DaleMX Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 But the idiots around here had the gun show the weekend before the ban expired. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Moridin, My personal beliefs aside, Let me turn the question back on you and more specifically to anyone who wants to cast stones on those who choose to arm themselves "LEGALLY": Why not? By their own argument, the same people who lobby against guns also could just as easily argue against anyone having an automobile that exceeds 100HP to be registered on the great highways and biways of this land... We can certainly get from point A to point B in little 4 cylindered, unmodified efficency machines, and curb our thirst for gas. We certainly don't "NEED" a Datsun 240 Z with a 500HP turbocharged motor in it, do we? Your answer to this question should be the same answer to everything related to the gun ban movement. These same irrational LIBERAL individuals would like to regulate how I fornicate with my wife, where I invest my retirement money, and what trees I keep in my yard... My point is that the argument against "Assault" weapons was never properly argued. All they did was tote out crime scene photos from a few high profile cases of children sprawled on playgrounds dead or in front of McDonalds laying dead next to their bicycles, and that was it. Those who LEGALLY own weapons, register them, and take the time to get legal are NOT your threat... Bubba at the gun show shouldn't worry you, and if he does, you don't understand the threat... I see more crime, more killing with guns in urban areas than any other... Urban lifestyle choices promote the use of assault and other weapons illegally... 10 minutes watching rap videos on any of the cable video channels will show you the young urbanite mindset wanting to wage war against establishment with assault and other weapons, and the lyrics are peppered with gun phrases... Yea, you go ahead and be worried about bubba at the gun show... I'm worried about a 2Pak wannabee in southeast Washington DC. Where did we ever go so wrong in this country? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 These same irrational LIBERAL individuals would like to regulate how I fornicate with my wife... OT, but that's always been part of the conservative agenda IME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Jon, Yes and no... Believe me, I bash the religous right just as hard as I do the liberals... They ALL scare me! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Moridin' date=' My personal beliefs aside, Let me turn the question back on you and more specifically to anyone who wants to cast stones on those who choose to arm themselves "LEGALLY": Why not? By their own argument, the same people who lobby against guns also could just as easily argue against anyone having an automobile that exceeds 100HP to be registered on the great highways and biways of this land... We can certainly get from point A to point B in little 4 cylindered, unmodified efficency machines, and curb our thirst for gas. We certainly don't "NEED" a Datsun 240 Z with a 500HP turbocharged motor in it, do we? Your answer to this question should be the same answer to everything related to the gun ban movement. These same irrational LIBERAL individuals would like to regulate how I fornicate with my wife, where I invest my retirement money, and what trees I keep in my yard... My point is that the argument against "Assault" weapons was never properly argued. All they did was tote out crime scene photos from a few high profile cases of children sprawled on playgrounds dead or in front of McDonalds laying dead next to their bicycles, and that was it. Those who LEGALLY own weapons, register them, and take the time to get legal are NOT your threat... Bubba at the gun show shouldn't worry you, and if he does, you don't understand the threat... I see more crime, more killing with guns in urban areas than any other... Urban lifestyle choices promote the use of assault and other weapons illegally... 10 minutes watching rap videos on any of the cable video channels will show you the young urbanite mindset wanting to wage war against establishment with assault and other weapons, and the lyrics are peppered with gun phrases... Yea, you go ahead and be worried about bubba at the gun show... I'm worried about a 2Pak wannabee in southeast Washington DC. Where did we ever go so wrong in this country? Mike[/quote'] I didn't mean to come off with a condescending tone at all. I'm just trying to find out the facts, and to find why people feel the need to own these sort of weapons, because I'm very much scared of them. I'm guessing its more of "just because I can" thing. Honestly...I don't see any gun violence in my area, except in Oakland. Most of that is over drugs and has little to do with some kid thinking a rap video told him to do it. That's what I see though. I haven't been able to find good information on crime and a correlation with age, race, and/or type of weapon used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freedomfighter Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Secondly, and this one is personal, what is the point of having an AK with a bayonet and folding stock, or a high capacity magazine? It should only take a few shots to kill something, or someone, then why 10+ rounds in a weapon, right? Is it the militia weapons thing? I just want to know why, that's all. I'm not trying to be an a**. It's actually very simple. The right to bear arms has to do with protecting ones self from the local bad guys as well as the potential bad guys from abroad. Let's get really wild for a second... let's say we were invaded, what would you rather defend yourself with... a steak knife, or an AK? It really is that simple. Defense. The right to own the tools of defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2126 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 If people would just take the time to research and learn the facts about gun control, they might consider changing their thoughts about them. There are (IMO) two types of gun control....#1- The government putting restrictions on then. It's a know fact that cities and or countries that have the most restrictions on guns have higher crime rates.....go figure. On the other side of the fence (little or no restrictions) foster less crime.....why? because criminal are not totally stupid. If you were a criminal, wouldn't you think twice about breaking into someones house if you suspected the owner was armed? Now if the criminal knows the are no guns, theres no problem and he is likely to meet zero oppostion. Gun controls only hurt the law abiding citizens not the criminals. Criminals do not abide by the law...that's why they call them criminals!!! #2- (This is the best) Gun control is when you can stack one round after another on top of eachother, when in the act of shooting! My kind of gun control. Owning guns is about being able to protect one's self. Look back in history, specifically why this country was started, and learn from are forefathers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 It's actually very simple. The right to bear arms has to do with protecting ones self from the local bad guys as well as the potential bad guys from abroad. Let's get really wild for a second... let's say we were invaded, what would you rather defend yourself with... a steak knife, or an AK? It really is that simple. Defense. The right to own the tools of defense. I hate to disagree with you again freedom, but here's my take on Amend #2. The country had just fought for years to get out from under the colonial yoke by military victory over the Brits. The intention was to make sure that the people would have a method of overthrowing the new govt if the govt oppressed the people again. This is a subject that is very controversial, because laws have been passed like the 1934 National Firearms Act that said that you needed a license to own a fully automatic weapon, and the 1968 Gun Control Act which said guns should have a "sporting purpose", both of which clearly undercut the citizenry in their attempts to posess weapons capable of fighting off our own military. So the original intent of the law was to provide the citizens a means of defense against our own gov't in my opinion, and that of John Jay who IIRC wrote the damn thing, but that right has been curtailed over and over again in the last 100 years or so. Freedom is right in that there is a side benefit of making our country very difficult to invade, because any enemy force trying to get in would face not only an army of 1,000,000 soldiers or whatever it is right now, but also another estimated 145,000,000 armed citizens, and you can use a gun to protect your family, and for sporting purposes, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freedomfighter Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 If people would just take the time to research and learn the facts about gun control, they might consider changing their thoughts about them. There are (IMO) two types of gun control....#1- The government putting restrictions on then. It's a know fact that cities and or countries that have the most restrictions on guns have higher crime rates.....go figure. On the other side of the fence (little or no restrictions) foster less crime.....why? because criminal are not totally stupid. If you were a criminal, wouldn't you think twice about breaking into someones house if you suspected the owner was armed? Now if the criminal knows the are no guns, theres no problem and he is likely to meet zero oppostion. Gun controls only hurt the law abiding citizens not the criminals. Criminals do not abide by the law...that's why they call them criminals!!! #2- (This is the best) Gun control is when you can stack one round after another on top of eachother, when in the act of shooting! My kind of gun control. Owning guns is about being able to protect one's self. Look back in history, specifically why this country was started, and learn from are forefathers. That's my point exactly... and JMort... I'm very clear on the history on this matter. That would actually take me back to another thread that mentioned burning DC to the ground which substantiates your point. In other words, I agree. I was not describing the letter of the law, more or less the spirit, in todays terms. I was trying to make it really simple to understand the practical reason for fighting for this right to have these weapons and why peace loving people cherish said ownership! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Actually Washington DC is an Excellent example of gun control as a FAILURE... It has been consistantly one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US to live in for 2+ decades... Guess what? It is Illegal to own guns in Washington DC... Apparently everyone got the memo, except for the gang bangers, thugs and drug dealers. I'm amazed that the same train of thought that would want to ban weapons from being owned by private citizens, would also be the same train of thought for someone who would build cars capable of becoming land missiles... Guns are tools... And they are a large hobby industry in this country... You go and regulate them out of the hands of American citizens and see where we are in five years... IT won't be pretty... And once they have won that battle, bettcha they then focus their attentions on something else that will maybe hit closer to home, like hotrods or fast cars with modified motors... Mike 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-TARD Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 They can pry my small block chevy from my cold, dead fingers Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Moridin, Didn't mean to single you out dude, just answering the quesiton you posted, by asking another question... No harm/ no foul intended. 8) Jon M. NAILED it with his perspective on the intent for the right to bear arms. He also got it right with the 1934 National Firearms Act that said that you needed a license to own a fully automatic weapon, and the controversial 1968 Gun Control Act. I always found it funny to laugh at the IDIOTS who thought the assault weapons ban had anything to do with full automatic weapons... Bottom line is the ban on assault weapons was a feel good, do little "ACT" that served ZERO purpose other than driving up pre-ban magazine clips for semi-automatic firearms of all designs. Here is another little known fact... For every assault style weapon used in a felony, your local law enforcement will confiscate over 100 guns that did NOT fall under the defenition of "assault" weapon... Notice I said your LOCAL law enforcement... Which means the total ratio nationwide is something so small that we should all be ashamed that we ever allowed elected officials pass this thing into "LAW". Remember what I mentioned previously... We have excellent laws on the books that do not get enforced, because those career law makers in Washington need to make more redundant laws to trumpet their successes come election time... THIS is not a "Party statement"... It is a "National Reform" statement. Wonder what other laws they will force on us, and how many more sheeople will flock to useless "ACTS", thinking they mean anything at all... It is truly hillarious to watch the light come on when someone realizes WHAT the Assault Weapons ban was! Baaah Baahhhahhhahhaaaaaa Mike 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Here is some info for you guys to chew on further... Three KEY cases created the groundswell that eventually caused the "Assault Weapons Ban" to become law... On July 18, 1984 in San Ysidro, California James Huberty killed 21, and injured another 19 using an UZI semi-automatic assault weapon, a 9mm Browning pistol and a 12 gauge Winchester shotgun. On January 17, 1989 Patrick Edward Purdy's assault on a Stockton, California school yard left five dead and 29 wounded. He used an AK47 Type assault weapon and a Taurus 9mm Pistol. He killed himself as police were arriving on the scene. On October 16, 1991 George Hennard assaulted a Luby's cafe in Killeen Texas. He drove his truck through the front of the building, got out with a Glock 17 and a Ruger P89. Both pistols carried high capacity magazines, and both were HAND GUNS. Hennard shot and killed 22 people, and wounded 23 others in the process... Again, he turned one of the guns on himself when police closed in. Couple these incidents with the rash of Postal worker attacks by Patrick Sherrill, Joseph Harris and Thomas Mcilvane In Oklahoma (1986), New Jersey and Michigan (Both in 1991), and you get a sense that thte country was becoming unsettled with an "armed" society. The media did everything in their powers to bleed these stories to the hilt in order to get their liberally based agendas pushed to the forfront of political attention. Unfortunately Bush Senior and the NRA/ Religios right did EXACTLY what they should not have done... In effect, becoming emotional over the subject and not defending our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The media drove this debate, citing the above key cases, and ussually painting all the participants of those crimes as "Upstanding citizens" until the pressures of life caught up to them... BULL HOCKEY! All six individuals hilited above had serious emotional and mental issues that were recorded, known and none of them should have been allowed to own weapons... However, protection by family members, lies, and a system that NEEDS REFORM, simply overlooked these six men. SO, Six tragedies make a case for BANING anything? See, here is where I can't align myself with the left, when it comes to gun control... You can't throw the baby out with the bath water in dealing with cases such as these... You single out those involved, assign MAXIMUM punishment on them for preying upon fellow humans, and you move on... Accountability for individual actions is what fixes problems such as "Gun" control... If Bubba has something to lose (And he does), then bubba is going to get legal to own his guns, so he doesn't lose his trailer, his 4x4, his huntin' dogs, and his little slice of land he works hard for... BUBBA isn't the guy