what would you concider a gun ban? i dont understand why someone would be upset that an ak-47 would be considered illegal. or any assualt rifle for that matter. why would you want to own an assault rifle? dont be stupid and say (in my best redneck voice) 'its my right to bear arms", what is the purpose? and, where would it stop? example, ar-15 with a granade launcher....
Because myself, as a law-abiding citizen, should be able to own whatever the bad guys can own.
He's a bad guy because he doesn't follow the law. Me shooting a single shot shotgun, at a automatic AK-47, is not fair. Sounds like people are trying to protect the bad guys.
And the 2nd Amendment wasn't made for just personal protection, it was also made for protection of the people, from their government. It's a law of nature, "peace through superior firepower."
Limiting what I can have and can't have, just gives thugs and terrorists an upper hand on everything.
I can understand the logic behind such bans, but do not agree with it.
BTW, I own an AK-47...
And if I had a grenade launcher on an AR-15 that I own, right this moment, I'm no more apt to go blow anyone up, then I am if I don't have it. It's about right/wrong, not about, limiting what people can/can't have.
__________________
πνεύμα γ*μισα
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself."
-Irenaeus of Lyon
Your question deserves a lot more answer than I can give tonight. It's late, and I am tired.
Quick thumbnail: I am an honest, honorable citizen. I have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. If there was such a thing as a "semi-automatic assault weapon", the government should have to prove WHY I cannot own what I wish, and not be stupid and say (in my best smooth, government bureaucrat voice) "you don't need that gun, you might commit a crime".
BTW, your AK-47 example is a poor one. The rifles in question function just like any other self loading rifle. Your ban is strictly on cosmetic features. What kind of sense does that make, UNLESS the complete strategy is to widen the ban to cover almost every firearm?
That's enough for tonight.
why would you want to own an assault rifle? dont be stupid and say (in my best redneck voice) 'its my right to bear arms", what is the purpose?
Why would you be for banning any guns? Why would you think those beliving in there rights& freedoms rednecks? What is a assult weapon to you& why are you aginst them? Why are you for the disarming the people of this country?
Wouldnt you be more comforable in a more advanced culture like france?Where they make it so easy& a national pass time to surrender? Why make crimials of the citizens of this country for something as basic in nature as self defense?
As a American why are you for gun bans? IT IS my right to bear arms period. Your attempts at making that derogatory is sad to say the least& little on your part.
I think a so called real assualt rifle would be full auto.An AK-47 or a AR-15 are just semi autos that look different a Browning BAR is a semi auto that looks different.If you let them ban so called assualt weapons then next will be all semi autos.Then your little 22 semiauto you got for chrismas would be banned.
I for one hunt with AR-15s and have friends that hunt with AR-10s.I mostly plink with the AK-47 and SKS these are very fun to play with.Sometimes when yote hunting i'll pick up the AK or SKS.I use my AR in 300 whisper for hunting alot and it has less power than the AK rounds.
You may not care if they ban AKs but sonner or later they will take something you like.We sell cars everyday than can exceed the speed limit and kill way more people every year.If you drive over a 100mph you will go to jail but,you can buy a car that will do over a 150mph.I had a friend that was killed in a corvette along with thousands that same year.I dont want them to ban fast cars and i always drive slow.
Banning is a very bad thing the germans did this in the 20s and 30s the people thought it was a good thing. I say when someone breaks the law while driving a fast car punish them dont ban fast cars.When someone breaks a law with a firearm punish THEM not me by banning my hobby.
I consider a gun ban to be just that--banning honest citizens from owning/possessing guns. If I can trust you with a pistol or shotgun, why should I not be able to trust you with an AK-47 or AR-15? Are Assault Weapons going to sway you to the dark side and make you into a criminal? Do you feel unable to control your baser emotions and thoughts whenever you pick up an assault weapon? Yet you're okay when you pick up a shotgun, pistol, hunting rifle, black powder gun or bow? If you're truly trustworthy with one, aren't you trustworthy with all guns?
Quote:
i dont understand why someone would be upset that an ak-47 would be considered illegal. or any assualt rifle for that matter.
