[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
The ad also claims that Bush “will let the assault weapon ban expire,” which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn’t present Bush with a bill to sign.
[/quote]
Bush has been busy getting the drugs out of pro sports, and working on the Mission to Mars. I can understand how he hasn’t been able to get this legislation passed.
As far as the bill and what specific types of weapons would become legal vs. what weapons are already legal, I am not a gun owner and I don’t know what makes a weapon off-limits. But I do know that basically every police organization in the country wanted the bill to be extended, and I’d take their opinion over the T-Mag forum’s. If cops do not want these weapons being sold, then I support that.
I have opinions and can back them up. Go back and read your own thread! And wasn’t it you who started that thread with the words “let’s keep it civil”? As I recall, I did just that.
No shit, you frigging brain surgeon, they articulate very well the pro-freedom position (which is all I said about them), unlike you, who cannot, apparently, articulate yours. Did you look at them? Are you interested in understanding others’ opinions or do you just want to hit and run? You wanna debate? You WILL lose.
I have a pretty extensive amount of formal firearms training due to my job in law enforcement. Im not listing everything, because nobody really cares, but it obviously includes legal aspects along with tactical/technical ones.
Im a longtime NRA member and member of a prominent shooting club. I have been fortunate enough to shoot with some very good people much more capable than me (military, law enforcement and competitive shooters). The NRA makes a great deal of literature available to their members about firearms issues, and it is a great place to start educating yourself about this subject.
I also have a decent collection of firearms.
By no means am I an authority…just informed. And that is my point…its almost impossible to discuss this issue rationally without a good amount of knowledge. If you are seriously concerned about the subject, you should seek out that knowledge. However, my feeling is that we don’t need to discuss this anymore (you notice the news programs have dropped it?) Society is in no greater danger today than it was on September 13…but it is a little more free.
As for what Lumpy said, its a bunch of crap(imagine that?).
Some chief’s associations came out in support of the bill but keep this in mind…police chiefs are politicians in almost all cases. That should tell you everything you need to know. Also keep in mind that just being a police officer does not automatically make you informed on firearms issues (I have many stories…) The majority of agency heads, if you take the total number of police agencies in the country into account, kept silent on this issue. And I can tell you that many informed police officers were against the ban in the first place because they knew it was useless and political pandering. We’re a little tougher to fool than that…
If cops do not want these weapons being sold, then I support that.
[/quote]
Just because some cops are for something doesn’t mean it is a good idea. The second amendment was put into the constitution so we could protect our civil liberties and freedoms and prevent the reinstatement of a police state. The motivation behind the second amendment was not to protect the sport of hunting like the democrats try to suggest, it was so we could defend our liberties. Here is a gun statistic I don’t think many people are aware of, the majority of cops who are shot are shot with their own gun.
The press has picked up the term assault weapon and they use it as a buzz word that they use to describe guns that aren’t even assault rifles.
The german mp44 was the first assault rifle. Hitler gave it the name Sturmgewehr which translates into storm rifle or assault rifle. This link gives a history of the weapon StG 44 - Wikipedia
If a gun can’t fire semi or full auto it is not an assault rifle. Machine guns have been strictly controlled since the 1930’s. There is a lot of bad information going around and people did not make an informed decision when the ban was enacted. The worst bit of misinformation going around right now is that the ban made all of these guns go away.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
It’s as simple as me not knowing the particulars of this law we are discussing, but having a decent understanding of the social/political philosophical topic of arm-bearing.[/quote]
Please, do elaborate on those highly ambient socio-politico-philosophical domains for us, won’t you?
Look, the only thing the idiotic law changed was the way the guns looked. IF anyone wants to say “Well, i dunno the specifics but cops don’t want the guns and i’m gonna listen to the cops.” that is a poor argument. Take some time and learn something about the law before you embarass yourself.
As far as the bill and what specific types of weapons would become legal vs. what weapons are already legal, I am not a gun owner and I don’t know what makes a weapon off-limits. But I do know that basically every police organization in the country wanted the bill to be extended, and I’d take their opinion over the T-Mag forum’s. If cops do not want these weapons being sold, then I support that.
[/quote]
You mean the cops groups that have come out in the last few days and given then support in the election to none other than GW Bush. Nice try lumper.
Since you so value the opinion of the police now, I think I can expect the following from you:
You and your counter-culture leftist buddies won’t protest the execution of some child rapist/murderer anymore.
You and your counter-culture leftist buddies won’t come down on the police like a ton of bricks when somebody with a video camera tapes them arresting a drug-crazed psychotic and it takes some force to do so.
You and your counter-culture leftist buddies won’t back the ACLU when they attack the police at every turn and make it impossible to do our jobs effectively.
You and your counter-culture leftist buddies will immedately begin boycotting police-bashing media people, including but not limited to rappers who advocate shooting police officers in their music.
You and your counter-culture leftist buddies will support harsher sentences for violent criminals and encourage the only effective way to curb gun crime…deal with the gun wielding criminals severly.
But I know you won’t do any of these things because they don’t fit your “agenda” like the AWB did…
It banned high cap magazines of which millions were already in circulation. It had a formula to ban cosmetic items on semi-automatic weapons such as flash hiders and bayonet lugs.
