JohnRich 4
Amazon 7
Quote1. I'm a democrat.
2. I'm a liberal.
3. I think most gun laws are moronic.
there's no need to make laws restricting certain kinds of guns, because the only people who are going to follow them are law abiding citizens, who pose no danger to the public because they ARE law abiding citizens. If an outlaw wants a gun, they're going to get it... and personally, I'd prefer that the outlaws not be better armed than the law-abiding general population.
I am with you sistah.
1. ditto
2. moderate (Social Progressive/Fiscal Conservative)
3. ditto
I would rather see EVERYONE brought up with a real form of education when it comes to ownership of weapons. Since its one of our basic "rights" proper education should be there for all.
And as far as ASSuming all demos are antigun...is essentially ignorant. I have seen WAY too many police departments nationwide that DO NOT believe in the right of citizens to bear arms.....just my perception but it seems they are far more anti-gun than almost any group I see, except for some of the far left whacko's.. which are just as bad as so many of the far right whacko's.
oh look shiny things....
Amazon 7
Quotegood!
now go do a few years service and learn how to use it properly.
Hey mister I know how to use it... but following on with the armed militia thing.in this day and age an M-16 is just never enough..... I want my own C-130 Gunship....we can jump out of it on weekends.
benny 0
QuoteQuotegood!
now go do a few years service and learn how to use it properly.
Hey mister I know how to use it... but following on with the armed militia thing.in this day and age an M-16 is just never enough..... I want my own C-130 Gunship....we can jump out of it on weekends.
Ooh ooh, I want that toy too, hey this right to bear arms things is turning out to be a lot more fun than I thought. I saw the Orange County Choppers guys get to drive tank the other day, I'm like a tank too! And can you say bazooka. Oh man do those things look fun!
Never go to a DZ strip show.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI would like John Rich to step in here again if he is still paying attenion. I'm sure he could point us in the right direction to start viewing stats of how many lives were saved in TX by legal gun owners and carriers after the concealed carry law was passed. If that number outweighs the deaths caused by legal gun owners seems to me we are causing more deaths than we are preventing by stopping law abiding citizens from owning guns.
The measure of effectiveness is not just lives saved, but also in crimes deterred.
I'm not going to go look up the numbers right now. But I'll put it this way; 38 states now have concealed handgun carry laws. *None* of them has experienced any problems with this law sufficient to warrant revoking it. The people who exercise this option have proven themselves to be responsible in every single state. Despite the predictions of the anti-gun folks of "shootouts on every street corner" and "blood in the streets". Only the die-hard anti-gun folks cling to the fiction that this law creates problems.
Quote
Great...he's humor impaired *and* loves guns.
So, making jokes about killing schoolchildren is perfectly acceptable. But someone who doesn't see any humor in jokes about killing schoolchildren, is dangerous?
Gosh, what a screwed-up sense of judgement your statements display.
You just had to go and remove any doubt about the lack of sense of humor, didn't you?
-Josh
If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteThe guns didn't shoot anyone. Some whacked out kids did.
Imagine if they only had rocks and sticks to throw... oh, the humanity..
As soon as you some up with some way to prevent criminals from getting guns, you let us know.
Passing laws certainly doesn't do it.
In England, they completely banned and confiscated all handguns. And yet, gun crime has gone up dramatically since then.
You're hoping for some fairy-tale magic-wand solution, and that just ain't going to happen in the real world.
Whhooooooooaaa there. Please do not lump police and other law enforcement officers into this category. I think who you are talking about are sheriffs, who are elected public officials--rarely are they law enforcement officers by profession.QuoteI have seen WAY too many police departments nationwide that DO NOT believe in the right of citizens to bear arms
I would say that 95% of the individual law enforcement types I know are staunchly pro-gun. Their department or their sheriff may be officially anti-gun or leaning that way, but that doesn't dictate they all march to that beat. I will say that publicly stating their pro-gun beliefs can get them transferred or fired.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhere 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.
This is a common, but bogus, argument. For example, Washington D.C. annually is one of the top three places for the highest murder rate in the nation. They blame loose gun laws in Virginia, as a place where their criminals get guns. So the correlation they try to draw is that loose gun laws creates more crime. But that isn't true, because in Virginia where those so-called loose laws exist, they have a far lower gun crime rate than D.C.
The gun laws actually have nothing to do with it. The true cause is the presence of criminals, and D.C. has a huge proportion of poor that are prone to crime. It's about demographics, not gun laws.
Oh, and did I mention that D.C. has a complete ban on handgun ownership? So even if they bought handguns elsewhere, it would still be against the law to bring them back into D.C.
Yet none of this helps them stop their high murder rate. Rather than stop their own problem, which doesn't occur in surrounding areas, they would prefer that everyone else ban all handgun ownership for their citizens too.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhat is the exact % of people that are killed with their own guns? Anyone? Pretty high from what I remember.