Do you truly not understand this or are you just messing around? Shall I trust you with a 4 cylinder vehicle but not a V6 or V8? What logical reason is there for making an AK-47 illegal? Has it truly solved any crimes? No. If you check further, you'll find that an AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon that can legally be owned (like any other machine gun) with a specialty tax and license from the ATF. Don't hear about many of them being used in crimes, do you? Or any other machine guns either. People tend to get upset with assinine laws like this because they do infringe on our freedoms and rights without reducing crime, making us safer or granting us any other benefit other than wasting our tax dollars on frivolous enforcement. The gun is not inherently evil nor does it commit the crimes. It takes a human being to do that.
Quote:
why would you want to own an assault rifle?
Why would I not want to own an assault rifle? I enjoy owning an assault rifle (actually my AR-15 isn't a true "assault weapon") and carry it often. It provides me security and enables me to make my part of the world just a little safer. I also enjoy owning a rifle similar (only semi-auto) to the one I carried in the Marine Corps and just plain enjoy shooting it.
Quote:
dont be stupid and say (in my best redneck voice) 'its my right to bear arms", what is the purpose? and, where would it stop? example, ar-15 with a granade launcher....
Hmmmmmmm.....Why would it be "stupid" for anybody to say "it's my right to bear arms?" How is it stupid to say that in my best redneck voice or any other voice? How exactly is it stupid for somebody to make such a statement about their rights yet apparently not stupid (by your inference) for you to question such a right? If you're truly curious or are seeking an answer, wouldn't it be more productive to ask somebody (even a redneck) to explain why they have this right or to articulate why they believe such a right exists or should exist? If you truly want an open and honest debate and seek to improve your understanding or even just to educate some of these rednecks you refer to, wouldn't it be more productive to begin such a topic without unnecessarily insulting them first?
Where does it stop? As in how big of weapons should one own? A howitzer, grenade or tank perhaps? Or are you referring to how many weapons should one be allowed to own? I own an AR-15 but do not have a grenade launcher for it. Will that make me a bad person if I would like to own an M-202 to attach to my AR-15? (I know guys, that's an older model grenade launcher but that's what I'm familiar with after getting out of the Corps in 1981). Your question about where would it stop implies that none of us lawful gunowners can apparently be trusted to police ourselves or be responsible with automatic weapons or even those semi-automatic civilian versions.
Are you truly that worried about the 99+% of gunowners who are law abiding or the less than 1% of criminals who often steal guns anyway and do not obey laws anyway by definition? If I were to give you an AK-47, would you become a bad person or misuse it? Or would you figure out that it's fun to shoot but gets expensive PDQ when you burning up 30 round mags in a couple seconds? Does it really matter if you misuse one firearm but not another? It only takes one misplaced round for a tragedy to occur.
The overwhelming vast majority of gunowners are law abiding and do not commit crimes or misuse their weapons. Why punish them? If you truly want to discourage misuse of any firearms or just plain make it not worth it, lock up people who commit crimes with guns. Execute them, give them a life sentence or how about just 25 years of straight time with no exceptions and no time off for good behavior. Good behavior would just mean you get out in 25 years and not longer.
I don't know if you're stirring the pot or are truly not sure about these questions. I could hazard a guess based on some of your other posts but that might not be accurate.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
To follow up on my above post.Gun control causes higher crime rates.The gun battle at the bank in kaliforna was during the ban.The 9-11 highjackers killed over 3,000 without assualt weapons.Just last week a house full of people were stabbed and beaten to death over an x-box.Oklahoma building killing hundreds no assualt weapons there.People kill people.Full auto assualt weapons just freed 43 million people in the middle east. If our goverment did us wrong assualt weapons will free us.
Whither Gun Control?
Sunday, May 23, 2004
By John R. Lott, Jr.
What is happening to the gun control (search) movement?
This month, the Million Mom March (search) in Washington drew an anemic showing of only 2,000 people, while this year, all of the Democratic presidential candidates" however unenthusiastically" spoke of Americans" Second Amendment (search) right to own guns. These are just a few of the signs that the facts finally seem to be catching up to the movement. The future for the movement looks even worse.
Whether the subject is concealed handgun laws (search) or bans on semi-automatic so-called "assault weapons," (search) gun control debates have been filled with apocalyptic claims about what will happen if gun control is not adopted. One common prediction is that laws allowing the carrying of a concealed weapon will result in crime waves, or permit holders shooting others. However, with 37 states now having right-to-carry laws (search), and another nine states letting some citizens carry, permit holders have continually shown themselves to be extremely law-abiding. It is becoming more and more difficult to attack those laws.
