0
peacefuljeffrey

Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

Recommended Posts

Quote

If you want to talk about dangerous firearms, you should be raving over polymer-framed handguns. Their use in crime has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. They are used way more often than so-called assault weapons.


Quote

The thread is about assault weapons. I think "plastic" guns are horrible.



Do you have an objective reason as a foundation for this feeling?
Why do you think "plastic guns are horrible"?

Are you under the mistaken impression that there exists a "plastic gun" that is made wholly out of undetectable material? This was the LIE that was circulated in the '80s with the introduction of the Glock semi-auto pistols. There was no truth to it. The guns contain about a POUND of STEEL, and even the plastic (polymer) frame contains embedded steel to stiffen it. There never were plastic guns, and there won't be plastic guns, because there is a federal law (SUPPORTED BY THE NRA) that makes it illegal to develop and manufacture them, specifically because of the threat that would be presented by guns that could not be detected at security stations by metal detectors.

Besides which, the metal of the ammunition rounds would set off metal detectors even if the guns themselves were 100% plastic.

Or, um, were you just voicing a TASTE issue about plastic guns? I know that some gun purists have a loathing of anything that's not a 1911 variant.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not the constitution-loving, registered gun owner I'm worried about. Where do the criminals get there guns? States with little/no regulation. States where you only need a drivers license to buy a gun. States that opposed a waiting period. These guns are brought to areas where guns are harder to get legally. Most of the illegal guns in NJ and NYC came from the south. It's like a fucked up osmosis.



No No NO! Here you go again, posting without a proper understanding of the subject you're spouting-off about.

It is illegal to purchase a gun inter-state unless you involve a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer from each state involved in the transaction. So NO, a person CAN'T just traipse across a state line into a "lax" state, produce a driver's license, buy a gun and bring it back. That's against federal law.

And what was this about "states against a waiting period"? Clinton's own baby, the Brady Law, is what nullified the waiting period in favor of instant checks. Before NICS came along, there was a 5-day Brady-mandated waiting period -- and it applied in all 50 states.

Is it too much to ask, really for you to have ANY correct facts before you post about guns??

Quote

Owning a gun for personal use/protection is fine. Government regulates what kind. Too bad. I feel I have the right to have a Bazooka, and RPG, and a Howitzer in my small urban apartment, but, gee, I can't. Oh well.... If all these illegal guns weren't everywhere, why would we need such protection?



You imply that the only reason we need guns is because we already have bad guys who have them.

What about the idea that a gun may be the only way a 59-year-old 109 pound woman can defend her life from two 185 pound would-be rapist/robbers? Take guns -- "the great equalizers" -- out of the equation and the world is like feudal Europe all over again, with the STRONG able to exert their will over the WEAK simply because they are strong.

So the fact that guns are already around is not the only justification for the citizenry needing them, no.

And regarding your other comment, no, bazookas and howitzers are not personal weapons, the typical issue of the soldier -- which is what is understood to be meant by "arms" in the second amendment.

Quote

What is the exact % of people that are killed with their own guns? Anyone? Pretty high from what I remember.



"Pretty high from what I remember." That's damn definitive, alright.

Actually, from what I remember, it's pretty LOW. Who's right? Neither of us quoted any kind of credible source.

Is it really so easy for you to believe that an unarmed criminal can approach an armed victim and just snatch away that pistol he or she is pointing at them? Do you think criminals have those kinds of balls? Would YOU attempt it?

If it's so easy for the criminal to snatch away the gun from the defender, why would it be hard for the defender to just snatch it right back? I mean, this could just go back and forth like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, if it were truly so easy to snatch a gun from the person holding it without getting your ass shot!.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

States that opposed a waiting period.


I really think you swallow every line the anti gunners feed you. Your logic is flawed tho.



In your humble, humble opinion...

For every study, there is another that will contradict it.