In the U.S., the principal types of accidental deaths in 1994 were:
Motor vehicles ........... 43,000
Falls .................... 13,300
Poison ................... 8,000
Fire ..................... 4,200
Drowning ................. 4,000
Choking .................. 3,000
Guns ..................... 1,500
Suffocation (gases) ...... 700
All other * .............. 14,500
------
Total: 92,200
* "All other" includes medical complications, machinery, air
and water transport accidents, and freezing.
(National Safety Council, "Accident Facts",
http://www.nsc.org/)
Guns are responsible for just 1.6% of all accidental deaths.
That's not what I would call "pretty high". You're twice as likely to choke to death on a chicken bone, than to accidentally kill yourself with a gun. And 28 times more likely to die in an auto accident!
Zenister 0
QuoteI want my own C-130 Gunship....we can jump out of it on weekends.
yeah!! you and i and some lucky soul can do some really expensive three ways
isnt much room left on those puppies ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
JohnRich 4
QuoteGive 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
Zenister 0
QuoteWhhooooooooaaa there. Please do not lump police and other law enforcement officers into this category. I think who you are talking about are sheriffs, who are elected public officials--rarely are they law enforcement officers by profession.QuoteI have seen WAY too many police departments nationwide that DO NOT believe in the right of citizens to bear arms
I would say that 95% of the individual law enforcement types I know are staunchly pro-gun. Their department or their sheriff may be officially anti-gun or leaning that way, but that doesn't dictate they all march to that beat. I will say that publicly stating their pro-gun beliefs can get them transferred or fired.
because most LEO's are fully aware that despite the public motto "protect and serve" the first line of protection is you. By the time they arrive (in most cases) all thats left is the paper work and the cleaning...how much are you willing to do to help ensure you and your family arent the ones inside the white lines??
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
JohnRich 4
Quotean AR 15 or similar weapon isn't ideal for most civilians because it's too big. Kind of awkward to conceal, put in your night stand and what not.
A lot of people say a shotgun is best for home defense, and it has all the same problems which you list above.
How long a gun happens to be, is not necessarily a factor making it unsuitable for home defense.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteThat's part of the problem - these suits are funded by anti-gun organizations, some of which are paid for by the billionaire owner of Monster.com.
So, the mighty NRA with all its millions, or could that even be billions and the mighty multi-billion dollar gun industry against another mighty wealthy opponent. I call that capitalism. I still don't understand your problem with gun manufacturers getting sued.
The NRA is only 4 million people, about ten times the size of the USPA. That's not much out of a nation of 260 million, of whom 80 million own guns.
The gun industry, with all manufacturers combined, only have gross revenues of about $4 billion per year. That's everyone; Colt, Ruger, Winchester, Springfield, etc. - all of 'em. Heck, I worked for a garbage company that had more revenue than that.
So then a billionaire (Andrew McElvey) comes along and is willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars trying to sue gun makers out of business. It's a drop in the bucket to him. But it's a huge expense to each of the dozens of gun manufacturers which have to defend themselves. One suit by McElvey, has a multiplier effect, because each of several manufacturers has to pay for defense: the gun maker, the store that sold the gun, the ammo manufacturer, the middleman between the manufacturer and the dealer, and so on.
QuoteQuote
National Guard would come under the heading of well regulated militia.
National guard works for the federal government and not the state. Precident already shows us that when push comes to shove (state's will vs federal government's will) they follow the orders of the president and NOT the governor. That however is for another thread.Quote
Ah yes everyone should be packing the world would be a safer place just like the old west. However the thread is about assault weapons and I don't think it would be practicle for us all to have M-16s hanging over our shoulders.
Do you believe that people should be responsible for their own actions? What about their own lack of action or preparation.
...
So now we have the real issue for you. You are afraid our government is going to turn on the people. Enough said.
"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
JohnRich 4
QuoteThe criminals in the bank shootout were using FULL-AUTOMATIC firearms. AK-47 knock offs... The bad guys had the weaponry. The local cops didn't.
Just to add to that.
The bad guys also had bullet-proof vests, which made them fairly immune from the politically correct 9mm handguns that the LA City Council forced them to use.
And while they had the dreaded "assault weapons" with drum magazines, spraying bullets everywhere, it should be noted that not one single person was killed by them. They might have done "better" with simple hunting rifles and taking careful aim.
There's a lot of hype surrounding this issue. And this LA bank robbery incident illustrates that while these guys managed to scare the heck out of a lot of people, they weren't actually that effective.
Every police car should have a high-power rifle in it for such emergencies.
rjf98 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
National Guard would come under the heading of well regulated militia.
