gmanpilot 0 #76 March 3, 2004 QuoteI'm sorry, there was no hostility intended - only humor. He has that job listed in his profile, and I assumed it was a joke. So I played upon that joke in conjunction with his statement that he carries a gun on his job. No harm, no foul. I had actually forgotten that I put that down as my occupation. What I do really is irrelevant though, suffice it to say that I get paid by Uncle Sugar to carry a gun, a weapon designed for killing. To think of it as anything else would foolish and dangerous._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #77 March 3, 2004 QuoteI got a feeling this whole bill is now dead. Then again, I never thought the fucks in the Senate would have pulled this kind of shit knowing Bush said he would only sign a "clean bill." Maybe this is a litmus test for the real assault weapons ban vote in september. I know of at least one senator who will NOT have my vote in the next election. I will also try to persuade as many of his constituents not to vote for him as possible. I'll be advising him of that today. The latest news I get is that the whole bill is dead now. That means no lawsuit shield, but more importantly NO ASSAULT-WEAPONS BAN EXTENSION, AND NO GUN-SHOW KILLER. As far as I know, the assault weapons ban expires on its own on September 23, 2004, and is not subject to a vote. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong on that.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #78 March 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteMost guns are dual purpose, which can be used for both target shooting, and self defense. So I don't see how you can claim that target guns are the minority. Are you a lobbyist for the NRA or something? Most folks see through that kind of doublespeak. The vast majority of guns are weapons designed for killing. That's what they are good at. Some rifles, pistols, and shotguns are designed for target shooting. That's what they are good at. They are in the minority. I offer the perfect illustration, me. I own seven guns designed as weapons for killing. I own one gun designed for target shooting, a trap gun. It is anecdotal, yet illustrative. Guns, on the whole, are designed to kill, and I will stand up for our collective right to own them. If we are to be advocates for the right to own guns, we should also advocate realistic information about it, not beltway blabber. Guns are weapons designed for killing, and you should have the right to responsibly own one. Fine, Gmanpilot: I have no problem admitting that guns are weapons, and that they are designed to facilitate killing. Here is the problem, though: Too many people stop short right there at that revelation and do not ask necessary follow-up questions... such as: - Well, IS ALL KILLING EQUAL, AND BAD? - Aren't there ever times when killing accomplishes a moral and societal GOOD? It is not enough to say that, "Guns are for killing, and therefore should be banned." (note: I know you're not arguing to ban guns, but many people use the 'guns are for killing' line to do just that.) Police carry guns, and they do so in case they need to use lethal force against a criminal (read: "kill him"), and nobody screams to take away the police's guns. A crime victim who may well be killed by his attacker has the right to respond with lethal force against that attacker. If I am attacked and will surely be killed if I do not resist, am I wrong to respond with lethal force and kill my attacker? No? Then I have just demonstrated at least one instance in which killing is not wrong, and therefore cannot be used as a blanket reason why guns are bad if they are indeed designed primarily for killing.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #79 March 3, 2004 QuoteAs far as I know, the assault weapons ban expires on its own on September 23, 2004, and is not subject to a vote. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong on that. The expiration date is correct. However, a Bill can be, and probably has already been, introduced to extend the date, or make it permanent. I don't think we can yet rest assured that it will die a quiet death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #80 March 3, 2004 QuoteAre you a lobbyist for the NRA or something? Most folks see through that kind of doublespeak. The vast majority of guns are weapons designed for killing. You seem to exhibit some dislike for the NRA - why is that? Just because I speak in favor of gun ownership, does not mean that I am their lobbyist. It also doesn't mean that it is doublespeak. I don't believe that things are as simple and straight-forward as you are trying to make them out to be. Since you insist upon this so forcefully, how about providing some statistics to support your assertion? According to a 1994 NIJ report, there are 192 million firearms in the U.S., 65 million of which were handguns. Most gun crimes are committed with handguns. So even if you considered every single handgun to be for "killing" (which not all are), that still leaves two-thirds of the firearms being long guns, which are usually used only for sport shooting, not "killing". I'm assuming your emphasis on "killing" is directed at criminal homicide, and not legal sport like hunting. That same NIJ reports says that the most common motivation for owning firearms was recreation. Forty-six percent possessed a gun primarily for protection against crime. So a 54% majority own guns for some purpose other than "killing". And surely you don't object to people using guns to "kill" in legal self defense? That's a type of killing that is approved of by the law, and should not be considered a negative. * * *In order to try and understand your position on this, please classify the following firearms for me: - My Colt .45 Gold Cup National Match pistol: is it for killing or target shooting? - My M1 Garand from WWII; killing or targets? - My WWII German Luger: killing or collecting? - My military .22 rimfire Mossberg M44: killing or targets? - My AR-15 which I use two to four times per month in target-shooting competition: killing or targets? - My 1865 Spencer from the Civil War era: killing or collecting? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #81 March 3, 2004 QuoteIS ALL KILLING EQUAL, AND BAD? IMO, no. QuoteAren't there ever times when killing accomplishes a moral and societal GOOD? IMO, yes. QuoteIf I am attacked and will surely be killed if I do not resist, am I wrong to respond with lethal force and kill my attacker? No? Then I have just demonstrated at least one instance in which killing is not wrong, and therefore cannot be used as a blanket reason why guns are bad if they are indeed designed primarily for killing. I agree!_________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
