Gun Control and Liberals? Help me here...

[Destino]

A handgun may be concealed and carried around to commit crime. In fact, that's pretty much all it's good for. An "assault" rifle can kill a lot more people, a lot faster, than a rifle. In fact, that's pretty much what it's made for.

I would suggest that the real "point" is: assuming any limitations are appropriate (and I think they must be or we would all own nukes), then limiting the private ownership of guns to hunting rifles and shotguns is a reasonable societal tradeoff that both protects public safety and serves virtually all of the legitimate interests of gun owners.

You are limiting the definition of personal protection to inside ones own home.

[Kilmer17]

Like all Amendments and Rights, the 2nd Amendment is not limitless.

[Predicto]

You are limiting the definition of personal protection to inside ones own home.

Not really. If me and a bunch of guys are walking around with rifles and shotguns, we have some force. Of course, we can't hold off the army, but then, we couldn't hold off the army even if we all had full assault rifles, grenades and mortars.

[Thiebear]

I have no problem with restrictions on guns...

Like a car you should be licensed and you should have mandatory 2 year firing range / safety training. You should have to pay for the registration and keep it up to date.

What you should not have is D.C.'s blatant no guns rule...

[Destino]

Not really. If me and a bunch of guys are walking around with rifles and shotguns, we have some force. Of course, we can't hold off the army, but then, we couldn't hold off the army even if we all had full assault rifles, grenades and mortars.

Yeah but it's not exactly easy to walk down the street with a rifle. Not to mention the fact that one would look like a lunatic. Hand guns are more for personal safety then rifles are. Shotguns are a good choice for home defense because a sleepy startled person isn't the best shot and shotguns have a wide spread and less wall penetration.

[Midnight Judges]

Exactly. You are NOT the type of liberal I'm referring to. Obviously it's hard for some people here to grasp that.

Could it be that the type of liberal you are referring to hardly exists except in the minds of right-wing Republicans?

[Predicto]

Hand guns are more for personal safety then rifles are.

Well, they are marketed that way. What they really are is for policeand military officer convenience, and for crime.

Shotguns are a good choice for home defense because a sleepy startled person isn't the best shot and shotguns have a wide spread and less wall penetration.

Ok then, use a shotgun. Why a handgun?

[Destino]

Well, they are marketed that way. What they really are is for policeand military officer convenience, and for crime.

I disagree. I think that hand guns are very good for personal defense if you plan on carrying a weapon outside the home.

I don't personally carry any weapons so maybe the folks that do could chime in here.

Ok then, use a shotgun. Why a handgun?

Some people feel more comfortable with one.

[21KO]

You can't be this ignorant. . . can you??? You mentioned how many times. . . Rabid libs, gun hating libs and other stuff ad nauseum. If you weren't talking about "just a few" you would have said so. You were talking in sweeping generalities.

No, I wasn't. I specifically targeted the "My gov't is evil but I want to ban guns" crowd. Didn't say they were here. Asked a question to get an answer. Doesn't seem to be many here, if any at all. Thank goodness.

Where is this evil gun hating croud you are talking about? I don't see them on this board. Are there wackos who want to outlaw guns? Sure there are, but there are also wackos who protest at gay funerals, and think the holaucast never existed. It is a very small minority, not the "MANY" you say.

This "evil gun" hating crowd, not evil "gun hating" is everywhere. Million Mom March? Constant "aasault weapon" bashing? Who's ignorant?

So now if I use terrorism as a reason for wanting a backround check I am a racist ??? Hell, you were the one who called yourself a racist. . .but then again, I guess it takes ont to know one huh :doh:

I'll type slowly. I said terrorism. I never mentioned Arab terrorism. You used an Arab name. Ackmed. Who's racist?

And BTW, there is a Croation who has been exporting .50 cal rifles outside of this country for the past few years, and he is not the only one. He is giving them to rebels, just what I want the terrorsits to have, .50 cals to shoot out soldiers with.

Do you have a link? Is he exporting them illegaly? And if so, should we ban all of them?

Again, you said "Why are you even still here? In the US?". . .and what the hell am I supposed to think? It is complete intellectual dishonesty on your part not even to admit what you are implying. It was a crap post, and so far your responses have been "I didn't say that" :hammer:

Again, hypothetically, IF it's that bad, why bother? Get out. If I thought it was that bad I might haul ass myself. The point being, and alluded to at the end of my post, is because maybe it's NOT that bad...