National guard works for the federal government and not the state. Precident already shows us that when push comes to shove (state's will vs federal government's will) they follow the orders of the president and NOT the governor. That however is for another thread.Quote
Ah yes everyone should be packing the world would be a safer place just like the old west. However the thread is about assault weapons and I don't think it would be practicle for us all to have M-16s hanging over our shoulders.
Do you believe that people should be responsible for their own actions? What about their own lack of action or preparation.
...
So now we have the real issue for you. You are afraid our government is going to turn on the people. Enough said.
Uhhh No. I never said that. Didn't mean to imply it either. I only brought out the first part of the ammendment because you did. To say that the National Guard constitutes the "well regulated militia" and it purpose as defined by the 2nd ammendment doesn't fly with me. That's all.
QuoteAnd while they had the dreaded "assault weapons" with drum magazines, spraying bullets everywhere
Actually, to clarify, they did not have "the dreaded 'assault weapons'." They had illegal select-fire firearms, which in no way could be affected by the so-called assault weapons ban. Again, full-automatic firearms have been highly regulated by the federal government for the last 70 years. These were not registered class-III firearms, nor were they ever legal to own in this country.
As automatic rifles, by the true definition as coined by the German leader of WWII, they would be classified as assault rifles, but semi-automatics which are referred to in the "assault weapons" ban would not. But, that's a whole other discussion.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
QuoteSo now we have the real issue for you. You are afraid our government is going to turn on the people. Enough said.
Uhhh No. I never said that. Didn't mean to imply it either. I only brought out the first part of the ammendment because you did. To say that the National Guard constitutes the "well regulated militia" and it purpose as defined by the 2nd ammendment doesn't fly with me. That's all.
Sorry to have mis-read. Why does a militia have to work for the state, why not the feds? The purpose is to defend the country. The mission of the Texas National Guard is stated as:
"Provide mission-ready forces, responsive to the community, state and nation."
"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
jdhill 0
QuoteThey might have done "better" with simple hunting rifles and taking careful aim.
As most could... I can hit more targets, in less time, with less ammo, firing single shot vs. full auto...
When I was a platoon leader in the Army, my guys loved to go full auto (or 3-rd burts as the case was)... I put on a little demo for them... took the best shot in the platoon (aside from me) and gave him 3 30 round magazines, I had 1 30 round mag... he could shoot burst, me single shot... we each had to knock down 20 pop-ups of progressivly closer range (staring at 300m, working down to 50m)(each range for a specified amount of time, as many targets as you could hit)... The drill was 2 minutes long...
The results... he ran out of ammo in 1.5 minutes, and knocked down 15 targets... I ran out of targes in 1.5 minutes and had 10 round left over... in the remaining 30 seconds I knocked down his remaining 5 targets, preventing him from being "overrun"... and still had 5 rounds left.
They still liked to go on burst when we had ammo to burn, but not when shots counted.
J
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
JohnRich 4
QuoteI have seen WAY too many police departments nationwide that DO NOT believe in the right of citizens to bear arms.....just my perception but it seems they are far more anti-gun than almost any group I see...
The top echelon police leaders tend to be that way, because they are more politicians at that point, than they are police officers.
The beat cops by a wide margin, are in favor of citizens having the right to own guns.
13th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs
The following survey questions were posed recently by mail to 24,981 Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs. It represents a cross section of professional officers involving every state with a 12.1% response.» Do you believe any law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? Yes - 93%
http://www.aphf.org/survey.html
JohnRich 4
QuoteSo now we have the real issue for you. You are afraid our government is going to turn on the people.
History is replete with governments that have turned against their people.
We certainly don't have much to worry about right now in the U.S. But having armed citizens is one of the many balances of power that our founding fathers built into our system to ensure that things stay this way.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear arms."
- Tench Coxe
"...arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
QuoteQuoteGive 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.......
Blog Clicky
*Any* rifle will penetrate body armor. Now you can see where the Brady Campaign is going with this line of reasoning. It's not just about so-called "assault weapons". They would ban *all* rifles.
The AK-47 round is *less* powerful than most hunting cartridges, like .308 or .30-06. Once again, the Brady Bunch is filling your head with bullshit. If you ban 7.62 x 39 cartridiges because they are "too powerful", then virtually ever other type of rifle ammunition currently in existance would also have to be banned.
It's happened *after* the ban too, so the "prior to" comment is just BS, trying to make it sound like the law was actually effective in preventing any further such uses of these firearms. It wasn't.
Furthermore, there are other types of firearms which have been used far more often to kill people. Simple revolvers, for example. But the Brady Bunch hasn't asked for those to be banned. Yet. They simply singled-out "assault weapons" because it was a topic they could effectively use a disinformation campaign on.
So what happens when the "most popular" crime gun is demonized and banned? Then some other type of gun rises to the top of the crime list as the "most popular". And then it would be banned. And the cycle would continue until every type of gun is gone.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites