|By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:33 am: Edit|
If you've been longing for your very own assault rifle and 30-round magazine for the next holiday season, you're in luck.
President Bush, sidestepping a promise, is allowing the ban on assault rifles and oversized clips to expire on Sept. 14.
President Bush promised in the last presidential campaign to support an extension of the ban, which was put in place in 1994 for 10 years. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society," Mr. Bush observed at the time.
These days Mr. Bush still says that he'll sign an extension of the ban if it happens to reach his desk. But he knows that the only way the ban can be extended on time is if he actually urges its passage, and he refuses to do that. So his promise to support an extension rings hollow - it's not exactly a lie, but it's not the full truth, either.
Mr. Bush's flip-flop is surprising because he has generally had the courage of his convictions. Apparently he's hiding from this issue because it's so politically charged.
...While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.
They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers. If anything, we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The bottom line is that Mr. Bush's waffling on assault weapons will mean more dead Americans.
About 100 times as many Americans are already dying from gunfire in the U.S. as in Iraq. As many Americans die from firearms every six weeks as died in the 9/11 attacks - yet the White House is paralyzed on this issue.
Mr. Bush needs to live up to his campaign promise and push to keep the ban on assault weapons. Otherwise, we'll bring more of the Iraq-like carnage to our own shores, and his refusal to confront our gun problem will kill more Americans over time than Osama bin Laden ever could.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:23 am: Edit|
LOL! Bush haters!
"These days Mr. Bush still says that he'll sign an extension of the ban if it... reach(es) his desk."
Do you want a democracy, or dictatorship? He said that he would do his job. He said he would sign it. The president is not to interfer with other branches of the government. Your 'beef' is with Congress. Or at least it will be if it turns out you CAN predict the future, and it never makes it out of Congress
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit|
"They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers."
This data has been already debunked a LONG time ago. I wish journalists would check reputable statistics from the ATF or FBI. The previous data was exagerated by the most extreme anti-gun groups, and many guns included in those statistics did not even fall under the jurisdiction of the Assault Weapons Ban anyways.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:28 am: Edit|
Oh and JL87d is right. If you want to strengthen the ban, you got to speak with Congress to make more persuading messages.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit|
Hey, don't knock Kristof. I'd like proof that his data is wrong by the way. You can't just summarily say it's wrong without showing something, and don't show me some crazy NRA site. In terms of gun control I really hope you can agree Vancat that assault weapons don't really have a place in society.
The point is that Bush could get the ban continued if he wanted to and he's not -- that's all that really matters. Therefore, considering his earlier statements he is at least showing a lack of convictions. You cannot have it both ways: you can't have it one time Bush sticking to his convictions and the next time respecting the system with you praising him every time.
Also, if you read the whole article it attacked the law itself as well (which I encourage you to do). So because that's not the whole article:
1. Kristof's point with the 8.4% and 1/5 figures were that it is disproportianate the the less than 1% of the guns in America. So even if it's smaller by a few percentage points, the argument remains that assault weapons result in more deaths than a regular gun.
2. Actual quote: "Critics of the assault weapon ban have one valid point: the ban has more holes than Swiss cheese." This was followed by more attacks on the lack of effectiveness of the ban.
That's all for now.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit|
"Oh and JL87d is right. If you want to strengthen the ban, you got to speak with Congress to make more persuading messages."
Let's change you to Bush and you have it right. That's what and all it takes for the ban to get through.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:30 pm: Edit|
|By Kyle8744 (Kyle8744) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit|
Sept. 14, 2004 will be a great victory for freedom.
|By Starynight5 (Starynight5) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit|
We're a democratic republic right? Not an actual democracy....
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit|
can one of you gun rights activists please explain to me what you plan to do when you buy your assault weapon on september 14th.
|By Simba (Simba) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit|
Yes, but he flip-flopped.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
I'm curious what someone would need an assault rifle for also.
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit|
Eyesclozedtight. I am one that would really love to get their hands on an assault rifle.
My reasons are:
1) I am a gun nut. I want one for the same reasons a stamp collector might want to get their hands on more stamps.