And my M60 laughs at your puny hammer

So you are in the same position as the VAST MAJORITY of liberals then, read the opinions here to see what actual liberals think. Maybe, just maybe if you asked people what their opinion was, instead of trying to FORCE your ludicrous thoughts of what other people think, you wouldn't have gotten flamed.

That was the point of the post. To see what people thought. Were there not enough question marks in there for you?

FORCE my thoughts? Nope. Not my intention. Boogeymen again, I guess.

And was I FLAMED? Please let me know. If having folks disagree with you is being flamed, I guess so. Let me borrow some of your nomex underwear. :laugh:

Bring up a thread where I have patently lied, I have over 8500 posts, so you should be able to find one real quick right? Consider it a challange.

What is the big deal with waiting 30 days before a backround check is completed to see if you can buy an automatic assault weapon which can take out a crowd of 100 in less then 10 seconds?

Not really a LIE, per se, but as I and others pointed out, false and misleading. Ignorant, even.

[Predicto]

I disagree. I think that hand guns are very good for personal defense if you plan on carrying a weapon outside the home.

I don't personally carry any weapons so maybe the folks that do could chime in here.

If you need to carry a gun outside the home, I feel for you, but as a logical matter, you would be even safer if you didn't conceal it. Carry a rifle or shotgun.

Some people feel more comfortable with [a handgun].

And I feel more comfortable defending myself with a vial of Anthrax bacillus. Who would possibly mess with me?

Is that a problem for you? I have a clean criminal record, I am a responsible citizen, and I promise not to misuse my Anthrax.

[ZoEd]

I'm currently blowing up Google looking for the statistics but just how many gun related deaths are caused by Assault rifles? The numbers I've seen so far attribute 56% of gun deaths to suicide. You think these deaths would be prevented with strickter gun control? If a person wants to take their life they're going to do with our without a gun.

Never heard of anyone being shot with a .50cal in the states, have you? Matter of fact I haven't heard of any of my brothers and sisters being shot with .50cals in the AOR.

Handguns are the leading cause of gun homicides so why the push to ban all of these other weapons? Like I said before if the gun activists targeted more specific weapons instead of the broad stroke approach I might be more supportive.

Bottom line, people kill people not guns. You can lay a locked and loaded Glock 9mm on a sidewalk in NYC and it will never jump up and kill somebody. It's the idiots using the guns, not the gun itself. We have a problem in America but it's not guns. You think criminals won't find a different way to commit crimes if all guns were banned. Please, it's society that's the problem not the guns. Lets put all of our time and energy into fixing society instead of wasting it on senseless gun control crusades, controling marijuana, prosecuting prostitutes and all the other senseless crap our government wastes it's money on. We could definitely learn something from some of our European allies.

[ZoEd]

If you need to carry a gun outside the home, I feel for you, but as a logical matter, you would be even safer if you didn't conceal it. Carry a rifle or shotgun.

And I feel more comfortable defending myself with a vial of Anthrax bacillus. Who would possibly mess with me?

Is that a problem for you? I have a clean criminal record, I am a responsible citizen, and I promise not to misuse my Anthrax.

Come on Predicto the whole anthrax analogy is pretty dumb. :doh: You're better than that.

[AlexRS]

I've seen plenty of rabid libs screeching about how we're become Nazi Germany Redux, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, the worst of the worst - all rolled into one. They're non stop. They see boogeymen everywhere.

Yet MANY of these same people will also rail endlessly about how no person needs a handgun, people should not be allowed to posess those evil "assault weapons", and all guns need to be registered with that same federal government that they claim is on the verge of rounding up every hippie that doesn't goose step the party line and gas them. All guns are evil, they say.

For the seemingly obssessively paranoid out there, and you know who you are, and there are pleennnty of you, how can you make claims of EVIL government creating future gulags and then want that same government to take away your last line of defense? That same government to have a detailed inventory of every weapon you own? If you see such evil, how will you protect yourself against it?

Why are you even still here? In the US? My God, from the things you write, the evil you see, I would think you couldn't stand it one more day. I'm a registered Republican - (that doesn't mean I think Bush is perfect, so can it) What am I saying? Half the people here don't even read the posts. They see a headline and rush desperately to reply. But even I, a kool-aid swilling, racist, black-hearted sheep bowing at the alter of W (according to many who generalize all Repub's) has a cache that will assist me in the event of a **** hits the fan scenario.

