DB: Palin Kills It in Gun Country

[Popeman38]

Hmmmm, let's put on our imagination caps and think about how big those numbers would have swelled without the ban. Yeah, sorry I forgot we can't do that because it might cause us to realize that bans do make it harder and more expensive to acquire illegal assault weapons, but that doesn't fit with the "they're comin' to git yer guns!" mantra of the gun lobby. Sorry, but your logic is so flawed as to make it really comical.

So you want to prove a negative? I don't see how you can take the CDC study and say that if it wasn't for the ban there would be more? That is pure conjecture. The CDC states that there is insufficient evidence. That means you can neither state that it caused fewer nor that it caused more. You can't prove either.

Sorry, but your logic is so flawed as to make it really comical. See, I can take your stance, reference a government funded study, and tell you your opinion is flawed as well. The difference is, my opinions doesn't ask that a Constitutionally guaranteed right be infringed on by the very government the Constitution was written to restrict.

[Madison Redskin]

The difference is, my opinions doesn't ask that a Constitutionally guaranteed right be infringed on by the very government the Constitution was written to restrict.

You believe that the Constitution guarantees your right to own assault rifles. I am not going to go so far as to say it does not, but I will say that I do not think that is a settled question by any means. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't contemplate assault rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment.

[Popeman38]

You believe that the Constitution guarantees your right to own assault rifles. I am not going to go so far as to say it does not, but I will say that I do not think that is a settled question by any means. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't contemplate assault rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment.

Here's a question? What was the assault rifle back in the day? What was the artillery back in the day? Could a citizen own either?

A musket was the assault rifle of the day. The cannon was the artillery. And anyone could own either. All you had to do was have the money to buy one or means to make one.

Also, why are we so insistent on banning assault weapons when there is no data to suggest doing so benefits anyone. The Brady Bill was pushed after James Brady was shot with a .22 pistol. One of the smallest caliber round available. How in the hell that got morphed into an assault weapons ban is beyond me. And the Brady Bill originally instituted a 5 day waiting period for any handgun purchase. Which, be definition, infringed on my right to bear arms. Not just for assault weapons, for any handgun. Now, thanks to computers, the check is instantaneous.

[DRSmith]

And I beat if people were shooting up malls schools and all sorts of other places you would have seen the seconf ammendment worded way differently

[twa]

And I beat if people were shooting up malls schools and all sorts of other places you would have seen the seconf ammendment worded way differently

It would be a interesting study,but I would think the rate per capita would actually be higher back then(substituting public places for malls)

[Madison Redskin]

A musket was the assault rifle of the day. The cannon was the artillery. And anyone could own either. All you had to do was have the money to buy one or means to make one.

I'm busy so I'll answer your questions later. However, I must ask if you think that people should be permtited to own howitzers, tanks, and any other arms.

[Popeman38]

I'm busy so I'll answer your questions later. However, I must ask if you think that people should be permtited to own howitzers, tanks, and any other arms.

No, I don't. As technology has progressed, I think most sane people realize you don't need artillery or tanks. However, I am a strong proponent of owning assault rifles. I used to have an SKS. A bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun will do nothing against an occupying govt presence. Don't read this as me being some closet nutjob that wants to hoard guns just in case the govt comes after me. I was in the Army, and I currently work in telecom. I do not own a single firearm at this time. I will eventually own a shotgun again, but living in Ashburn, VA just doesn't really require a gun. I have a vacation place in a VERY small town in the mountains of WV, and now that I have a kid, I would like to own a shotgun for personal protection when we spend extended time their. However, I still support the right for everyday people to own guns without jumping through ridiculous hoops. We all know how mission creep works in the govt.....

[Madison Redskin]

A bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun will do nothing against an occupying govt presence.

Well, if we want the populace to be able to fend off an "occupying government presence," don't you think RPGs, mortars, and the components for IEDs should be legal? We've seen that insurgents rarely go after our troops with AKs; 90% of the time, they're firing rockets or mortars at our troops and attacking them with IEDs.

[Popeman38]

Well, if we want the populace to be able to fend off an "occupying government presence," don't you think RPGs, mortars, and the components for IEDs should be legal? We've seen that insurgents rarely go after our troops with AKs; 90% of the time, they're firing rockets or mortars at our troops and attacking them with IEDs.

You don't need any of those to make an IED. You can make an IED out of anything that has explosive characteristics.