2) I am also a marksman. I would love to take the rifle out to the range and practice my marksmanship because...
3) Ultimately, I want protection, and an assault rifle is an excellent home defense weapon (shotguns are considered the best but they're too brutal and inaccurate in my opinion).
|By Neo (Neo) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:43 pm: Edit|
When last were you in a situation which necessitated the use of an assault rifle?
Seriously. I'd really like to know when last you felt "naked" without one. When last did you really feel your home was unprotected without a gun with the capacity to fire 180 hollowpoints a minute?
Were you planning on robbing a bank?
Were you planning a trip to Baghdad?
Did you just feel like going out and killing/shooting a lot of people/deer/stop signs/Aliens from Halo?
I'd really like an answer (from anyone who thinks Sep. 14th will be a day of "freedom", as someone put it up there).
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:48 pm: Edit|
Damn, someone beat me to it.
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:01 pm: Edit|
did I say that owning a rifle was a necessity?
did i ever say i felt naked without one?
did i ever say i wanted to rob a bank?
did i ever say i was planning a trip to baghdad?
did i ever say i felt like going out and killing someone?
Neo, you are 100% idiot. I like how you automatically assumed that I intend to wreak havoc in society with a rifle. Truth is, you know nothing about me, and you are wrong to assess such irrational conclusions of who I am.
I am offended. So go to hell. I need not explain anything to someone of the likes of you.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
"did I say that owning a rifle was a necessity?"
That answers everything. Though the rest of the post was just you overreacting to a reasonable question of why anyone would want or need an assault rifle. Why do you people take these comments so personally -- it's called hyperbole -- and I think Neo made a great point. So calm down, no one is accusing you of anything. In fact, you just ranted instead of giving a decent answer of why the ban shouldn't exist.
|By Onnihs (Onnihs) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit|
hyperbole my rump.
again, i never said there is a NECESSITY for assault rifles. i merely stated that i wanted one, and i clearly stated my reasons for it.
scroll up and read my first post again. those are my reasons for wanting a rifle, and those alone. if the ban upholds, fine, i have my handguns. no biggie. if the ban is lifted, then i'm adding an assault rifle to something called a "collection."
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit|
I Completely agree with Onnihs. Until you anti-gunners have actually shot guns, you will NEVER know how fun they can be, assuming you follow basic commen sense safety rules. Also, I'm assuming you don't like "assault rifles" because they seem scary, though I could also say that I don't like Porsches because they are "fast and scary and loud and they kill plenty of people to."
Assault rifles are a blast to shoot, and don't knock them off until you have actually had the pleasure of shooting them. Trust me.
Also, yes I would depend on an assault rifle to protect me. Considering that in many instances, a pistol is NOT sufficient to protect one's home and family, I would want an assault weapon.
One just needs to take a look at the 1992 LA riots compared to the Florida hurricane disaster. Florida, which has very pro-gun laws, has seen gun-owners on their front porch ready to protect their possesions against thiefs and looters. Interestingly enough, I believe it was the Korean Town in LA which was one of the few areas NOT to be attacked and vandalized; primarily because its residents were armed and the thugs knew it.
Final word: I would love to own assault rifles. Period.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit|
And another thing. LIke Onnihs, I am a gun nut as well. And collecting these beautifuly made weapons and taking them out to shoot would make my day.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:26 pm: Edit|
If life ruled, I would llike to see the ban repealed. However, since life sucks, I realistically think that Bush will choose to continue the ban. Why?
He needs the votes of the soccer moms in swing states. Considering they still think assault rifles are used by bad guys in every crime to spray a dude full of lead from a mile away, Bush is probably going to keep the ban. Even though the anti-gun movement has REALLY run out of steam lately.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit|
I don't have any problem with you shooting guns ... if you read the article itself, Kristof talks about how much fun he had shooting when he was younger. I just don't think you're joy is worth legalizing this type of weapon that isn't really necessary. Legalization can't be based on how much "fun" something is.
When the hell is an assault weapon necessary for defense? If you need an assault weapon for defense, you might want to make some life changes. If a riot like that took place, I'm sure shooting one looter with a pistol would cause the rest to leave.
My only point is that I would rather live in a country where there are no assault rifles.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit|
We are getting off topic though. The point is that Bush was strongly anti-assault rifle and now he doesn't seem to care enough to push Congress and get the ban extended.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit|
Here are some articles from a good website that debunks plenty of gun myths. THough the website as a whole is pro-gun, it balances it by giving links to opposing arguments and it uses reputable sources and government studies (i.e. FBI, university researchers, police data, etc...)for data.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 09:18 pm: Edit|
Sorry Craig, assault weapons are MORE effective in defending ones home. I'm thinking you are still stuck in Hollywood land, where assault rifles have unlimited ammunition, kill miles away, and spray entire groups of people with bullets.
Study conducted by FBI: Assault weapons vs. Pistols in home defence scenarios.
Please read, some of the terminology might be a tad difficult for non-gun-nuts to understand but should be fine.
|By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 09:35 pm: Edit|
I think it's rather ironic that the same people who want everyone to be able to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever on the basis of personal rights and responsibilities are the people who don't want others to have properly licensed assault rifles. Think about it.
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit|
I think abortion should be limited especially for teens, Ive seen some dumb teens who think its a form of birth protection> Guns should be limited but not banned(US constitution which people only turn to at their convenience). Assault rifles are just over the top. Get a desert eagle or colt 45 and learn to shooot if you want protection. I dont think its ironic because I doubt there are people who actually want people to "have an abortion for any reason whatsoever "
on a side note since there is a family guy thread has anyone seen the episode where Peter becomes a gun fanatic and joins the NRA after he finds out Chris has a big .
|By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit|
When it comes to home defense, an assault rifle isn't really necessary. Very few people actually wear Kevlar, and a .45 pistol with a 12 round clip will take down anything. Hell, even a 9mm will stop a criminal from invading your home. I support gun ownership, but owning an assault weapon isn't necessary.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit|
wrong Mrbesch. read my above post concerning the use of assault rifles in home defense scenarios.
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit|
wrong vancat that site is pointless, if I was you I would suggest not getting involved with the type of people who have enough money to buy an assualt rifle and kevlar vest and are willing to try to raid your home. the average crook doesnt wear a kevlar vests or use assault weapons unless the russian mafia is coming after you.
|By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit|
Vancat that site just seems to make a point for why law enforcement should use .223 cal weapons instead of SMGs. It doesn't say anywhere that a pistol isn't good enough for home defense.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit|
wrong Mrbesch, the entire point of the site was to explain the threat of overpenetration of a .223 round of an assault rifle versus common handgun rounds against standard wall material. The data was pretty damn clear if you had read it at all. And there was never any BS about criminals wearing/not wearing kevlar.
Summarization of Research:
To put it simply, a .223 (5.56mm NATO) assault rifle in a home defense scenario presents the advantages of accuracy, high magazine capacity, and a LESS risk of overpenetration of walls or bodies than would be found in a pistol caliber weapon. This is primarily due to the 5.56mm rounds light mass combined with high velocity, which results in the round fragmenting against hard objects such as walls. In larger pistol caliber rounds (9mm, .45, .357) the larger mass combined with lower velocity ensures that the entire mass of the round stays consistent and lethal through many layers of walls, furniture, etc...
And I never said a pistol isn't good for home defense. I just said that an assault weapon is Better.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit|
Sure the research relates to law enforcement, but also presents solid evidence that an assault rifle is a safer and more effective method of defence.
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit|
In larger pistol caliber rounds (9mm, .45, .357) the larger mass combined with lower velocity ensures that the entire mass of the round stays consistent and lethal through many layers of walls, f
Isnt the whole point for it to be lethal
|By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit|
Vancat, I don't see how I'm wrong about anything here. First I said, "When it comes to home defense, an assault rifle isn't really necessary. Very few people actually wear Kevlar, and a .45 pistol with a 12 round clip will take down anything. Hell, even a 9mm will stop a criminal from invading your home. I support gun ownership, but owning an assault weapon isn't necessary. " Let's condense that into - "Pistols are good enough. Assault weapons are superflous."
You said I was wrong about that- "wrong Mrbesch. read my above post concerning the use of assault rifles in home defense scenarios.", and that I should read the link you gave.
I then said that, after reading the report, that it doesn't say a pistol isn't sufficient enough- " Vancat that site just seems to make a point for why law enforcement should use .223 cal weapons instead of SMGs. It doesn't say anywhere that a pistol isn't good enough for home defense. "
You then said that the report wasn't about that but rather it stated why a .223 round is better than a pistol round - "wrong Mrbesch, the entire point of the site was to explain the threat of overpenetration of a .223 round of an assault rifle versus common handgun rounds against standard wall material. The data was pretty damn clear if you had read it at all. And there was never any BS about criminals wearing/not wearing kevlar.
To put it simply, a .223 (5.56mm NATO) assault rifle in a home defense scenario presents the advantages of accuracy, high magazine capacity, and a LESS risk of overpenetration of walls or bodies than would be found in a pistol caliber weapon.And I never said a pistol isn't good for home defense. I just said that an assault weapon is Better. "
Vancat, I don't recall saying that a pistol was better than an assault rifle. I only said that it wasn't necessary and that a pistol was good enough. But yet, you said in an earlier post, "wrong mrbesch."
Here comes the hypocrisy train, next stop is you. You then said, "And I never said a pistol isn't good for home defense. I just said that an assault weapon is Better. " ??? What sense does that make? I said that pistols were good enough, you said I was wrong, but then you said I was right??????
Not only that, "body armor" (which is Kevlar) is mentioned in the report and it says that SMG bullets couldn't defeat it, yet you said body armor was never mentioned. You could say that you meant it was never mentioned in the context of criminals wearing it, but that would be a pretty hollow rebuttal. If anything, the body armor mention supports your stance, but you never said anything about it.
Point is, I never said a pistol was better than an assault rifle for home defense. I said it was good enough. I don't see what I was wrong about.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit|
Well, this will never be settled as long as people feel they need to have assault rifles (for some reason). I plead ignorance in respect to guns, but I don't think I would need it. This seems like a conversation we've all ready have.
The point is that Bush said he would take a stand and he has decided that it suddenly is not important enough to pressure through congress. You can take sides on it, but it does seem that Bush's stance has changed. Personally, I don't think changing one's stance is bad but I do find this case ironic.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit|
2bad4u, lemme explain. A 5.56mm rifle round combines high velocity with low mass. That very combination is one of the best ways to stop a threat. This type of round (5.56mm under 200meters), when entering a body, tends to tumble and fragment, causing severe damage. For a rifle with a 16in. barrel, fragmentation is usually achieved below 200m and at a velocity above 2,700fps. This is usually common knowledge, so you can just google it up.
The point is, larger pistol rounds and lower velocity are LESS effective for this reason: The bullet will remain intact through a body, causing less cavitation, less fragmentation effects due to velocity, and less overall area of damage. In the end, the bullet tends to deform slightly when entering, then exit, and penetrate something else behind the body. That is potentially dangerous, as in home defence scenarios you DO NOT want overpenetration: the risk of a family member being behind a bad guy is too high.
|By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit|
Quick note- not all assault weapons use the same caliber bullet. The AK-47, for example, uses a 7.62 mm bullet, which is simply brutal. It is also armor-piercing.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
Mrbesch, you stated that assault rifles were superfluous and not necessary for home defense. Then, you stated that pistols were fine enough.
I simply stated through that link i gave you that pistols were potentially dangerous in home defense scenarios and that an assault rifle would be a much better choice.
THough you're right; I should have mentioned the body armor position and remembered to bring it up. Soo, *what if* he was wearing a vest? Level I-Level II vests are quite common and you shouldn't rule out a criminal wearing one. Level II will stop everything up to 9mm (1175fps impact speed) and .357 magnum (1400fps impact speed).
Of course, you are highly unlikely to find criminals wearing vests to protect against 5.56mm rounds; a steel or ceramic rifle plate is required to stop them and they are pretty damn expensive.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit|
Myth: the AK47 family fires a 7.62mm round. Yes its "bigger" than the M16 family's 5.56mm round, but its NOT more lethal. Its a common myth thats been perpetuated alot, so I'm not surprised you brought it up.
again, the crucial factor in a rounds effectiveness is its VELOCITY, not necessarily its size. Case in point, a 5.56mm round is much more deadly than a typical 9mm round. Why? Velocity.
Sooo, lets bring up the comparison for the 7.62 vs. 5.56mm at a test range of 200m. for the 5.56mm round, it achieves a velocity of about 2600-2700fps. The AK achieves less than 2000fps. Understanding the relationship between Mass+Velocity+Damage, we see that the 5.56mm causes catastrophic damage through tumbling+fragmentation while the 7.62mm round will at most cause a enlarged tumbling wound.
The only advantage a 7.62mm round has over the 5.56mm is either penetrating thick cover (bad for home defense), or terminal ballistic effectiveness at longer ranges.
And the standard 7.62mm round, just like standard military 5.56mm, is NOT armor piercing. It was never designed to be like that nor was it intended to defeat armored targets. Both are intended for human targets or light material. Special armor piercing variants are only available to military..
That being said, I certainly would not want to take an AK47 as a home defence round, considering its overpenetration
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit|
thats not the point though, there are scenarios where an assault rifle works best just as there is for a shotgun or handgun but for the most part an assault rifle is meant to do as it name suggest assault , it is more of an offensive weapon than a defensive weapon, it is better for going on a drive by shooting and at long range, for short range a shotgun is better.
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
banning assault rifles hurts offenders more than those who are using guns for self defense
|By Mrbesch (Mrbesch) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
Sure, with a level II vest the bullet will be stopped. But keep in mind, the force doesn't go away. It hurts like a *****. The sheer force from being shot with a pistol at point blank range is enough to immobilize a criminal with multiple shots. Consider- a level II vest can stop a 12-gauge shotgun round, as in that no pellets will get through. However, you'll be lucky to survive as the force of the shot will be like that of a horse's kick.
Most criminals don't have the money or inclination to buy kevlar vests. They don't think out raids that coherently. The common house burglar doesnt wear a full kevlar suit. If people are coming after you with kevlar vests on, than you've probably pissed off someone in the mob or whatnot. Not only that, there are stiff penalties for wearing a bulletproof vest while committing a criminal act. That report even says that kevlar use is rare. It DOES say it is increasing.
The 5.7 mm round used in the P90, a gun made in france and used by counter-terrorist organizations. Normally I'd ignore it because it's French, but this seems to be something worthwhile. It is as small as a pistol round but shaped and designed specifically to cut through kevlar. You get the kevlar penetration without the assault rifle overkill. The problem is, that round isnt used in pistols, but if kevlar use by criminals increases significantly, expect to see it or similar bullets on the market for pistols.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit|
In rebuttal to the "shotgun is better for close range" idea, just look again at the link I provided.
At the ranges of a typical home defense scenario i.e 10-50m, a shotgun is a poor compromise.
1. A shotguns pattern of spread is NOT an effective substitute for more accurate assault rifles. At close ranges, the spread is measured in inches, which hardly aides a "point and fire" method.
2. As the research in the link showed, standard 00 buckshot will overpenetrate drywall to an extent that anything behind the wall is in serioius danger.
3. A shotgun lacks the magazine capacity that will permit rapid follow-up shots in case of a miss or multiple invaderes. Let's take the most typical shotgun available on the market, a plain jane Remington 870 12ga. pump action. With a magazine capacity of 4 rounds plus one in the chamber, its not exactly the ideal weapon.
4. Again, 2bad4u, you need to reread that link which shows the advantages of an assault rifle in a home defense case.
Mrbesch, the 5.7mm round for the Fabrique NAtional P90 is a specially designed round to penetrate body armor. It is illegal to civilians and can only be purchased by the military. And the tradeoff, as you said before kevlar use (though increasing), is RARE. A 5.7mm AP round is hard nosed and steel, which means it will not deform, tumble, or fragment to produce good stopping results against an UNARMORED target. Again, the 5.56mm round is the best overall choice.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit|
interesting thing is, regular 00 buckshot is one of the WORST projectiles when penetrating armor is concerned. Not only are the light vests going to stop it, a thick leather jacket at 50m will stop 00buck (even considering a pellet will hit you at that range).
Yes, criminals can be "stopped" with numerous followup pistol rounds if he is wearing a vest. However, this "stop" is mostly psychological, considering that most of the damage to a vest if shot with a round its rated to stop is bruising . Also, The hard thing is making those followup rounds when you factor in variables such as lack of visibility, adrenaline, panic, recoil, muzzle flash, and a moving target.
The lack of effectiveness against unarmored and armored targets + inherent inaccuracy with a handgun = makes it a worse choice than an assault rifle.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit|
Oh and you are forgetting Mrbesch. The 5.7mm from the P90 is specifically designed to be AP. Considering its relatively high muzzle velocity and its special design, it's most likely going to shoot through an unarmored target without causing much damage and possibly endangering anything behind him.
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 01:14 am: Edit|
Article [II.] OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
First, we're way off topic now. Second, the 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms, may be regulated.' This bill is unconstitutional if it does pass Congress, and President Bush does sign it. I hope The Supreme Court Does their job, by shooting it down(pun intended).
|By 2bad4u (2bad4u) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 03:37 am: Edit|
"Not only that, there are stiff penalties for wearing a bulletproof vest while committing a criminal act. That report even says that kevlar use is rare. It DOES say it is increasing.
criminals rarely wear vests than why do you insists including them in your argument
|By Aim78 (Aim78) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 04:04 am: Edit|
Why? Why wouldn't he extend the ban? Do people really need assault rifles in their homes?
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 05:00 am: Edit|
maybe i should "arm" myself with a nuclear weapon. after all, according to you, the government can't regulate or infringe my right to bare arms right?
here's a good question for you gun rights advocates(and for anyone):
how many of you have actually been in a situation where an intruder was in your home? thus giving you the right to use a weapon in defense.
when i was 13, my dad was working on his car in the garage at about nine at night. two men approached my dad and both were armed with handguns. at the same time, i happened to open the door to the garage. one of the men pointed his gun at me and told me to "shut the f*cking door." i slammed it shut and ran to call 9-1-1 and hid inside the kitchen pantry for fear of being shot or kidnapped. meanwhile, the men asked my dad to give them his wallet. he was wearing coveralls(he was working under the car) and had to take them off only to find he didn't have his wallet. they then had him lay down on the ground with his hands on his head. they asked him who was in the house, and he responded, "my son and my wife." it was really only me in the house, but it was probably the smartest move he had made. the men decided there was no time to rob our house because they knew i had probably already called the cops. the two gunmen left with a third man who was driving the car.
now had my family owned a firearm, whether it be a handgun or an assault weapon, it wouldn't have done jack . was my dad supposed to say, "excuse me my good men while i go fetch my handgun safely locked in a box in the back of my closet... o and do you mind if i load it?" or was my dad supposed to tell his 13 year old son the code to the lock on the gun case or to the safe? because after all, kids aren't interested in guns or anything. or let's say i did know how to properly fire a gun. i'd still probably be shot considering there were two men with guns and one of me. sorry, i'm not james bond.
so my point is that i was held up in my own home, and a gun wouldn't have saved me. does anyone have any similar or contrasting stories?
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 05:17 am: Edit|
"maybe i should "arm" myself with a nuclear weapon. after all, (!!!)according to you(!!!), the government can't regulate or infringe my right to bare arms right?"
Sorry, but that was not acording to me.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - This is acording to the constitution, and the founding fathers. I'm sorry, I have this thing about obeying the laws, and protecting the bill of rights!
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:39 am: Edit|
2bad4u, why didd I include vests in my argument? yes criminals rarely wear vests, but they DO. and as Mrbesch said himself, its use is increasing. So why wouldn't I include them in my argument?
Eyesclosedtight, I know people who have used guns for self defense including my aunts friend and former neighbor. My aunts friend lives in florida and has a concealed carry license, where she was able to defend herself against a potential robbery and rape. The neighbor in question was able to scare away two burglers that broke into his house while him and his family were sleeping/ Why do you insist that there is no reason to own guns simply because of your single case?
|By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 09:00 am: Edit|
Vancat was right to include vest in his arugment. While the use of them by criminals is rare, it is often the most violent who use them. They are the criminals who plan out thier crimes; they are the criminals who commit crimes often; they are the criminals who maximize their saftey threw what ever means nesecary(even murder, not just the threat of it).
|By Simba (Simba) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 09:12 am: Edit|
Are you guys paranoids? Just think about it - they can have the same guns as you do.
|By Socaldad (Socaldad) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:25 am: Edit|
Full text, Article 2, Bill of rights
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Look, there's that word "regulated", third word in. I always marvel at the way that gunnies feel obliged to leave out the first part of a 27 word sentence.
Not that I'm anti-gun. Best intentions aside, the presence of an armed citizenry is ultimately one of the best defenses against government abuse of power in a free society. But the less nuanced first amendment hasn't prevented some limits on free speech.
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit|
Homer: You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?
% Homer holds a can of beer out and shoots part of the top off, opening it.
Homer: Anyone else want a beer?
Hibbert: Homer! You use your gun as a can opener?
Homer: I use it for everything! Watch me turn on the TV.
% Homer fires three shots at the television; the final bullet turns it on.
Agnes: I've never seen such recklessness!
Louie: You mighta hurt someone!
Cleetus: Are you some kind of moron?
Homer: Yeah, but...
Krusty: Hey, yutz! Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.
Ah, the Simpsons have an answer/retort for everything!
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit|
nice one Hunter. That was probably one of the best Simpson episodes ever.
Just another simpsons trivia:
In the introduction scene where Marge and MAggie are in the supermarket and the cashier accidently swipes Maggie through and puts her in the shopping bag, in one episode (a DVD special version) the screen on the cash register said "NRA4Ever"
Made my day.
|By Massdad (Massdad) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit|
Socaldad, in art 2, you also should mention that part of the debate is the meaning of the word "people". Many of us feel the term is an expansion of the term "militia" in that a militia is composed of people. Therefore the term is in reference to members of a militia.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit|
yes the 2nd amendment makes reference to "milita" as citizens who are armed and have the ability to prevent the government's abuse of power.
it does NOT refer to an standing group such as the National Guard (a federally funded and equipped force) to protect the people.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit|
Vancat said: "Why do you insist that there is no reason to own guns simply because of your single case?"
i didn't. i simply said that in my true life scenario, a gun wouldn't have saved my life. i also asked if anyone had similar or contrasting stories. ones like yours where a weapon did save a life. don't get so uppity and defensive because my family doesn't own a gun.
i'd still like to hear stories and testimonies.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit|
Here are some stories
Eyesclozedtight, Even if your situation a gun would not have protected you, (why was your dad working late at night in an open garage), never did I say that owning a gun would definately protect you in all cases. A gun for protection gives the owner an ability to defend himself when the situation permits. In your case, where clearly NO method would have worked, it was better to just acquiesce to the robber's demands.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit|
vancat, also the cash register on the simpsons always flashes NRA4EVR. they didn't do it for just one episode, it's a permanent installment.
|By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 03:34 pm: Edit|
Bill Maher (paraphrased): Gun advocates use the 2nd Amendment to defend their right to own a gun. They say that they need a gun/militia to prevent the government from getting to uppity. Well, you see that was fine when we both had muskets. But now, we have handguns and the government has cruise missiles and napalm...and if Janet Reno/John Ashcroft (joke made during Clinton years) wants to come in...she/he's comin' in.
Eddie Izzard: People say, 'Guns to kill people, people kill people.' Yes, and if monkeys had guns...I think the gun helps a bit.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|