But you gun hating libs don't. What are you gonna do when the Empire you fear comes to subject you? Run to Canada? You know they'll have the highways shut down. Go live in the woods like grizzly man? You'd die without your daily latte and Huffington fix.

But besides the EVIL empire coming to get you, what if some terrorist group pulls off a big one? Power grid? Water supply? Bio or chem weapon? You saw how the fed handled Katrina. According to your own arguments, It wasn't the city or the states fault, it was the fed's. So if we have a SHTF scenario thanks to terrorism, and the general poulation panics, you're defenseless again. Relying on that same gov't that failed New Orleans to protect you from the worst case scenario, because you can't. Because you don't own guns. Because guns are evil, right?

I don't get it.

Unless of course, you really DON'T think Bush is the next Hitler, etc etc and you really just like to rant and rave because it's fun and you enjoy being prone to hysterics. Then it makes sense to me.

Just curious.

How can an object be evil??

Initially this whole "bear arms" thing was about protecting oneself from the Government... but with advancements in technology of last several hundred years, well, no single person or group is capable of doing that.

They can be very useful In case society breaks down a'la Katrina. That's definitely a good point.

I would not choose to own a gun myself because accidents do happen - but I definitely know which friend's house to go to if the S. hits the fan. :laugh:

[Baculus]

I wanted to respond to a couple of posts:

In response to PleaseBlitz:

So be honest. You are an angry postal service employee. Could you hurt more people in a short amount of time in a crowded area with a shotgun or an assault rifle?

In a tighter area, I'd take the shotgun - in a larger, more open space, I'd take a rifle. Of course, you can use this argument in the same manner: "What is the disgruntled employee sat outside with a hunting rifle and a scope? Uh-oh - we better ban both of those as well." But that is purely rhetorical, since a crime is a crime, and you can take out a whole bunch of people if I drove my car into a crowd, let alone use any sort of firearm.

And if a shotgun can handle the uses of a gun, why do you NEED an AR-15? "Its fun to shoot" is not a good reason.

Do you live purely by need? Do you NEED a TV? Just saying "its fun to watch" isn't good enough, is it?

BTW, to me, "it's fun to shoot" IS a good enough reason, because that is my choice as a responsible firearm owner to make that decision. I love plinking - that is one of my primary reasons to own a firearm. And, honestly, I have bought firearms on a whim before, and I probably will again. I do not believe that my decision to purchase a firearm has to be based on some super-deep reasoning that has to be approved by someone else. And, to me, that is what you appear to be hinting at, and exactly what folks in other countries have to deal with when they MUST store their firearms in pre-designated areas.

Regarding Predicto's post:

A handgun may be concealed and carried around to commit crime. In fact, that's pretty much all it's good for. An "assault" rifle can kill a lot more people, a lot faster, than a rifle. In fact, that's pretty much what it's made for.

An assault rifle IS a rifle - also, do you realize that there are semi-auto hunting rifles that can kill pretty fast too? And do you realize that some folks are DAMN fast with a bolt action rifle? Also, you do realize that bolt-action rifles were made for the military, right? The Krag was the first bolt action rifle adopted by the military - and I have one. (An 1896 model, BTW...) Someone may look at it and assume it is a hunting rifle, but it is the same model and year of rifle that Teddy Rooosevelt used with the Rough Riders.

In short, violence, and the incidence of violence, is often left to the determination of the criminal.

I would suggest that the real "point" is: assuming any limitations are appropriate (and I think they must be or we would all own nukes), then limiting the private ownership of guns to hunting rifles and shotguns is a reasonable societal tradeoff that both protects public safety and serves virtually all of the legitimate interests of gun owners.

Why? Who is going to determine who or what is a legitimate interest of the gun owners? It is usually NON-gun owners who make this statement, while, by and large, most gun owners do not want these restrictions. So, we have people who have little interest or ownership of firearms making these determinations - after all, this is very typical of anti-firearm organizations and inviduals. By and large, they do not own firearms, have little experience with them, and yet, they want to make law and determination for those that are, by and large in the great majority, legal and law abiding citizenry.

