kallend 2,147
Richards 0
QuoteSeems to me that "assault" rifles make good militia weapons. A ban on militia weaponry is a clear violation of the 2nd Amdt., isn't it?
Howdy,
I am not out to ban assault rifles, despite the fact that others keep putting those words in my mouth. I guess when it comes to gun control I do not have a strong position one way or the other. My primary argument on this thread was the issue of the NRA being a little over the top with their antics. Somehow this became a debate about assault rifles.
With respect to assault rifles, I realize it is a hot button issue with both sides. As the issue of owning mortars and rockets has come up I think the debate might center around where the line should be drawn in terms of ownership. Can people own missiles and mortars? 20 mm cannons? In light of this question some people have tried to draw the line on assault rifles, right or wrong. Regardless of ones position, it should be obvious that questioning the neccessity of owning one is perfectly reasonable, and weighing the benefits against the costs does not qualify as an attack on anyones fundemental rights. It is simply a question. In fairness, Douva has at least answered the question with respect to the principle behind the second ammendment, but again so many people on this thread have proven my point by going on the attack and labelling me as being the anti-gun crowd simply because I acknowledge that the other side of the debate has a right to ask the question.
Anyway,
Happy Solstice, and cheers to you and your family in the new year.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteAs I think those of us supporting gun rights have clearly illustrated, accepting a ban on .50 caliber rifles and "assault rifles" would accomplish virtually nothing, as far as the safety of the United States is concerned.
Again I am not advocating a ban.
QuoteIt would, however, limit the ability of American citizens to defend themselves and pave the way for future gun control legislation.
Fair argument.
QuoteSo if we seem annoyed at you, it's because every time you suggest we should be more flexible, you give examples that have no basis in fact.
Douva, 99% of all hot button issues are debated on inflamatory claims that are not based in reality, be it the gay marriage issue, abortion, immigration etc. In my case I felt that the other side of the debate had a right to question the issue, right or wrong. By the way one of my earlier posts I qualified my position by acknowledging a lack of expertise. When I say be reasonable I mean at least be willing to sit down with the other side to hear their perspective, without going on the offensive. If at the end you find yourself in disagreement with thier position then by all means stick to your guns. You have as much say in the political landscape as anyone on the anti-gun side. What I am referring to when suggesting reasonability is the table pounding and finger pointing that goes on whenever this issue comes up. Wether or not the anti-gun crowd (and again I am not one of them) is fully informed they have the right to question the neccessity of assault rifles (or any other issue on the planet). Being more diplomatic does not mean that the pro-gun side neccessarily has to make concessions. It simply means that they have to realise how to win people to thier side, and they are not doing a good job of that. Some diplomacy would correct that.
Anyway, It is late and I am not done my gift wrapping, so Merry Christmas and best to you and your family in the new year.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteYou're either one of them, or of the uninformed masses that they lie to.
I suspect the issue here might be one of your inability to differentiate between paranoid fantasy and reality.
OK, well then the best thing to do is hunker down in your bunker with your arsenal, and wait in anticipation for people like myself who are part of the conspiracy to take your guns, to leave you defenceless against the hordes of gay commie terrorists who are about to come charging over the hill any minute now.
By the way try to enjoy Christmas, the guys who fly the black helicopters are government employees so christmas is a stat holiday for them. Hence they will not be flying over your house for the next 24 hours
Wow. Hey polarizing the issue really is much easier than trying to have an intelligent debate.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Douva 0
QuoteDouva, 99% of all hot button issues are debated on inflamatory claims that are not based in reality, be it the gay marriage issue, abortion, immigration etc. In my case I felt that the other side of the debate had a right to question the issue, right or wrong. By the way one of my earlier posts I qualified my position by acknowledging a lack of expertise. When I say be reasonable I mean at least be willing to sit down with the other side to hear their perspective, without going on the offensive. If at the end you find yourself in disagreement with thier position then by all means stick to your guns. You have as much say in the political landscape as anyone on the anti-gun side. What I am referring to when suggesting reasonability is the table pounding and finger pointing that goes on whenever this issue comes up. Wether or not the anti-gun crowd (and again I am not one of them) is fully informed they have the right to question the neccessity of assault rifles (or any other issue on the planet). Being more diplomatic does not mean that the pro-gun side neccessarily has to make concessions. It simply means that they have to realise how to win people to thier side, and they are not doing a good job of that. Some diplomacy would correct that.
Anyway, It is late and I am not done my gift wrapping, so Merry Christmas and best to you and your family in the new year.
I agree 100% that most hot button issues are debated on a foundation of emotion, rather than on a foundation of fact. Though I agree that some gun advocates, like people on both sides of any emotionaly charged issue, refuse to even listen to the other side's arguments, I think many gun advocates feel we've reached a stalemate where honest discussions centered around fact based logic are simply not going to reach the other side. Most of us feel that there are already plenty of restrictions on the weapons we can and can't own, and while we're more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone who wants to listen, we're not going to budge any further than we already have.
--Douva
PS. Merry Christmas!
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI just feel that occasionally the NRA would do well to at least be flexible... I just think that since everything in life involves cmpromise why not meet in the middle with the anti-gun crowd and allow some restriction on weapons that have no real hunting value?
"Compromise" in this sense usually means anti-gun folks want 10 new forms of gun-control, and the NRA is supposed to "compromise" and
allow them to have 5 of those 10. But if you look at the definition of "compromise", that's not what it is all about. Compromise involves *both* sides getting something they want. But when folks say the NRA refuses to compromise, this is not what they mean. A compromise would be, for example, allowing background checks at gun shows, in exchange for nationwide recognition of state concealed carry licenses. But such compromises are never proposed by the anti-gun types. To them, "compromise" is a one-way street in their favor, giving nothing in return. The NRA has been "compromising" in their way for decades, and it has gotten them nothing, nor has it done any good in reducing gun crimes.
If we give up .50 caliber rifles now, then they'll be back for anything over .45 caliber next. You have to draw the line in the sand now, and stand on principle. Since .50 caliber rifles are legal, and they aren't being used for harm, they should not be banned. Period. Screw the gun-o-phobes who want to ban them based upon fiction, hype and paranoia.
If you would give up someone else's guns today to try and protect your own, who do you expect to stand with you when they come for your guns later?
JohnRich 4
QuoteDoes a bolt action that holds five rounds not suffice for hunting and target shooting?
No. In "highpower rifle" competition you shoot strings of rapid-fire consisting of 10 shots in 60 seconds. In "rattle battle" competition you fire as many well-aimed shots as you can in 60 seconds. Why should legal sport be restricted because of what some criminal might do?
QuoteI simply feel that the NRA's fanaticism does a bad job of representing such owners.
I feel that your perception of the NRA being fanatical is incorrect, probably fueled by the mainstream media which likes to cast them in that light.
Defending ownership of .50 caliber rifles is not "fanaticism". It's standing up for what's right, under current law and under the constitution. Those who would undermine the constitution are the ones who are fanatics.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteAR15's, for example are the most widely used rifle in a target competition called "highpower rifle", which is shot from 200, 300 and 600 yards. Just because they look like a military rifle, doesn't mean that in civilian hands that they are used for military purpose.
So, why do so many anti-gun advocates get upset about citizens owning military style firearms?
I think the issue is not so much the look but the capacity. Can someone not shoot a .556 rife in bolt action for the same ranges? Again I love shooting, but I think the pro-gun side would gain brownie points by showing a litle flexibility.
Let's see, so far in the name of "flexibility", you are willing to ban:
- .50 caliber rifles,
- magazines with a capacity of over 5 rounds, and;
- all semi-auto rifles.
And yet you portray yourself as "pro-gun". I call bullshit. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing. Your agenda so far matches exactly that of the anti-gun organizations. You're not fooling anyone here.
Richards 0
Quote"Compromise" in this sense usually means anti-gun folks want 10 new forms of gun-control, and the NRA is supposed to "compromise" and
allow them to have 5 of those 10. But if you look at the definition of "compromise", that's not what it is all about. Compromise involves *both* sides getting something they want. But when folks say the NRA refuses to compromise, this is not what they mean. A compromise would be, for example, allowing background checks at gun shows, in exchange for nationwide recognition of state concealed carry licenses. But such compromises are never proposed by the anti-gun types. To them, "compromise" is a one-way street in their favor, giving nothing in return. The NRA has been "compromising" in their way for decades, and it has gotten them nothing, nor has it done any good in reducing gun crimes.
If we give up .50 caliber rifles now, then they'll be back for anything over .45 caliber next. You have to draw the line in the sand now, and stand on principle. Since .50 caliber rifles are legal, and they aren't being used for harm, they should not be banned. Period. Fuck they gun-o-phobes who want to ban them based upon fiction, hype and paranoia.
If you would give up someone else's guns today to try and protect your own, who do you expect to stand with you when they come for your guns later?
OK. If your experience has taught you that they will always demand more then fine stand your ground. At the very least though, when you hear one of them bringing the issue up it would not hurt to politely stand your ground. Yes there are fanatical anti-gun types who will go over the top on you, but it cannot hurt your credibility to refrain from attacking. Assertiveness does not always have to manifest itself in aggressive behaviour. When talking to someone who is neither pro or anti yet who seems to be leaning towards an anti-gun view it might do well not only to take the time to explain your argument, but also to refrain from cutting down the anti-gun crowd. Regardless of how far the fanatical anti-gun crowd has pushed you, if you start unloading venom towards the anti-gun crowd, the guy who is undecided will see the "fanatical gun owner" stereotype that is perpetuated by the extreme anti-gun crowd, and you will chase him/her to thier camp.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteThe weapons that have no real huting value aren't any less dangerous than the weapons that do.
Then why don't we send our troops in to battle with bolt actions?
We do. Snipers use bolt action rifles.
Remember those two Los Angeles bank robbers that wandered the streets with full-automatic AK47's and drum magazines, spraying bullets everywhere? They didn't kill one single person with all their shots fired.
QuoteLack of regulation does however make it easier for legal guns to proliferate into the black market.
Please explain what this "lack of regulation" is.
JohnRich 4
***QuoteHow do they come across as being fanatical?
When thier president who claims to be representing law abiding gun owners, stands up and states "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands"... That sort of silliness tend to leave a people with a bad impression.
Defending constitutional rights is not fanaticism. That's how this country was founded, and that's how it has survived. Start giving them up willy nilly, and watch out for what you'll get...
Is the ACLU a fanatical organization for defending free speech?
I don't think you actually have a clue of all the things the NRA actually does, not just in politics, but for gun safety eduation, for hunters, for shooting ranges, for preserving wildlife habitat, and so on. Your comments here certainly don't reflect that you're aware of any of that. And if they weren't involved in politics, the fact is, you wouldn't have any guns right now. Like it or not, that role is absolutely necessary, to counter the anti-gun people who are involved in politics. That's part of the political process in this country, where people band together to stand up for their causes. If you don't like it, you don't have to be a member.
You need to get out more John. Just because I don't sit around like Dale Gribble seeing paranoid anti-gun conspiritors whenever someone tries to look at things from another perspective does not make me an anti-gun type. However, I should probably stop trying to convey that point since in your own little paranoid world of self delusion there are clearly only two camps...us and them.
The second clause is the key one - 'for a balance on the issue.' Come on, this is basic English.
I'm not going to read your history to convince myself that your postings in this thread are out of character. You're either one of them, or of the uninformed masses that they lie to.
That is a very simplistic view.
It is quite possible to believe in the rights set out in the Bill of Rights, and be opposed to government infringing on any of them, while at the same time disputing that the average 21st century citizen is actually better off as a result of handgun ownership for "safety". Two quite different issues.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.