[Burgold]

You don't need any of those to make an IED. You can make an IED out of anything that has explosive characteristics.

The point remains... if you think that the second ammendment means the citizenry should be able to arm itself sufficiently to take down a corrupt government then we ought to be allowed to purchase bazookas, grenades, nukes, SAMs and anything else needed to confront the U.S. Army.

In for a penny in for a pound. If that's your definition of the 2nd Ammendment no weapon of any sort should be restricted not biological, radiological, or conventional.

[Popeman38]

The point remains... if you think that the second ammendment means the citizenry should be able to arm itself sufficiently to take down a corrupt government then we ought to be allowed to purchase bazookas, grenades, nukes, SAMs and anything else needed to confront the U.S. Army.

In for a penny in for a pound. If that's your definition of the 2nd Ammendment no weapon of any sort should be restricted not biological, radiological, or conventional.

Apply that same logic to abortion. If you are pro-life, you believe that a fetus should be able to be exterminated up until the second it is born. Or hell, until the infant is able to sustain life on its own with no outside interference. In for a penny, in for a pound right?

EDIT: I get so tired of extreme rationalization of anyone that holds an opinion outside the blessed intellectuals. Most intellectuals are against gun ownership, are Democrats, are Pro Choice,........Any position held outside the accepted norm for that group is seriously considered to be extreme. And I know that the right wing does the same thing. I am the center in this country. I hate you both. You piss me off. You are both fighting to get my vote. You come to me, not the other way around.

[Burgold]

Apply that same logic to abortion. If you are pro-life, you believe that a fetus should be able to be exterminated up until the second it is born. Or hell, until the infant is able to sustain life on its own with no outside interference. In for a penny, in for a pound right?

Cop out. If your argument of the second ammendment is that it gives the citizens the right to arm themselves in case an insurrection against the government is necessary, then they aren't talking about hand guns and rifles... they are talking about the arms needed to defeat an "arm-y" To think that the right to bare arms in a well-regulated militia could only possibly apply to hand held weapons if the purpose is fighting off the Brits and a corrupt American gov't is absurd.

There's no constitutional ammendment defining when abortion is permissable or not.

[Popeman38]

There's no constitutional ammendment defining when abortion is permissable or not.

Ummmm, Roe v Wade was decided when applying the 14th Amendment.

[DRSmith]

Apply that same logic to abortion. If you are pro-life, you believe that a fetus should be able to be exterminated up until the second it is born. Or hell, until the infant is able to sustain life on its own with no outside interference. In for a penny, in for a pound right?

EDIT: I get so tired of extreme rationalization of anyone that holds an opinion outside the blessed intellectuals. Most intellectuals are against gun ownership, are Democrats, are Pro Choice,........Any position held outside the accepted norm for that group is seriously considered to be extreme. And I know that the right wing does the same thing. I am the center in this country. I hate you both. You piss me off. You are both fighting to get my vote. You come to me, not the other way around.

I see the person who walks around saying in their heat I will have an aborion if I or my girlfriend gets pregnant no different than the person who walks around with a gun who says in their heart I am prepared to the life of another if they try to rob me or whatever.

Both parties are walking around devauling the life of another.

[twa]

I see the person who walks around saying in their heat I will have an aborion if I or my girlfriend gets pregnant no different than the person who walks around with a gun who says in their heart I am prepared to the life of another if they try to rob me or whatever.

Both parties are walking around devauling the life of another.

But only one victim is deserving of death...but nice to see you equate a innocent life to a robber ect.

Bur see the 8th for abortion

Is there anything more cruel or unusual(to civilized people)than to take innocent life?

[stevenaa]

I see the person who walks around saying in their heat I will have an aborion if I or my girlfriend gets pregnant no different than the person who walks around with a gun who says in their heart I am prepared to the life of another if they try to rob me or whatever.

Both parties are walking around devauling the life of another.

That seems a rather twisted viewpoint. Equating protecting your life or the life of your family to the murder of the unborn. Melodramatic much?

[Burgold]

But only one victim is deserving of death...but nice to see you equate a innocent life to a robber ect.

Bur see the 8th for abortion

Is there anything more cruel or unusual(to civilized people)than to take innocent life?

One's a part of the Constitution. The other is decided using the Constitution. You don't see a difference.

[ardowling]

First question what is a assault weapon? I never had one when I served in the military so I'm pretty sure I don't have one now, and don't give me some Brady Bunch BS give me an official definition.

Do you see any "Assault Weapons" in this picture

I don't, I see two sporting rifles that are great fun to plink with and are useful for hunting, by the way the AK was imported during the AWB.

I see the gun/cars analogy like this:

Both are tools one to get from point A to point B the other to launch a projectile

I'm not going to look it up but I bet more than half of all auto fatalities are alcohol involved which in my book puts the use of the car during a death as a crime wether its the driver or an innocent victim which dies so I would say the vehicles are involved in homicides more than some of you are probably willing to admit

The only time any of my guns will be used to destroy a human being is if they are a threat to my wife or myself then its game on, so to me the analogy is more like oranges and tangerines.

I guarantee that we are never going to agree on this subject, and I don't really care if you agree with me or not the fact is I have the right to keep and bear arms (and don't bring the silly tank or howitzer BS there just too expensive could you imagine buying one tank round whoa) and you have the right to speak your opinion, I won't mess with your rights don't try to mess with mine. Okay thanks.

One last thing I think its pretty funny that the people who follow Palin the most on this board are the one who dislike her the most...the rest of us just don't give a **** what she has to say.

[twa]

One's a part of the Constitution. The other is decided using the Constitution. You don't see a difference.

What I see is a innocent life ended,usually in a rather cruel manner...but since it is common now perhaps it is not unusual

[Burgold]

What I see is a innocent life ended,usually in a rather cruel manner...but since it is common now perhaps it is not unusual

And that's the big problem when debating either issue. Morality and emotion are always a big component... and should be.

[Larry]

Do you see any "Assault Weapons" in this picture

I'm probably making your point, but I read one of the "assault weapon" laws. My impressions were that the rules they used seemed really complicated. (I learned, later, that that was because they wanted to write rules that allowed domestic gun manufacturers to keep making the things they were making.) And that most of the rules were cosmetic.

That a weapon was an assault weapon if it looked like a different weapon that was commonly used by a military. If the magazine was curved, then that counted. If the weapon had a carrying handle on the top. If the weapon was made in a different version, and the different version was available with a place for mounting a bayonet. I think that one of the criteria was if the weapon had a plastic stock and foregrip.

[ardowling]

Thanks for the attempt the AWB included things like a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, they made it complicated and cherry picked stuff like pistol grips (?) because they couldn't come up with any real good description other than a a reaction the EBR (Evil Black Rifle) and nothing else, like you said mostly cosmetic. By the way the curved magazine you see in the picture holds the same amount of rounds as the M4 magazine (30) so I guess just because its curved it provides some extra deadly effect Not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thanks for the attempt the AWB included things like a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, they made it complicated and cherry picked stuff like pistol grips (?) because they couldn't come up with any real good description other than a a reaction the EBR (Evil Black Rifle) and nothing else, like you said mostly cosmetic. By the way the curved magazine you see in the picture holds the same amount of rounds as the M4 magazine (30) so I guess just because its curved it provides some extra deadly effect Not.

No, it's because the NRA lobbied the meat out of the assault weapons ban.

[ardowling]

Here's your gov't at work:

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=6413

Why make it illegal to mount a light on my shotgun?

---------- Post added February-1st-2011 at 08:56 PM ----------

No, it's because the NRA lobbied the meat out of the assault weapons ban.

No its because the sorry ass people who wrote the assault weapons ban are the same ones who are trying to ban shotguns based on cosmetics see the link. So do you think any of the weapons I showed are "Assault Weapons"?

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=6413

[DRSmith]

But only one victim is deserving of death...but nice to see you equate a innocent life to a robber ect.

Bur see the 8th for abortion

Is there anything more cruel or unusual(to civilized people)than to take innocent life?

One as far the bible was concerned theft never brought the death penalty, secondly the person who has the abortion may view the fetus as thief robbing them of money, time and energy either way both are devaluing the life of another for their own self interest much like a robber.

All men sin

---------- Post added February-2nd-2011 at 06:52 PM ----------

That seems a rather twisted viewpoint. Equating protecting your life or the life of your family to the murder of the unborn. Melodramatic much?

People can justify taking the life of another and that is twisted, if you decide a head of time you can take the life of another all you need is some incitement how can one say they did not plan or want to kill another when they are armed to do so?