In fact, the argument that you made in your last sentence is the exact thinking that totalitarian regimes make. Instead of using this argument for firearms, you can make it for any perceived societal ill, whether it is drugs, alcohol, sex...you name it, and in the name of the "greater good," the government finds a reason to create the restriction.

But, let me ask you, Predicto, what evidence do you have that this *is* for the greater good? Do you have any evidence that points to a high incident of "assault" weapon crimes in this nation? Did we recently have a sudden influx of violent crimes committed by these types of firearms? And how many of these crimes are committed by legal firearm owners compared to criminals? Also, what about the ratio of private firearm owners vs crimnals? If 50 crimes a year are committed with these firearms, is it fair to affect thousands of legal "assault" weapons owners because of the actions of CRIMINALS? And not only that, but would such laws even have an affect upon such crimes?

Of course, it must be kept in mind that crimes committed by private owners of "assault" weapons and legal machine guns are EXTREMELY rare in this nation. Each incident is highly publicized, and leads to certain assumptions by the ignorant and the uninformed. GET INFORMED is my advice, and think of this subject in a rational manner. Punishing the majority for the violence action of a few criminals is not rational, nor will it curb violent crimes.

[Predicto]

Come on Predicto the whole anthrax analogy is pretty dumb. :doh: You're better than that.

It's not dumb, it's just extreme - on purpose.

Ahh, maybe it's dumb. :laugh:

Try this one - you said: "Never heard of anyone being shot with a .50cal in the states, have you? Matter of fact I haven't heard of any of my brothers and sisters being shot with .50cals in the AOR."

Ok, true enough. I never heard of anyone dying from a nuclear bomb in the states either, but I still don't want my next door neighbor to have one.

Does that work better?

[21KO]

Well, they are marketed that way. What they really are is for policeand military officer convenience, and for crime.

But not hobby shooting, competition, hunting, or personal defense. Check. And yes, lots of folks hunt with pistols.

Ok then, use a shotgun. Why a handgun?

Concealablity? Ease of access? If someone breaks into my home I personally don't want to be fumbling around trying to grab a big shotgun from under the bed. Seconds may count.

In the case of a revolver and DAO auto, just pull the trigger. No need to chamber a shell, flip a safety off, etc.

A friend of mine was working late one night - 4am - we were filming in a less than hospitable part of town - when a guy starts to approach him at a stop light. My friend is driving this big truck, so you don't just pull away. He told the guy to stop twice, but the guy didn't. He pulled his pistol, (legally obtained and registered, btw) and just showed it to the guy. Didn't even point it at him. The guy wheeled around and bolted. Whipping a shotgun out would have been clumsy at best.

The case for handguns as personal defense is unarguable. 'Nuff said

[Baculus]

Never heard of anyone being shot with a .50cal in the states, have you? Matter of fact I haven't heard of any of my brothers and sisters being shot with .50cals in the AOR.

Good post, ZoEd. You are right - I have not heard of a single death caused by a .50 cal. in an act of crime. And yet, folks are already scrambling to get these outlawed. Also, the incident of crimes caused by semi-auto rifles is very, very low, but folks are acting as if we have gangs of thugs on ever street corner armed to the teeth with these types of weapons.

[Baculus]

I never heard of anyone dying from a nuclear bomb in the states either, but I still don't want my next door neighbor to have one.

Does that work better?

And why is that? You do realize that these things are big and bulky, and you would probably be in more danger if he had a pistol or a knife, for that matter. It isn't the firearm that is unstable - it's the person behind it. And, if you look at hospital statistics, you need a lot of deaths caused by means other then firearms.

[21KO]

How can an object be evil??

Initially this whole "bear arms" thing was about protecting oneself from the Government... but with advancements in technology of last several hundred years, well, no single person or group is capable of doing that.

They can be very useful In case society breaks down a'la Katrina. That's definitely a good point.

I would not choose to own a gun myself because accidents do happen - but I definitely know which friend's house to go to if the S. hits the fan. :laugh:

Well, it can't. Hence the "quote thingy"

And you're right - no single person or group can. But millions of responsible gun owners can provide a healthy deterrent.

Accidents do happen, and if you don't feel comfortable having one, that's cool. But the fact that you've got a place to go worst case is the next best thing! :laugh:

[21KO]

Ok, true enough. I never heard of anyone dying from a nuclear bomb in the states either, but I still don't want my next door neighbor to have one.