I once heard Barbara Boxer and Sarah Brady argue for this ban. Boxer tried to make a point that flash hiders would prvent the police from seeing where criminals are firing from at night and render the police defenseless. The host of the news show, believe it or not, actually knew the subject. He stated, correctly, that a flash hider hides the flash from the user of the weapon not the target to which it is pointed at. She had no idea and said she would research it. For christ sakes it was one of the major points of her bill. The interviewer then asked her if she knew how many rifles with bayonets attached were used in a crime during the past 30 yrs. She didn’t and the answer was zero.
It was a silly bill. If you want to make gun crime decline then enforce the current laws and increase the penalty for using a gun in a crime. That way the guilty are punished and the rights of the innocent are not infringed.
My opinion is that most cops, at least the ones I know, do not support gun control one bit. The officers and chiefs do but the majority of cops do not. Again, my sample is small but fairly uniform in their opinions on the matter.
[quote]bandgeek wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:
It’s as simple as me not knowing the particulars of this law we are discussing, but having a decent understanding of the social/political philosophical topic of arm-bearing.
Please, do elaborate on those highly ambient socio-politico-philosophical domains for us, won’t you? [/quote]
Huh? Are you asking me to present both sides of the argument in the issue of whether one ought to have the right to bear arms?
No thanks, why don’t you enroll in school and take a class or two.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Huh? Are you asking me to present both sides of the argument in the issue of whether one ought to have the right to bear arms?[/quote]
No, I’m asking you to explain YOUR opinion. Please stop pretending that your thoughts and ideas are too high and mighty for the rest of us to fathom. What you’re really saying is that you have nothing to say, and are therefore not very interesting. What do you think? Or do you? Come on…just make ONE point. I dare ya!
No offense, but I think too many years of government schooling have taken their toll on YOU.
I agree with what Hedo says… and very rarely are the “right” weapons used for violent crime. Handguns are the weapon of choice, as they’re easier to hide and spary at random targets. I’m a cop, and I have yet to deal with somebody who used an assualt rifle (or any rifle, for that matter). it’s always some cheap-ass 9mm or crappy submachine pistol.
plus, we all know the majority of gun owners aren’t the issue-it’s the knuckleheads that steal them or buy them on the black market…
Something I would like to add to what cycobushmaster wrote, is that every time there is a gun control legislation that is about to go into effect, there is a run on the gunshops with people trying to stock up while they can. Nothing drives gun sales up more than gun control. The same thing happened with the prohormone ban.
Some of these people are first time gun owners, who because they are inexperienced don’t store them properly in a gun safe and end up getting them stolen by a burglar. Guns stolen by burglars is the primary source of guns that are used in crime.
What gun control advocates don’t understand is that they can unwittingly make things worse by their actions, because they are causing people to go out and buy guns who otherwise wouldn’t have purchased one.
Here’s a liberal Slate columnist explaining – if you read between the sarcasm – that the “assault weapons ban” banned some specific semi-automatic weapons and others based on how they look.
[quote]bandgeek wrote:
No, I’m asking you to explain YOUR opinion. Please stop pretending that your thoughts and ideas are too high and mighty for the rest of us to fathom. What you’re really saying is that you have nothing to say, and are therefore not very interesting. What do you think? Or do you? Come on…just make ONE point. I dare ya! [/quote]
Bandgeek, I’ve removed the target off my back, so please stop firing away at me!
I don’t know why you’ve such an obsession with me voicing my opinion on this matter in particular, especially when I’ve had the humility to say that I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THIS LAW TO ARGUE ABOUT IT! In reviewing my “2nd Ammendmant” thread, you clearly feel passionately about these issues and clearly spend a considerable amount of time understanding the factors involved. You’re also clearly set in your ways. So, why would I – someone who’s perfectly fine with not being prepared to debate – challenge you – someone who’s drooling over a debate?
I have no qualms about voicing my opinion – everyone ought to know by now that I spend plenty of time doing that around here. This particular issue, however, I am basically on the fence. By my nature, I don’t like guns or have any need to fancy them or collect them. Nor do I think owning them – even if I was well trained – would protect me if one wished me harm. However, because those are my opinions and preferences, I don’t think they are sufficient reasons to wish everyone else felt the same way.
Yes, I think it’s silly that someone would use the “we must regulate the government” argument in today’s world. I don’t think it makes any sense for someone to choose – as we saw in my previous thread – that EVERYONE own a gun versus NO ONE owning a gun (in a hypothetical world). People’s answers to that question reveal that they are simply attached to their guns and would somehow prefer a shootout to a knife fight (in some distorted vision of an all-out, every man for himself battle).
So, I don’t like guns, but I think some of the reasons that you yourself pointed out in my previous thread are good points and have earned my attention.
No offense taken, as only your kind tend to think that one can be too educated. I love how I’m consistently criticized for having ‘too much’ schooling!
“Nor do I think owning them – even if I was well trained – would protect me if one wished me harm.”
You really don’t think that being a well trained marksman would help you if someone broke into your home with intent to harm you? I find the liberal mind quite fascinating.
“I love how I’m consistently criticized for having ‘too much’ schooling!” [/quote]
Well…I don’t think it’s the education that bothers any of us. I think it’s more your immature analysis of every issue you have commented on that perturbs most. Just a guess however.