Disarray among gun controllers is becoming common, even on one cornerstone of the gun control movement " the semi-automatic gun ban. Take the statements made on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center (search) just one week after the assault weapon extension was defeated in the Senate this March.
NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: "If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn"t pass, it doesn"t pass."
The NPR reporter noted: "[the Violence Policy Center's representative] says that's all the [assault-weapons ban] brought about, minor changes in appearance that didn't alter the function of these weapons."
Yet, before the Senate vote the VPC had long claimed that it was a "myth" that "assault weapons merely look different. The NRA and the gun industry today portray assault weapons as misunderstood ugly ducklings, no different from other semi-automatic guns. But while the actions, or internal mechanisms, of all semi-automatic guns are similar, the actions of assault weapons are part of a broader design package. The 'ugly' looks of the TEC-9, AR-15, AK-47 and similar guns reflect this package of features designed to kill people efficiently."
So why the sudden disarray after the Senate defeat? Simply, gun-control groups' credibility is on the line and they are getting cold feet. With no academic research showing the assault weapons ban reduces crime, gun control groups realize that soon it will be obvious to everyone that their predicted horror stories about "assault weapons" were completely wrong.
Internationally, dramatic gun control victories in countries such as England, Australia, and Canada are also unraveling.
" Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in January 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. Yet, serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29 percent higher than 1996; robbery was 24 percent higher; murders 27 percent higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
" Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar after its Port Arthur gun control measures (search) in late 1996. Violent crime rates averaged 32 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1996. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 45 percent.
" The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US.
" Canada has not gone anywhere near as far as the United Kingdom or Australia. Nevertheless, their gun registration system is costing roughly a thousand times more than promised and has grown to be extremely unpopular, with only 17 percent of Canadians in a poll release this week supporting the system. Nor does the system seem to be providing any protection. The Canadian government recently admitted that they could not identify even a single violent crime that had been solved by registration.
Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that if the law-abiding citizens obey the laws and the criminals don"t, the rules create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. While the debate is hardly over, gun control is just another example of government planning that hasn"t lived up to its billing. And like other types of government planning, eventually its failures become too overwhelming to ignore.
John Lott, Jr., is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2004).
If I want to own a tank or f-16 armed to the hilt ,thats my business. Heck my dad has a Bazooka sitting at his front window,pointed down his country 1/4 mile driveway. He is waiting for the people in Black
what would you concider a gun ban? i dont understand why someone would be upset that an ak-47 would be considered illegal. or any assualt rifle for that matter. why would you want to own an assault rifle? dont be stupid and say (in my best redneck voice) 'its my right to bear arms", what is the purpose? and, where would it stop? example, ar-15 with a granade launcher....
A gun ban is when the Government says, You may not use, own or posess, a particular type of weapon.
An M1 Garand was used to assault more beaches than any other weapon ever invented. It is an 8 round semi-automatic rifle designed for military use, yet when loaded with soft point .30-06 ammunition is a great hunting rifle albeit a might hefty by todays standards.
The Second ammendment covers our RIGHT to keep and bear arms, not to insure your ability to go forth and slay Bambi or Thumper, but to protect yourself and your country against our government as well as foreign intrusion.
If the gun grabbers had been present during the 19th century, their argument would have been that the private individual didn't need the Henry rifle with its 16 shot capacity or the Colts revolver, these after all, were designed and meant for military use. Up until 1934, it was perfectly legal for a private individual to own and use a machine gun in the U.S. illegal use of the Thompson sub-machine gun by Al Capone and other "Mobsters" lead to the abolishment of private ownership without a permit (Tax Stamp) issued by the Treasury Department. You may still legally own fully automatic weapons today if you apply for and get that self same permit.
Just because you or I may not find an SKS or AK or M16 attractive doesn't mean they are not attractive to others for more than aesthetic reasons. My neighbor recently purchased a Steyr .376 (.367?) rifle (one of 400 built and ugly as sin) for use while Bear Hunting. A bit of overkill in my mind considering the size of the Black Bears here in the area, but hey, it's his money and he likes it so why should I care?
what is a gun ban to you?