Does that work better?

Nuclear Bomb = .50 cal. Got it. :doh:

Just for you, friend.

[ZoEd]

It's not dumb, it's just extreme - on purpose.

Ahh, maybe it's dumb. :laugh:

Try this one - you said: "Never heard of anyone being shot with a .50cal in the states, have you? Matter of fact I haven't heard of any of my brothers and sisters being shot with .50cals in the AOR."

Ok, true enough. I never heard of anyone dying from a nuclear bomb in the states either, but I still don't want my next door neighbor to have one.

Does that work better?

Good point, you got me on that one. :laugh: LMAO, see that's the Predicto I'm used to reading.

[Baculus]

I am going to try to post some statistics, but here are some in regards to "assault" rifles and military firearms, and their use in crimes.

http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html

A few details:

* California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."

* Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."

* Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.

* Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."

* Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.

* Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.

* Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."

* New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.

* New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

* New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.

* San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.

* San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.

* Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."

* National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.

You will notice that, over and over again, the percentage of the firearms used in crimes very rarely involve military-style rifles, with a quote from the following section stating that in the "Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."

So, all of this fuss about these particular types of firearms because of 2% to 3% use by criminals.

By the way, the above quoted page, which I haven't seen previously, has some really good articles, such as "Why would anyone want to own a “scary” looking gun like that?"

http://www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html

[AlexRS]

Well, it can't. Hence the "quote thingy"

And you're right - no single person or group can. But millions of responsible gun owners can provide a healthy deterrent.

Accidents do happen, and if you don't feel comfortable having one, that's cool. But the fact that you've got a place to go worst case is the next best thing! :laugh:

Millions of gun owners without any tanks or helicopters or smart bombs or any of that cool stuff that kills people? I doubt they'd be able to do much... I think the times have changed too much for that..

I doubt Libs have much against responsible gun owners... They just want to make sure guns do not fall into hands of un-responsible ones. That's your classic "regulate instead of educate" approach to things that is all too common nowadays.

On the other hand, guns do make it easier to make mistakes that are irreversable. Say you are so mad you could shoot somebody. The difference between you having access to a gun could be the difference between life and death. Would there be less deaths if only law inforcement had guns? Yes there would be. You have to give Libs at least that much :2cents:

[The 12th Commandment]

Millions of gun owners without any tanks or helicopters or smart bombs or any of that cool stuff that kills people? I doubt they'd be able to do much... I think the times have changed too much for that..

Seriously that is what they naysayers said about the revolutionary war. There was no way we were going to beat the British. Guerilla warfare ended that notion. Look at how modern militaries have stacked up against guerilla warfare in the past. Not very well. I would agree that the chance of the populace having to take up arms is very slight, and I hope it's not something I ever see, but the forefathers put the right in the consitution for a reason.

[Taylor 36]

Liberals aren't against guns, they are against criminals getting guns legally. What is the big deal with waiting 30 days before a backround check is completed to see if you can buy an automatic assault weapon which can take out a crowd of 100 in less then 10 seconds?

Try following your own party's mantra, would you??? The Democratic party is in large support of banning all guns. Not impossing wait limits, but banning. I guess your liberal BS sites that you love to quote all the time forgot to tell you that.

Probably the most ignorant thing I've read on here in months!!! You actually have the AUDACITY to tell us to leave a country we love, and think is turning to crap? we stay because we LOVE this country and we want to eliminate the scourge in power right now!!!

You should try reading some of your post if you think this is the most ignorant thing that has been posted here in months. The truth is that many Dems, esp. the Hollywood nut jobs, have stated how they want to leave because everything is so bad here (oh, they aren't getting everything their way, boo-hoo). Almost every Dem in the country has tried to make our countries current state affairs desasters of biblical proportions. If it is so bad, then why don't you all leave??? It isn't about loving this country. Every time you have a chance to defend this country you "love," you run, you ***** and complain, you try to get us to be more like other nations, etc. So, why don't you go to those nations that are so much better than us that you feel we should model after them???

Ummm, taking up arms against this government is a ridiculous reason to own a gun. Maybe if you could make a better analogy.

You do realize that this was the reason for the Second Amendment, right? Wow, what a bad analogy using history and reasoning. :doh: