Assault Rifle Ban

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by shilala

There was a time when my gun fed my kids. It doesn't get much more dire than "no food on the table". Unless, of course, junkies are climbing in your kitchen window to rob you. That has also happened to my family.
I don't see the "need" for anyone to have a turret mounted gatling gun on the roof of their Hummer, or a pile of full automatic ar-15's in their basement. I've never had the desire to own or even understood why guys buy so many of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.
Doesn't matter. It's their right. It's my right, too.
I won't likely own any assault rifles in my lifetime. I've played with them lots of times and they're a lot of fun, but I've never had the desire to own one.
Fortunately for me, if I come to need one, I'm sure one of my brothers will hook me up.

First, I'm sorry that I obviously touched a sore spot with some people on this thread and I won't be addressing the insults that were hurled my way. However, as already noted I am entitled to have an opinion. My statement was only meant to infer that the second ammendment is antiquated and written during a time when there were no assault rifles or machine guns. Plus, at the time people mostly lived on isolated farms and there was no police force. Firearms were much less powerful and the world was on the whole a more dangerous place.

Also, Al has nothing to do with this post.

I'm not saying no one should be allowed to own a gun and I would never say guns in general should be illegal. As Scott points out, there are people who have a definite need for a gun. I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

In the end this is just my opinion and people can take it or leave it.

[spooble]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars.

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by spooble

It is my opinion that this is the key fault in the thinking of the anti-gunners. A law that says it's illegal to own a machine gun has no effect on one who ignores the law. The same goes for illegal drugs and.. heh... cuban cigars.

Well yeah. There will always be law breakers. Otherwise we wouldn't need a police force right?

However, I think everyone can agree that if drugs, machine guns, or even Cuban cigars were legal they would be more prevalent and easier to obtain.

[shilala]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them. Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands... So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Mikey, at a time, I was opposed to automatic weapons.
Then, for a lot of years, I watched how the government that is supposed to "protect and serve" me did what they do.
The protect me by taking away my rights and everyone else's.
If they get the gatling guns, then they go after the automatic weapons, then the semi-auto's, then the handguns, and keep on going until kids can't carry a cap gun.
I didn't pull that out of my butt. Take a look at how it's happened in England. Our ideas were born there, and you can see a never-ending string of parallels between their lawmaking and ours. They're just way ahead of us because their population density is far ahead of ours and they've had lots more time to do themselves in.

That wasn't my point at all.
My greatest fear is that some disconnected knucklehead who works in Washington and has never seen an ounce of what it's like in the "real world" will be the guy to decide if Scott Shilala has the need of a gun.
Scares me to death.

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

[Da Klugs]

How do you folks feel about the progressive tax system?

[MikeyC]

Originally Posted by shilala

While I agree on many "guns are bad, mmkay?" points, most are based on real good guesses as to what might happen.
In all my life I have never heard or seen an assault rifle used in a crime. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but I've only ever seen it in the movies.
I've seen many handguns and shotguns used right here where I live.
So why are they going after the assault weapons instead of the handguns and shotguns?
It's because they know they can't get them. They have to whittle away at it. It's going to take time, and they have to get a foot in the door first.

I'm a firm believer that superior firepower is a deterrent.
If the bad guys have uzi's and I have an uzi, odds are the bad guys might get dead. End of problem.
If the bad guys never come up against equal force, where's it end?
If I have to fight off junkies crawling through my window with a rubber hose (because that's all Mr. Government decides I need) and the junkie is carrying a handgun, odds are that I'm gonna be dead and the junkie is going to crawl through my neighbor's window tomorrow because he has no reason to be afraid.
I don't want to have those odds stacked against me, and I don't want them stacked against you.
That'd suck.

Scott,

I agree with many of the points that you are making. However, I definitely don't agree with all of them. I don't think there's a need to debate this issue to death which is what would likely occur. I think we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Now let's get back to talking about something we can all agree are great . . . CIGARS!!

[spectrrr]

Again, I can't post my thoughts on every post, nor would you want to read them. Mikey's post just summs em up, I'm not picking on him.

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

Said legislation actually does exist... but for some reason, most of the people that are committing crimes don't seem too inclined to follow it...

Originally Posted by MikeyC

Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions....

Amen brother. I would even take it a step further and say that its not "often" that the tools end up in the wrong hands, its "always".

Originally Posted by MikeyC

....and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Food for thought. I've met a lot of people on both sides of fence, people that grew up with guns, people that didn't, etc. 99 times out of 100, the people that are "inexperienced" or "foolish" around guns and then get into accidents are the people that have been relatively sheltered from guns for most of their life.

A firearm is something that must be treated with the utmost in respect at all times, and damned near anyone who shoots often now or grew up shooting when they were younger knows this. People that live in a house that just tries to ignore their existance, those are the majority of the "inexperienced" people that you refer to.

whats my point? my point is, as you limit guns and drive them further away from the common public eye, and make it less socially acceptable for people to be involved with guns, I would argue that you will see an INCREASE in the number of accident related shootings because the number of inexperienced people will be rising.

[atlharp]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

At the time the 2nd amendment was written there was a definite and dire need to own a gun that doesn't exist anymore.

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

Originally Posted by atlharp

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by atlharp

Anytime, the government can take me from my home and intern me into a concentration camp (like what happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II) just by passing an Executive Order. There is "definite and dire need to own a gun."

ATL

well said brother!

[poker]

were still watching.....tread lightly.

What I find amazing is the thought process that stiffer gun laws cuts down on crime and the amount of guns that criminals have. All it does is makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun. When I bought my first hand gun it took 366 days from start to finish. That's right 366 days. I could have went to Newark and had one in less than an hour from a guy on the corner. Amazing.

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

[TripleF]

Keck, I just starting shooting a gun after almost 28 years.

Ownership of a gun has nothing to do with the government. Problem is, we have allowed it to be so. Laws pass and we sit and piss and moan.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."


Get involved. Call.. Write. Fight back.

We need a organized gathering for a cup of tea.

[elderboy02]

Originally Posted by TripleF

Keck, I just starting shooting a gun after almost 28 years.

Ownership of a gun has nothing to do with the government. Problem is, we have allowed it to be so. Laws pass and we sit and piss and moan.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."


Get involved. Call.. Write. Fight back.

We need a organized gathering for a cup of tea.

I have been doing my part. I write to all my representatives, am a life member of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendement Foundation.

I wish more people would join these organizations.

[webjunkie]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

I'm for guns, and I've seen this bit on a lot of e-mails and it always gets my goat (mainly because this is the area of history that I study).

The quote from Yamamoto is: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

He was trying to make a point to Tojo, who was for war with the US, that the only way to win a war with the US would be to dictate terms to Washington after having defeated the US militarily and Japan would never successfully invade the mainland US. While they did invade the Aleutian Islands, Japan would never have been able to invade the mainland. Even if the attack at Pearl Harbor hadn't been a strategic failure the Japanese just didn't have the resources to maintain or defend the supply lines required to invade the mainland US. If they had, Yamamoto's point about American's being armed would have mattered very little to the Army's culture of the superiority of Japanese infantry.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Originally Posted by webjunkie

I'm for guns, and I've seen this bit on a lot of e-mails and it always gets my goat (mainly because this is the area of history that I study).

The quote from Yamamoto is: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

He was trying to make a point to Tojo, who was for war with the US, that the only way to win a war with the US would be to dictate terms to Washington after having defeated the US militarily and Japan would never successfully invade the mainland US. While they did invade the Aleutian Islands, Japan would never have been able to invade the mainland. Even if the attack at Pearl Harbor hadn't been a strategic failure the Japanese just didn't have the resources to maintain or defend the supply lines required to invade the mainland US. If they had, Yamamoto's point about American's being armed would have mattered very little to the Army's culture of the superiority of Japanese infantry.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I don't know there are a lot of guns in the US. Come down south and you might agree with Yamamoto.

[webjunkie]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

I don't know there are a lot of guns in the US. Come down south and you might agree with Yamamoto.

I am from the south, North Carolina to be exact. Yamamoto's point was about the amount of opposition that they would have faced in an invasion. He was trying to get the Tojo, and the other Imperial Army commanders to see reason when they were planning an attack on the US. The Navy knew that they would lose a protracted war with the US, the main reason being that they were running out of oil and scrap metal (which they had previously gotten from the US). The Army was for a war with the US because they wanted to try to break the US's support of China in the Second Sino-Japanese War (this is why the US had a trade embargo with Japan in the first place). The Army had cultivated a culture of believing that the Japanese infantry was superior to all and would be able to defeat anything because they had superior will and spirit. They would not have cared about the number of guns in the US.

[DPD6030]

If it hasn't been said already...I can tell you from the LEO standpoint that no matter if it is passed or not the criminals will find a way no matter what if they really want to. The criminals have more powerful guns than the police force. A wise officer once told me, if we got it the criminals had it a year ago. I hunt and carry a firearm for work. I too agree that if there is an "assault" weapons ban then it is not fair to lawfully abiding citizens. I used to have an AR-15 but I sold it and wished I didn't.

[Da Klugs]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

Interesting fact:

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.
It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

Another interesting fact.... 2 out of 3 Americans represent more than 66% of the total. Times change. What was important in one era becomes irrelevant in another. Americans having or not having guns in todays world has little impact on national security. Having guns and the types of guns do however have an impact on personal security and safety. Being safer by having a gun and less safe through the ability of the few to harm in greater numbers with "military gear" being the opposite ends of the discussion. I believe assault rifles, automatic weapons etc. fall in the category of WMPD and should not be in private hands. Like nuclear weapons, fighter aircraft, tanks, etc. One on one guns are fine. One to many, too quickly do not serve the public interest and I believe were never envisioned by our founding fathers. Unfortunately, they are not here to ask, just their work product based upon their frame of reference a couple hundred years ago. Slavery is an interesting frame of reference when citing the sanctity of the words written by our founding fathers. Last time I checked women and minorities can vote now. Those words were written on parchment, not engraved in stone. The principles they represented were, by design, adaptable to the evolving nature of the nation. Liberty must always be balanced by justice.