skirting laws to OWN his guns. Bubba is the guy who the 2nd amendment was intended for. Bubba is the guy who would stand up and defend the country in case of an attack. He is the same guy who rushed to the Clock Tower at UT in Austin, Texas when Charles Whitman started his attack on August 1st, 1966. Bubba is the guy who fired back with his hunting weapons, trying to help law enforcement fend off the attacker. As a society we must start to place full accountability on individuals for their actions. Nothing in life, nothing in this free society of ours comes free. We must hold ourselves, our citizens, our populous accountable for their actions, if we are ever to have a truly free functioning society. Mike 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigWhyteDude Posted September 20, 2004 Share Posted September 20, 2004 How many of you guys watch Worlds Wildest Police Vidieo's? Yesterday i was watching an episode on SpikeTV and one of the vids was of some crazy guy who went on a shooting spree out side of a video store. I could not help but think that one armed citizen could have ended that mess as quickly as it started. The guy ended up walking out side and being killed by the police who responded. Restrictions on firearms is only going to hurt the law abiding citizens. Either way the bad guys are going to get the weapons and use them. It just does not make any sense to me. I have tried to but i can not see the liberal logic on this issue. I just bought a Bulgarian Makarov a couple of weeks or so ago to take with me this fall during hunting season. It will be used for snakes and if needed a finishing shot on a wounded deer. Snakes are still usually active in early season around here. If you have ever had to shoot a downed deer with a 30.06 then you know what i mean. I am not old enough to carry a hand gun any time i want in the state of Georgia but it is legal to carry one out hunting. So before you guys jump on me for breaking the law i wont be. I plan to use it for concealed carry when i am old enough. Well i am thinking about it. If not on my person then in my truck. I look at a gun like i do a condom, its better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it. (by the way if you are looking for a great inexpensive handgun look into a Makarov. Great shooting and as tough as an AK-47 and very accurate. I got mine for 155 out the door at a local pawnshop.) http://www.gunboards.com has a makarov forum that has some great info about them. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aaron Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Andrew, stories like that are the reason that I carry virtually everywhere. My wife made fun of me the first time we went to Movie Gallery and I grabbed the gun and stuck it on my waist. I have heard good things about the Makarov, but it will not use standard 9x19 (9mm Luger) amunition will it? Another good low priced gun is the Kel-Tec P11 or P40. A good friend of mine had a P11 and I almost purchased one. They are $269 new and they can use S&W high capacity magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerware Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Used to carry all over too when I lived in CT. I had a conceal carry permit, went through all the hoops and such. Now I live in the great land of California where only Diane Finestine (spelling) can carry a concealed weapon. It really sucks, so driving through Oakland the only one armed are the thugs on the street. I love feeling safe!!! Oh well. At least this is a step in the right direction. Can't wait to move back east again and get a new permit. TOO many Liberals in this area for me. All with there bleeding hearts concerned with fair trade coffee and nothing else. RANT sorry, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigWhyteDude Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Aaron , no it is a former Soviet military sidearm so it does not use the standard 9x19. It uses the russian equivelent of a .380 acp. (9.2X18 actualy) pritty cheap ammo and its pritty easy to find it. You can also get them in .380acp if you wanted to. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Zorro Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 The Makarov has become quite popular with shooters and collectors due to it's practical design and different variations. The 9x18 is a good self defense caliber, not as good as the 9x19 of course but a good balance of power for weight. There is a good webpage for info at http://www.makarov.com/ Adios Amigos, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freedomfighter Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Used to carry all over too when I lived in CT. I had a conceal carry permit, went through all the hoops and such. Now I live in the great land of California where only Diane Finestine (spelling) can carry a concealed weapon. It really sucks, so driving through Oakland the only one armed are the thugs on the street. I love feeling safe!!! Oh well. At least this is a step in the right direction. Can't wait to move back east again and get a new permit. TOO many Liberals in this area for me. All with there bleeding hearts concerned with fair trade coffee and nothing else. RANT sorry, I just moved back to CA, is this true... in UT, concealed weapon is ok (w/ permit) is there any way to carry a concealed weapon in CA?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.