boston-ish
    Posts
    2,328
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 505 Times in 289 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by ResQ View Post
    I would be entirely against it. The right to keep and bear arms was also for the citizen to protect themselves from the government in the event they went off the deep end. Then only the Gov would have guns.
    "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    When mass murderers speak, why do so few listen?
    A cunning linguist...

  24. #49
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post
    Do people who oppose an assault weapons ban support any form of of weapons control at all?

    Are all forms of weapons acceptable for anyone to own and use?

    Are there ANY limitations that you agree should be in place?
    Mandatory Firearms Education. Beginning at Kindergarten (this is a firearm, this is dangerous, do not touch, tell and adult you found it.) I 'll have to ask my friend who was a Scout Master when Boy and Girl Scouts get Merit badges for Air Guns, then .22's. I think it is arouns 10-12 Years. Children get injured because they are curious and have never been educated what a firearm is or can do. Educate children. Please if you have Children educate yourself, then educate your Children on safe firearms handling. Even if you are commited to never owning a gun yourself (anyone) safety should be a concern. Read>>>>

    Commit a Violent Crime- No Firearms.

    Mental Illness- No firearms.

    Mental Incapitation - No firearms.

    No Citizenship - No firearms (unless upon approved hunt visa issued by the State Dept with Dept of the Interior)

    Dishonorable Discharge - No Firearm

  25. #50
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    136
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Assault weapons" ban may return

    Great post Will, You definately have a handle on things.

    I dont think I made myself clear. I am 100% against registration and liscensing. I think if you wanna carry you should be allowed, and that the gov has no right to know what I own and if I own something. I am for background checking, this doesnt prevent any legal person from owning a gun

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Complying with the "Politics" Ban
    By Eric Stoner in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-13-2011, 01:34 PM
  2. "Little dick comment" prompts assault
    By tempest666 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:24 AM
  3. California "Home-School" Ban
    By Tauries in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 10:30 PM
  4. UN Weapons Inspectors doing their "usual" job ...
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2005, 05:10 PM
  5. "The Return of Curves"-Yeah Right!
    By Katrine in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-02-2004, 10:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •