A new ACW..

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: parusski




Ya ne ponimayu

warspite1

Whum sploon tribby knockoes (hahahaha [:)])

What?
[&:]

warspite1

Parusski was talking Sloblocks so I thought I would join him...

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: parusski




Ya ne ponimayu

warspite1

Whum sploon tribby knockoes (hahahaha [:)])

What?
[&:]

Play along Ormie. We all vowed to stand by warspite during his declining years.

[Chickenboy]

But dood...haven't they ALL been declining years?

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

But dood...haven't they ALL been declining years?

As much as I hate the old texting acronyms I must say...ROTFLMAO. And IFTTBSFTICSLOLAICB.

[wodin]

Listen we didn't loose the War..we just beat ourselves and decided to call ourselves something else like...Americans..after the fact..during the War really you where all still British, so yet again we won!!

[vonRocko]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

--- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Listen we didn't loose the War..we just beat ourselves and decided to call ourselves something else like...Americans..after the fact..during the War really you where all still British, so yet again we won!!

[:-][>:]

Wanna try again?

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

--- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

And this is why the people of the UK and the US are letting their governments get away with things they should not even be thinking about.

[parusski]

The proposal that doctor's ask if a patient has guns at home is downright chilling. It is really no one's business if I have guns in my house.

[GaryChildress]

I haven't really paid too much attention to the recent gun regulation debate. As a non-gunowner it really doesn't affect me much, unless some gun nut comes along someday and shoots me. My father owns a couple assault rifles, I'm embarrassed to say. They really aren't good for anything practical other than going to the range and shooting up targets or allowing one to at least partially live out fantasies involving some sort of combat against other human beings (which is itself a little scarry to begin with). Obviously there should be some kind of limit to what sorts of weapons average citizens should be permitted to own. I don't know if assault weapons are a good place to draw the line or not. It sounds to me like they are. Not sure why anyone needs an assault rifle other than the military or police. Pistols for self defense are maybe reasonable, but assault rifles seem a bit over the top. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by a few individuals, at least a little bit.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I haven't really paid too much attention to the recent gun regulation debate. As a non-gunowner it really doesn't affect me much, unless some gun nut comes along someday and shoots me. My father owns a couple assault rifles, I'm embarrassed to say. They really aren't good for anything practical other than going to the range and shooting up targets or allowing one to at least partially live out fantasies involving some sort of combat against other human beings (which is itself a little scarry to begin with). Obviously there should be some kind of limit to what sorts of weapons average citizens should be permitted to own. I don't know if assault weapons are a good place to draw the line or not. It sounds to me like they are. Not sure why anyone needs an assault rifle other than the military or police. Pistols for self defense are maybe reasonable, but assault rifles seem a bit over the top. I don't pretend to think that banning assault rifles will cure all the ills of society but it might limit the amount of damage output by certain individuals, at least a little bit.

Banning any gun will never solve the problem. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, also had two handguns. And banning gun clips that hold more than 10 rounds will not change anything. Any criminal can simply carry multiple clips. Don't forget that Adam Lanza's mother owned the guns he used, he took them from her.

Jacob Tyler Roberts, who killed two people on a spree in an Oregon shopping mall, wouldn't have been affected, since he got his gun by stealing it.

The point is, there should be no ban on "assault rifles" or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The men who crafted the bill of rights wrote in clear words that the main reason for our second amendment is for the citizenry to protect itself from the government. The very protection we need now.

[GaryChildress]

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: parusski

The proposal that doctor's ask if a patient has guns at home is downright chilling. It is really no one's business if I have guns in my house.

Yes, isn't that brilliant! (sarcasm) Next they will line you up and the "doctor" will send you to the left or right lines for "special treatment".

[Chickenboy]

The first problem in banning 'assault weapons' is the definition. Non-gun owners just kind of wave their hand at the bunch and assume they're all 'assault weapons'. Kind of like porn, I guess-you can't really define it, but you 'know it when you see it'?

One of the problems with the 'assault weapons ban' that ran from 1994-2004 was the 'whack a mole' phenomenon. When you define X model as an assault weapon because of 'Y' characteristic (or even just the model number!), manufacturers change the model slightly (and give it a new model number) to evade those sanctions. Poorly defined legislation is fallible and liable for exploitation.

The majority of the 'assault weapons' sold in this country are semiautomatic rifles of small (.223 or 5.56mm) caliber. They DO make for excellent varmint rifles (squirrels, coyote, rabbit, other small game) because of the small caliber weapon and the flat ballistic trajectory offered by this particular cartridge. There are a fair number of handgun hunters out there that hunt sizeable game with large caliber pistols too.

But even if there were absolutely no useful hunting purpose for a semi-automatic weapon (now, we're probably talking about small frame pistols), I couldn't care less. Because legal ownership is not predicated upon its functionality as an exclusively hunting weapon.

I believe in reasonable restrictions on the availability of firearms or weapons of exclusively military value. Case in point: existing regulations and restrictions against ownership of grenade launchers, RPGs, crew-served machine guns (genuine MGs, not semi-automatic weapons that are misclassified as 'machine guns') and comparatively strict regulation of fully automatic weapons. These have been in place for some time, have broad support and are reasonable.

For an honest discussion, both sides have to recognize what the other really really wants in the long run. Anti-gun advocates want abolition of all firearms of all types. Period. They'll go about getting it by 'nibbling on the edges' until de-facto abolition exists. It would be nice if they had the decency to underscore their end game. Some on the other side want access to anything and everything-all the time. They balk at ANY regulations, no matter how reasonable. Neither approach is reasonable.

There IS a reasonable middle ground here. Perhaps something that could be done to limit the likelihood of this occuring in the future. In my opinion, the middle ground lies not with definitions of what an assault weapon is or isn't or what it 'feels' like. Nor is it in identifying the 'legitimate' use of said weapon model as a hunting platform.

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur. There's a slippery slope to some of these issues, to be sure. And this is a Constitutional amendment / Bill of Rights we're talking about-not some traffic law subject to constant re-interpretation.

Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think that reasoned men can make some reasoned decisions about these sorts of things. I've not seen too much from either side yet to suggest that we're approaching this in a reasoned manner, unfortunately.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.

Again, it is irrelevant whether something is controversial. All that matters is the second amendment. We must always be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government and this can't be done without being armed properly. Step one ban assault rifles because we are told we do not need them. Step two, clips with more than 10 rounds because the government says we don't need them. Then all rifles, because someone murders people with one and we are told by the government "YOU DON'T NEED A RIFLE". Stalin and Hitler did not suddenly take power on a Monday and by the end of the day they were in total control. They took baby steps. That is why we should oppose these proposals.

[parusski]

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur.

I have no problem with background checks, but it is so obvious this would have changed nothing about Sandy Hook, the shooter's mother legally bought the gun he used and he took it from her. So once again, those who want to do harm will.

[Mundy]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.

Hyperbole much Gary?

FBI Stats

Why the irrational angst against so called "assault weapons"? Clearly, they are involved in a extremely small percentage of murders. All rifles combined make up 2.5% of them. It seems that gun haters' sense of cause and effect leaves much to be desired.

If military type weapons are clearly not intended for the common people, then why can't I have a sawed off shotgun? When that went before the supreme court, the ban was upheld because it was not a weapon the military would use.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: parusski

In my opinion, reasonable background checks with teeth, harsh punishments for 'straw' buyers / gun trafficers and discussions / integrations of mental health screens into the permitting process should occur.

I have no problem with background checks, but it is so obvious this would have changed nothing about Sandy Hook, the shooter's mother legally bought the gun he used and he took it from her. So once again, those who want to do harm will.

You're right. Which is why the timing of Obama's Executive Orders is inherently suspect here. Clearly, it's taking advantage of the raw wound on the American / world psyche associated with Sandy Hook. They're trying to push through something-anything will do-while this is a front page issue.

No matter whether it would have prevented the tragedy or not. This mechanism (rushed Executive Orders rather than bills vetted by both houses and the courts) is suspect, as are the motives for its signing.

This suspicious activity, clearly without bi-partisan support (or support outside of the White House) is political theatre, nothing more. When it is cast down as being unconstitutional or found by the courts to be beyond the bounds of the Executive office, it will be years from now. Nothing will have changed.

Our imperious President should have someone whispering in his ear that real change is not by Imperial fiat. "Supreme power is extended by a mandate from the masses, not some farsical aquatic ceremony!" Alright, the last bit I borrowed from Monty Python, but you get the idea. Executive orders don't stand the test of time.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Mundy

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So does this mean rocket launchers should be legal too? I assume the answer would be no. So as a country we have already violated the 2nd amendment a long time ago. And I don't think many people would be in favor of private ownership of rocket launchers. So I don't really see anything especially controversial about banning assault weapons.

Hyperbole much Gary?

FBI Stats

Why the irrational angst against so called "assault weapons"? Clearly, they are involved in a extremely small percentage of murders. All rifles combined make up 2.5% of them. It seems that gun haters' sense of cause and effect leaves much to be desired.

If military type weapons are clearly not intended for the common people, then why can't I have a sawed off shotgun? When that went before the supreme court, the ban was upheld because it was not a weapon the military would use.

All good points. We should recall the 1994 ban on assault rifles-it was a failure. Shootings occurred regularly after the ban. I hate to be a realist here, but I don't think there is a solution.

[danlongman]

This discussion passed having any meaning a long time ago. Everybody thinks they are smarter than everybody else
when the discussion is more about FEELINGS than anything. No logic applies and the amount of smartass commentary
and ridiculous hyperbole indicates nobody is serious on a discussion level. They just KNOW they are right and never,
ever think about it because thinking is for humans. If pro gun people want to keep their guns they had better start
thinking and stop reacting. Your position is by no means obviously correct as is so arrogantly suggested.
The only reason things are the way they are is that gun regulation people just can't get their sh*t together.
If they ever do you can say goodbye to your hokey old gun religion. I am not pro regulation, I am anti idiot.
And that is how I FEEL.