Yes but you give evidence of being unable to separate the ones whose stated claims and conclusions make logical sense from those that sound apocryphal and absurd (i.e. the claim that the ban has "taken guns off the streets." I've already told you why that's absurd. I'd wager you're still clinging to the belief, though.).
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What's interesting is that the local LAPD guys were outgunned. Badly. Serious situation, they didn't have the firepower to take these guys down. So a few squad cars showed up at a local gunstore, and took what they needed...including shotguns, bullets, and various guns.

The bad guys had the weaponry. The local cops didn't.

That's a sad state of affairs, don't you think? The bad guys had the illegal weapons...I wonder where they got them??? The ban already in place didn't do squat. Just didn't do squat.



I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Didn't the cops go to the local gun store to get better weapons. So those would be legal weapons available to the public through legal means which are better than the cops' guns?

If I am seeing that part right than the problem is with the decisions made in outfitting your police department and has nothing to do with any ban.



The problem is, the proponents of the ban want those guns GONE from the gun shops. If the ban had actually fully "banned" those guns, they would not have been in the shop, the cops would have still not had anything better than they had, the criminals would have had what they had because they get them illegally, and no one would have been able to stop them short of the national guard being called in.

How did you miss the point? The point is, if the advocates of the AW ban had their way at the time of the robbery, there would not have been what the cops needed in that store they went to.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Give me proof that the illegal guns in NYC are "stolen". And stolen from where. They are brought in, mainly from VA, SC, NC, GA, and other states w/ lax gun laws.



It is against federal law to purchase a handgun from a state outside the one in which you reside.

Therefore, if they are going somewhere else to buy handguns, they're buying them on the black market somewhere. Passing more laws will do nothing to change this.

See item "B2":
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm



Criminals.... breaking the law? No.......



As articulate and thorough as we numerous pro-gunners would appear to be from a distance, it seems we STILL are having trouble reaching you...

The point, once again, is that there is not a problem with the supposed legality of being able to go to another state to buy guns where it is "easy," because it is not legal to do so. Anyone doing that is breaking federal law just like they would be to lie about their eligibility to buy a gun in their home state. It is quite telling, however, that people supposedly go to other states to buy guns easily, then take them back to states where laws on gun owning are more stringent. Why don't they just keep the guns there and stay where they obtained them? Why do the guns get brought back to where gun ownership is restricted and more scarce? The answer is probably that criminals don't like to pick victims in places where it's likely they victims have guns themselves. That's why you read about more muggings and murders in D.C. and NYC than you do in Georgia, or Virginia, or Texas.
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

The thread is about assault weapons. I think "plastic" guns are horrible.



...
Are you under the mistaken impression that there exists a "plastic gun" that is made wholly out of undetectable material? This was the LIE that was circulated in the '80s with the introduction of the Glock semi-auto pistols. There was no truth to it. The guns contain about a POUND of STEEL, and even the plastic (polymer) frame contains embedded steel to stiffen it. ...



I stand corrected.


"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the 2.5 million* people who actively used firearms to prevent crimes from being committed against themselves, they had no reason to own a gun?

* - Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Table 1, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.

Who is Gary Kleck?
Quote

...and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank).


witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then I get people who don't even know what a computer virus is questioning my intelligence. Funny.



Just because someone is a computer expert, that doesn't make them a gun expert too. People can be smart in one area, and ignorant in another. That says nothing about the person's overall intelligence.

Just because you are consistently incorrect about gun matters, doesn't mean that you are unintelligent in general.

But statements like the one quoted above, might say something about someone's level of arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, I just finished helping a college buddy build his latest computer setup, then he ran me through how to write a computer virus. He improves on successful ones for shits and giggles. [no, he's never used one, and yes, he sends them to AV software people to claim credit. no, I don't get code writers either]. I also know a great deal about criminology and criminal justice, though I'm no Phd or Esq.

However, I'll be the first to tell you I'm not going to frame my own house or fix the plumbing without some serious guidnace. Am I an idiot because I'm ignorant on a few topics?

What about aircraft techs. I know a few who could build you your next plane. Could you do that? Does that make you an imbecile?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

unless you live in south central LA there is no real reason why you should have a gun...this isnt the wild west....i mean...get a freakin life...find a productibe hobby



There are plenty of dangerous places in America besides south central L.A.

You have no right to tell everyone else what they "should" be able to own. This is a free country where people get to decide for themselves.

Sport shooting is just as "productibe" as skydiving. Once again, this free country permits us to each pursue happiness in our own ways. If you don't like guns, that's fine. But you have no more business telling gun owners that they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, than do gun owners telling you that you shouldn't be allowed to own a parachute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

find a productibe hobby



By that statement, it would appear that either you have not shot a gun, or if you havem you did not enjoy it... that doesn't mean other share your experiance (or lack of)...

What hobbies do you see as productive? I don't see where shooting is any more or less productive than say skydiving, or bowling, or golf, or kite flying...

And to a lot of people that shoot, it is more than a hobbie, it is the exercise of a Constitutional right.

J
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We couldn't even get real sponsorship from U of Maryland (for the skydiving club/almost team). Asian American Assoc got thousands just for pizza though. Maybe we should've picked soemthing that sounded PC-ist. Then the dough would've been rolling in. :S
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are plenty of dangerous places in America besides south central L.A.

You have no right to tell everyone else what they "should" be able to own. This is a free country where people get to decide for themselves.



Have you noticed who the places where you're most likely to be victimized/need a gun, and the places where it is completely illegal to have a gun, are one and the same?

Chicago, Washington DC, NYC, LA. Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The problem is, the proponents of the ban want those guns GONE from the gun shops. If the ban had actually fully "banned" those guns, they would not have been in the shop, the cops would have still not had anything better than they had, the criminals would have had what they had because they get them illegally, and no one would have been able to stop them short of the national guard being called in.



I have to call bullshit.

The lack of proper armament for the lapd has nothing to do with a ban at the federal level. It has everything to do with decision made by LA city council.

Quote

How did you miss the point? The point is, if the advocates of the AW ban had their way at the time of the robbery, there would not have been what the cops needed in that store they went to.



I thought this bill was partly about a continuation of a ban, a ban that was already in place during the time we speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said if they had their way meaning got everything they wanted, instead of compromising the AWB. You don't think the bill is everything they hoped for, do you?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

unless you live in south central LA there is no real reason why you should have a gun...this isnt the wild west....i mean...get a freakin life...find a productibe hobby


Wow. Thanks for your opinion about my safety. By the way, what I choose to ensure my safety with isn't really a concern of yours, unless you decide to come skulking into my house in the dead of night. Are you planning that?

And do you really consider my safety a productive hobby?

Oh, and I have a "freakin' " life, thanks very much. Hope you do, as well.

Ciels-
Michele


~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, but if gun control forces are influencing the city, they are influencing the police administration.

the point is the cops wouldn't have had anywhere to go to get what gun controllers denied them in the first place. the bill wouldn't have affected cops one way or the other, they were screwed by their brass folding to pressure, or the local govt, depending on who you listen to.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the point is the cops wouldn't have had anywhere to go to get what gun controllers denied them in the first place. the bill wouldn't have affected cops one way or the other, they were screwed by their brass folding to pressure, or the local govt, depending on who you listen to.



So, once again the problem in this case isn't with the bill but with the people making decisions for your local police department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, once again the problem in this case isn't with the bill but with the people making decisions for your local police department.



Have you and I not been reading the same thread? This incident involved full automatic firearms in California. I live in Alabama and the AWB deals with SEMI-automatic firearms. Full-auto firearms have been completely (over) regulated since 1934 or so.

So what have we learned? Trusting a law to stop someone from doing something is pretty asinine. If laws prevented people from breaking laws, there would be no crime. So how do we expect banning another tool will prevent assaults?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So how do we expect banning another tool will prevent assaults?



we dont, but we do expect it will make us feel better about our safety while we sleep behind locked gates with armed body guards protecting our children while the degrading the less fortunate individual's ability to protect themselves.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0