TypicalFish 0 #151 July 16, 2004 I think you are missing the point of what I am saying: THIS IS THE TYPE OF DISCOURSE I AM TALKING ABOUT. As opposed to "Because the Second Amendment says I can"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #152 July 16, 2004 As much as I am (genuinely) enjoying this discussion, I have to go to bed. Early day tomorrow. Thanks for the participation/articulation of your perspective. Vibes."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #153 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuite frankly, I agree with you here, but I think you could say the same thing about the "pro-gun" crowd... Really? Could you show us some examples of where the pro-gun crowd has bolstered its case with outright lies, or asked for expenditures by government in the tens of millions of dollars based on outright lies? On the anti-gun side, we have: - The lie that Glocks are capable of passing through security checkpoints undetected "because they're made of plastic." (They HAD to know this was a lie if they'd ever even SEEN a Glock before making the statement.) - The lie that "assault weapons" are any more dangerous than any non-banned semiautomatic rifle - The lie that "assault weapons" are the "weapon of choice" for street criminals, despite the fact that they are used in less than half of one percent of criminal shootings. - The lie that hollow-point bullets are "cop-killers," "designed to penetrate police kevlar body armor." - The lie that "teflon, armor piercing bullets" are available on the streets (when they are sold to law enforcement only, and the teflon is irrelevant; it's the steel core that matters) - The lie that 17, no wait, 13, er 10, um 6 "children" a day are killed "by guns." (and counting gang-bangers up to age 25 as "children") - The lie that where guns are carried lawfully by licensed owners, blood will run in the streets and traffic altercations will commonly end in deadly gunfire, when 36 states now have shall-issue concealed carry laws and their crime rates have gone DOWN. Really, TF, SHOW US WHERE THE PRO-GUNNERS HAVE LIED. And anyone else, please help me add to my list of bald-faced anti-gun lies, won't you? --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
PhreeZone 20 #154 July 16, 2004 I'm very much a gun owner and I support the 2nd amendment pretty far (I draw the limit at full auto in untrained civilian hand, with training sure - untrained no), but look at what happens when just a few words get changed in your paragraph: I would love to hear an argument for banning something that does not include the shrill claim that the many must suffer loss of their rights in order to (unsuccessfully) prevent the psychotic from doing harm to innocents. The argument itself flies in the face of statistics, which generally (no matter what the subject) indicate that an infinitessimal percentage of users of various items falls into the illegal or dangerous category. When tens of millions of passengers around the country fly hundreds of thousands of flights every single year, and only a few passengers a decade criminally harm other people, how can you justify letting the .00000001 (made up decimal) establish the rule by which you treat every flyer as a security threat first, customer second? Personally I think that every person that wants to should be allowed to carry on an airplane if they want to (provided they have recieved at least a basic firearms class first). Lets see someone try something on a plane that might have 30-40 guns on it with random passengers. Sorry for the thread drift.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #155 July 16, 2004 QuoteWill the HK-94 be available again? Not as an HK-94... but there is at least one US manufacturer that is making a copy of it... www.vulcanarmament.com JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #156 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. QuoteYou're the one saying our right to have them is questionable; This is a democracy/republic, I think EVERYTHING is open for debate among the involved parties. The only real reason that I would give would be that the need for 1000 PJ's (who are responsible, safety conscious gun owners) to be able to enjoy their (however they are defined) assault weapons for their fun and fascination is outweighed by the one kook who will use the capabilities of that weapon to inflict massive damage on innnocent men, women, and children. It's the same reason you can't go into a hardware store and buy dynamite. Is this enough of a reason? I am not sure, but I would love to hear the open debate instead of the shrill screaming from both sides. Ban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #157 July 16, 2004 Quoteban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are. Very true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. The point that I am trying to make, ad nauseum, is that there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country"."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #158 July 16, 2004 ***there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country". All to true unfortunately........some people on this forum seem to forget to bring their sense of humour, the ability to laugh at themselves and the common sense to take everything here with a "few grains of salt"Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #159 July 16, 2004 QuoteVery true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. Really? Ever hear of CAFE? Plus I don't think there's an amendment about the right to drive cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #160 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteVery true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. Really? Ever hear of CAFE? Plus I don't think there's an amendment about the right to drive cars. Do people think CAFE will eventually lead to them being unable to own cars? I am a little confused."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #161 July 16, 2004 Read the new proposals. No longer talking about paying an extra tax. All out ban on certain cars and even motorcycles. www.nhtsa. dot.gov/cars/ mles/CAFE/mlemaking.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #162 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote and while you're at it, we're going to need a comprehensive definition of "assault weapon." I agree with this completely. I think the current standard is misleading and arbitrary. We have a very good defintion of assault weapon, but it comes from the military rather than congress. I can't find it right now, but it refers to 'shoulder fired, select fire, carbine or smaller.' Generally shoulder fired: rules out anything not having a stock (Macs and Tecs, etc) Select fire: rules out all semi-autos; select fire requires a burst or full-auto capability Carbine: short rifle, so traget rifles with 26" barrels would not fit. Also, to the "framers never imagined the firepower" argument - anti-gunners are not stopping there. They are going after muzzle loaders in California and New Jersey, trying to redefine anything capable of firing a projectile .50 caliber or larger as an illegal destructive device. Seems the anti-gunners are so against firearms that not even firearms that DID exists in the time of the framing are ok to own by the unwashed masses.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #163 July 16, 2004 Well, that's because the projectile technology has advanced to a point that the framers never imagined. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #164 July 16, 2004 I feel like it is important here to define my views; like it is somehow getting lost in the static. First of all, I am a gun owner, and fully support the right of responsible gun ownership, as intended by the framers of our Constitution. (Interestingly enough, when the Bill Of Rights was being formulated, a number of the states proposals worded the second amendment as requiring gun ownership). Additionally, I support the right of responsible gun owners to enjoy their "arms" as a hobby; seeking out esoteric and unique examples (i.e., so-called "assault weapons", .50 cals, etc.) according to their particular taste and interests. These are only my "one vote" attitudes towards gun ownership and the regulation thereof. They are based on my (unfortunate) belief that no matter what you regulate, people will always find a way to kill each other. All of that being said, I do believe there is room for discussion in how those rights are intelligently applied within a peaceful society. If someone says to me "I have good case for banning ALL guns"; I will take the time to listen. If someone has a case for requiring gun ownership as a consequence of citizenship, I will listen to that as well. My frustration is that there is never any real discourse as to the merits (if any) vs. liabilities (if any) related to the regulation of ownership of guns. I know that the first (and sometimes only) argument that people will make is "it's the second amendment, and I have the right to exercise it as I see fit". Tired, hackneyed, and frankly an incomplete statement. You absolutely have that right, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others in their own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The first amendment provides for free speech, it does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and cause the death of those around you (yes, an actual court case well known to any law professionals on this board). My point being is that there is, in our everyday lives, constant interpretations of the Bill Of Rights, as well as the other amendments; all in the interest of the common good, and after much examination and discussion. The second amendment should be no different."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #165 July 16, 2004 I aslo find it interesting that anti-gunners say that these guns were designed for the military to kill people... the AR-15 was designed by a civilian, and originally marketed to civilians as a sport rifle... it was later adopted by the Air Force, then by the Army. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #166 July 16, 2004 Very well stated Matt. I wonder how many times peacefull will use fuck in his response? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #167 July 16, 2004 QuoteRead the new proposals. No longer talking about paying an extra tax. All out ban on certain cars and even motorcycles. www.nhtsa. dot.gov/cars/ mles/CAFE/mlemaking.htm The key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Kev, the link didn't work; I would be interested in reading it. And your avatar is STILL killing me. Is that the one from your office?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #168 July 16, 2004 QuoteThe key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Yeah, but it's the same progression. First it wasn't a ban, it was a fine. (AK's weren't banned in Cali at first, you just had to register them and pay a fee). Now it's looking like some cars will be banned (AK's then were confiscated). So, no, it's not a total ban, yet, but if the progression is not stopped it will end that way. Especially since those who push for the legislation speak out in favor of a complete ban. Yeah...that's the bear in our office. The other day someone put a little picture of me in his mouth. Wonder what that was supposed to mean Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #169 July 16, 2004 Quote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #170 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995 Well, I think there are extremists on both sides of ANY issue. Gun control, gay marriage, environmental issues, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is going to happen the way she wants."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #171 July 16, 2004 Let's put some numbers on this, just to make it clear. Let's say 100 is complete and utter freedom and liberty concerning firearms. So let's say we started with 60. But there is a lot of crime and murder committed with firearms. So some people in Congress come to gun owners and their reps, and say "there are a lot of problems, and we can solve them by getting rid of guns." The gun owners respond "not a chance in hell." So these people, the anti-gunners, said "OK, let's comprmise, you give up a little and we'll make that work." So that happens, and now we're at 50. But there is still a lot of crime and murder, so the anti-gunner come back and say, "we can stop it if we get rid of guns." Gun owners say that wouldn't work So the anti-gunners ask if they're monsters who don't care about horrible crimes being committed. The anti-gunners come up with a new compromise. Gun owners say "ummm...I guess we can work something out" So now we're down around 40. But there's still a lot of crime and murder, so the anti-gunners come back and say we can fix it if you give us more. Gun owners dig in and say "NO MORE!!!" So the anti-gunners call all gun owners uncaring mosters and evil people. I have been polarized by the extremists who would take it all. If they can offer something that would actually affect crime and criminals, I'd really consider it, regardless of it's effect on me. However, everything they offer up now only affects people who have broken no laws. I strongly support Project Exile, and strong punishment of violent criminals, and even attempts to help criminals. If they offered up something affecting crime, I would be more than happy to sit down and talk it over with them. The problem is nothing they have offered up is new, hasn't been tried before, or has shown any effect on crime. It's not a compromise if only one side continues to give everything while gaining nothing. That is why I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANOTHER INFRINGEMENT UPON MY RIGHTS.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #172 July 16, 2004 ditto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TypicalFish 0 #173 July 16, 2004 Well stated position. Good post (for what my opinion is worth). But, with the lifting of the ban, aren't we moving farther AWAY from what you consider your rights being infringed upon? Don't you have more of an ability to exercise that freedom? You are saying that "will not have another infringement on your rights"; but isn't that restriction being lifted even more as of September 13th? By that argument, the anti-gunners could be using the same "slippery slope" argument as the pro-gun lobby. I can hear it now; "The next thing you know, you'll be able to buy a Stinger missile at the hardware store...""I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #174 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are. Very true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. The point that I am trying to make, ad nauseum, is that there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country". When was the last time you heard of any avowed anti-car activist proclaiming that some vehicle regulation was only one initial step toward the ultimate banning of automobile travel? Because the difference in your example is that we DO REGULARLY hear anti-gun activists say that they ARE trying to use incremental steps toward a gradual extinction of the right to keep and bear arms. And are you really asserting that guns/gun manufacture/gun ownership are NOT "HEAVILY regulated"?! Do you have any IDEA just HOW heavily regulated they are?! --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 #175 July 16, 2004 QuoteMy frustration is that there is never any real discourse as to the merits (if any) vs. liabilities (if any) related to the regulation of ownership of guns. I believe that this is in large part due to the denial and refusal of the media and of single-minded anti-gunners to grant that guns can and do serve a useful, legitimate, often life-saving purpose. Their adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. Guns are used legally millions of times more often than they are used illegally. That alone is a good defense of gun ownership. When was the last time Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer mentioned someone who had saved their own life through the use of a gun? Shit, these two won't even acknowledge that their own secret service bodyguards use guns as a deterrent to those who would try to hurt them! --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 Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 7 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TypicalFish 0 #167 July 16, 2004 QuoteRead the new proposals. No longer talking about paying an extra tax. All out ban on certain cars and even motorcycles. www.nhtsa. dot.gov/cars/ mles/CAFE/mlemaking.htm The key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Kev, the link didn't work; I would be interested in reading it. And your avatar is STILL killing me. Is that the one from your office?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #168 July 16, 2004 QuoteThe key word is "some". Most opponents of any type of gun restriction say that it will lead to the banning of ALL guns. Yeah, but it's the same progression. First it wasn't a ban, it was a fine. (AK's weren't banned in Cali at first, you just had to register them and pay a fee). Now it's looking like some cars will be banned (AK's then were confiscated). So, no, it's not a total ban, yet, but if the progression is not stopped it will end that way. Especially since those who push for the legislation speak out in favor of a complete ban. Yeah...that's the bear in our office. The other day someone put a little picture of me in his mouth. Wonder what that was supposed to mean Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #169 July 16, 2004 Quote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #170 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuote“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995 Well, I think there are extremists on both sides of ANY issue. Gun control, gay marriage, environmental issues, whatever. That doesn't mean that it is going to happen the way she wants."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #171 July 16, 2004 Let's put some numbers on this, just to make it clear. Let's say 100 is complete and utter freedom and liberty concerning firearms. So let's say we started with 60. But there is a lot of crime and murder committed with firearms. So some people in Congress come to gun owners and their reps, and say "there are a lot of problems, and we can solve them by getting rid of guns." The gun owners respond "not a chance in hell." So these people, the anti-gunners, said "OK, let's comprmise, you give up a little and we'll make that work." So that happens, and now we're at 50. But there is still a lot of crime and murder, so the anti-gunner come back and say, "we can stop it if we get rid of guns." Gun owners say that wouldn't work So the anti-gunners ask if they're monsters who don't care about horrible crimes being committed. The anti-gunners come up with a new compromise. Gun owners say "ummm...I guess we can work something out" So now we're down around 40. But there's still a lot of crime and murder, so the anti-gunners come back and say we can fix it if you give us more. Gun owners dig in and say "NO MORE!!!" So the anti-gunners call all gun owners uncaring mosters and evil people. I have been polarized by the extremists who would take it all. If they can offer something that would actually affect crime and criminals, I'd really consider it, regardless of it's effect on me. However, everything they offer up now only affects people who have broken no laws. I strongly support Project Exile, and strong punishment of violent criminals, and even attempts to help criminals. If they offered up something affecting crime, I would be more than happy to sit down and talk it over with them. The problem is nothing they have offered up is new, hasn't been tried before, or has shown any effect on crime. It's not a compromise if only one side continues to give everything while gaining nothing. That is why I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANOTHER INFRINGEMENT UPON MY RIGHTS.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #173 July 16, 2004 Well stated position. Good post (for what my opinion is worth). But, with the lifting of the ban, aren't we moving farther AWAY from what you consider your rights being infringed upon? Don't you have more of an ability to exercise that freedom? You are saying that "will not have another infringement on your rights"; but isn't that restriction being lifted even more as of September 13th? By that argument, the anti-gunners could be using the same "slippery slope" argument as the pro-gun lobby. I can hear it now; "The next thing you know, you'll be able to buy a Stinger missile at the hardware store...""I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #174 July 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteban cars. They are used many more times for illegal activities each year than guns are. Very true. But, cars are HEAVILY regulated, and people don't scream and yell that any change in that regulation will lead eventually to them not having cars at all. The point that I am trying to make, ad nauseum, is that there sems to be no room for any type of discussion without it becoming a hysterical screaming match and some "threat to the basic principles of our country". When was the last time you heard of any avowed anti-car activist proclaiming that some vehicle regulation was only one initial step toward the ultimate banning of automobile travel? Because the difference in your example is that we DO REGULARLY hear anti-gun activists say that they ARE trying to use incremental steps toward a gradual extinction of the right to keep and bear arms. And are you really asserting that guns/gun manufacture/gun ownership are NOT "HEAVILY regulated"?! Do you have any IDEA just HOW heavily regulated they are?! --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 #175 July 16, 2004 QuoteMy frustration is that there is never any real discourse as to the merits (if any) vs. liabilities (if any) related to the regulation of ownership of guns. I believe that this is in large part due to the denial and refusal of the media and of single-minded anti-gunners to grant that guns can and do serve a useful, legitimate, often life-saving purpose. Their adamant refusal to recognize this brands them as ignorant philistines and is a clear indication that they will not argue the issue in good faith. Guns are used legally millions of times more often than they are used illegally. That alone is a good defense of gun ownership. When was the last time Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer mentioned someone who had saved their own life through the use of a gun? Shit, these two won't even acknowledge that their own secret service bodyguards use guns as a deterrent to those who would try to hurt them! --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
