Assault Rifle Ban

[Sauer Grapes]

Originally Posted by MithShrike

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

What about when they do take away a right you care about? Who all stand up for your right if you don't stand up for others'?

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by MithShrike

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

Matt, no intention to pick on you here, your post just did the best job summing up some of the other opinions along the same vein in this thread. I'll prolly say "you" from time to time in the post, but I'm addressing everyone.

most of you have probably seen this poem before. It was written after the Nazi rise to power and their purging of certain groups.

---------------------------------------------------
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
---------------------------------------------------


(this is a ramble, forgive me)
We live in an instant use society. Entire epic stories are told in a 2 hour movie. Solutions to social problems are generally accepted only if they will produce results instantly, or within a year. The American people as a whole do not think long term. We always think about the here and now, but not about how things will affect us in the future.

Why don't more Americans pay attention to their health, eat right, excercise more, etc? Certainly some of the problems can be attributed to limited time, money, etc.... BUT the fundamental issue to ask is WHY is there limited time and money? you had time to play that xbox or watch Dancing with the Stars... but not the gym, and not the 20 extra minutes it would have taken to prepare something for dinner that isnt "instant". CLEARLY in many cases, the issue is not time, but our prioritization of it. HEALTH is not a priority for most people because health is a LONG TERM goal, and people do not think about that. Its not important. I don't have diabetus NOW, so I'll continue to cram my face. We far prefere to choose an instant pleasure now and just dont think about the future consequences (why should I, it is not affecting me now)

What the hell does that have to do with gun control? get your ass back on target! ok ok...

The slow and steady erosion of our rights does not happen quickly. It happens very slowly, very methodically. It always seems reasonable to abolish the most extreme thing of a group of items. It is something most people will agree on. So they talk about banning whatever class of weapons that are at the top of the LEGAL food chain at the moment.... and once those are banned and forgotten about, they'll go after the next biggest gun, and so forth.

I'm not fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle NOW. I'm fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle in 20 years. There's plenty of other guns they'll outlaw first, before turning their eyes on a bolt action.... but it will happen. Dont believe me? for all you history buffs, do a little research on the history of other countries that have been down that read and report the statistics back to us (PLEASE NOTE, that is not meant as a dig at the earlier folks talking history.. I love history)

Every time that someone says "well, I'm not in that group of people" and does nothing, they are harming themselvesin the long run. because when the witchunt is done with me, they'll come for something YOU love.

OR you'll just be more likely to get mugged on the street or in your own house... because when they're done taking my guns away, the criminals will now know that EVERY house or person on the street is safe to rob, instead of the current game of russian roulette they play everytime they choose to commit a crime.

You may not like guns yourself, and thats ok. If you don't like em, I dont want you to have them! Really.. thats what RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is all about. BUT please recognize that my willingness to own, train with, and use a gun DOES make significant contributions to YOUR safety, and in so recognizing that fact, please support those people for doing their part.

----------------------------------------------------------------
We support the troops because they keep us safe, but most of us are not soliders. We support the police because they keep us safe, but most of us are not officers. Why then do we not support the many gun owners in this nation that keep us safe, even if many of us do not ourselves own guns?
----------------------------------------------------------------

[spectrrr]

a few closing ramblings...

In this post I will say the word "utopia" a bit. By that, I am talking about the "end" goal of betterment that most of us would like to see in society. Even though we do not talk about it like this (I certainly don't use the word utopia in my everyday thought and speach), WE ALL, to one extent or another, use this as an unconcious foundation in shaping many of our thoughts and opinions. bear with me, because I think it is important that we recognize where some of our oppinions come from, because then we can judge their merit based on that.

------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone wants a utopian society. I want one. You want one. We all do. Nobody wants crime, no sane person wants violence. Everyone wants to live happily ever after.

Unfortunatly, this goal is NEVER attainable. we can take measures to reduce crime, this is easy. Tougher penalties for breaking the law, more police to catch a guy if he does break the law, better schools so fewer people to turn crime, more armed citizens to deter people that do turn to crime from risking the confrontation, etc.

There are lots of things we can do to lower the number of people committing crimes. BUT there is an inherent evil in this world that will never be fully eliminated. A certain portion of the population will always try to commit a crime against their fellow man. You can never control people to such an extent that it would be possible to eliminate all crime... and if you could, we would have far more troubling things to discuss, if at that point we even had the right could discuss anything....

Trying to take guns away from the hands of private, law abiding citizens by making them difficult and a pain in the ass to own, all in the hopes that you can prevent someone from misusing the gun, or prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, is in my oppinion, an offshoot of the quest for utopia that we often unconciously persue.

We think that if can just get the guns out of the wrong people's hands, we can prevent crime, and we can be one step closer to a perfect, better world. But when we fail to see, accept, and treat the cause of the problem rather than the tool, we are undertaking an excercise in futility. And when our atempts then result in the removal of guns from private citizens (either by legislative banning, or taxing it out of reach), we take one step forward and 5 steps backwards, destableizing more than stableizing, killing more than saving. (Which is NOT what you wanted in the first place when you passed the legislation!)

limiting, banning, or removing guns will never change the people that will laways commit crime (they've been there since Cain and Able, they're not going anywhere). Distrubiting guns into the hands of responsible private individuals however WILL serve to contain the damnage done by those who do not see fit to play by the rules of society.

Utopia simply is not availlable, because utopia at any cost ceases to be a utopia.



It's late, I'm probably making less and less sense here... I'll retire to bed before my thoughts lose all cohension whatsoever.

-Francis

[elderboy02]

Wow Francis! Nice posts! You make way too much sense. I am sure the heads of the Brady Campaign would be hurting because you are making too much sense. Good job sir!

P.S. I wish I could bump your rep for all your hard work, but it says I have to spread it around again.

Francis, it makes me happy that guys like you are around to articulate what I'm thinking but fail so badly at putting to print.

Thank you.

I want da klugs to tell me he really wouldn't own a Tank or an F-15....

[atlharp]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

IMHO the government does not have the right to take away my second amendment right. My forefathers died for private citizens to own guns to defend ourselves from any threat both domestic and foreign. This is America isn't it?

Obama won't be moving on this until the after the midterms in 2010. Believe it or not, this is an area of weakness for Obama that turns the ire of the people against him. Obama will move on this, but until later. His first moves will be economic (and they will not included tax hikes either- more like bail out programs and tax credit incentives for the middle class). The next shift with him will be foreign policy to buck up his world image (he doesn't want to have another Cuban Missle Crisis). Tax Hikes and the AWB are issues that are immediate distractions and liabilities for his administration. This is too expensive right off the bat and will cost WAY too much political capital.

ATL

OK, so did you here the one about the MOD and the Ak-47?

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by ahc4353

OK, so did you here the one about the MOD and the Ak-47?

I thoguht it was the one about the MOD and the F-15?

Right! I'm in the wrong thread!

(Don't you have a home work assignment due to me you should be working on?)

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by ahc4353

Right! I'm in the wrong thread!

(Don't you have a home work assignment due to me you should be working on?)

yeah, was working on it last night till I posted my rant and went to bed

I definitely think I need an A-10. I see no reason why someone who could afford it should not have one.

Francis, your posts were so well thought out and written! I am jealous of your talent to compose such trains of thought into words.

[spectrrr]

I failed to get around to addressing one final point last night on the topic of the 2nd Amendment. Primarily this goes out to the numerous arguments raised that basically state the 2nd amendment is or could be outdated since it was written so long ago. Since obviously slavery was an outdated idea, why not guns? (note that I will not address the right to personal protection and crime prevention issue, as I have already spoken on that at length.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The simple fact is this: I do not need guns to protect me from the government TODAY. I've never had to shoot a government agent coming onto my property, and I've never had to organize an armed rebellion against the state. Never have, Hope to God I never will.

--BUT THAT IS NOT WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXIST!--

The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that I never have to do any of the above mentioned things. Our 2nd amendment right exists primarily to ensure that people are always armed. Not because we need the guns now, but because as long as we have them, it is very likely we will not need them.

The argument that our society has evolved, that life today is safer and that we are not at risk from our government TODAY is mostly correct... but fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account WHY our society is safe today, and why we do not have to fear anything from the government. People are corrupt. Look at history, power corrupts. It always has, it always will. find for me, if you can, me a society whose government did not eventually become corrupt. (you won't). If you take away OR LIMIT the guns from the hands of private citizens, you eliminate the checks and balances that ensure the government does not become TOO corrupt.

-------------------------------
An example of this idea (I'll get back to guns in a minute, I promise!):
Most people operate on a risk/reward system. Is the risk of negative consequences worth whatever the reward is for an action?

lose $20 /vs/ win the lottery
lose my job /vs/ get to tell my boss what an a$$hat he is
beat the sh!t out of the guy that just stole from me and insulted me /vs/ get caught, go to jail, get acquainted with "bubba"

You get the idea. And everyone's risk/reward scale is different. meaning that I might think that it is worth it to lose my job so I can say what I'm really thinking to my boss... and you may value your job more than that and continue on as it is.

Tough penalties on assault and murder (hellllo bubba!), coupled with excellent forensics and detective work that significantly increase the chance you will get caught, and topped off with the small (3% to 5%) chance that the guy you try to assault will be packing, all these add up to stack the odds against most people committing a crime. The risk is not worth the reward (for most), hence the net effect is prevention.
-------------------------------

Guns in the hands of private citizens have the same effect on our government. It is a reminder not to get too far out of line, because there IS a risk to the government if they do so. As long as we continue to have our guns, MOST of the people will continue to remain in line, because the risk is not worth the reward.

(I say "most" because there will always be someone who will do the wrong thing at any cost, their risk/reward ideals are a little different from the rest of us.)

But on the other hand, if you say that we do not need guns now, and you take them away or limit their ownership, THEN you will see the problems begin to rise... because now the risk is diminished, and the reward starts looking a lot better....

AND FINALLY, along the same sort of discussion:
Why do I need to have "nice" guns? why not just allow people to have small pistols for home defense and a single shot bolt action rifle for hunting, since that’s all we really "need"?

I think that after reading this post, the answer should be fairly obvious... IF the primary purpose of guns in the hands of private citizens is to deter the government from getting out of line in the future, THEN it stands to reason that those guns must be EFFECTIVE at the job they are tasked with. If everyone owned a 6 shot .22 cal revolver, then we would all be armed... however the tools would be largely ineffective in performing their duty of prevention because they post very little risk.

Thus, it is not only important that we are armed, but also that the weapons we are armed with have the potential to be EFFECTIVE against an opponent, otherwise there is little point to be armed in the first place. Assault weapons are sometimes overkill for self defense. BUT take a look at the armory of the local SWAT team or the military, and you should see that these so called "assault weapons" are really the bare minimum needed to maintain proper checks, balances, and effective prevention against a superior force. Give us all .22 revolvers and we'll see how much of a deterrent that is to a SWAT member.




ok, i'm done now... I think...

-Francis

[Ratters]

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

[AAlmeter]

Originally Posted by Ratters

The funny thing is that these bans have sold way more weapons than if they were just ignored in the first place. I'd say there'd be 10% of the military style weapons in people's hands if the bans never happened. Here in California I know a lot of people who purchased before the '94 ban and then another large crop of new gun owners due to our state ban in 2000.

Just look at the marketing boom the simple fear of a ban has produced.

I agree 100%. I have no use for an AR style rifle. I know many use them for target, varmint, and even deer hunting. I don't. I'm sure I would find it more than suitable for my needs, but so are many other guns that cost less.

Why will I be getting one? Simple...because people who have great power over me, who control how many days a year I work for them (its nearly half by the way) for free, who can take away my ability to see my loved ones, etc....are scared that I'll have one. Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That is why there is a 2nd Amendment, and that's why I will always support it....regardless of whether or not I could hit the broad side of a barn with my flintlock.


On to a more important debate...why does anyone need a V8 in a sedan? It is dangerous and excessive. They should be banned, as V6s will do just fine...unless of course you are some mad man hell bent on crashing a sedan into a mall at 120mph.

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

Notice, never once has there been a proposal that would stiffen penalties for a felon caught with a weapon. It is always an outright ban, from Joe the street thug to Mother Theresa. The only one's to be trusted with a gun are those who work for the government.

That my friend, is an excellent point, and should be a glaring hint to the careful observer just what the "purpose" behind such bans are.

For years, lots of people have been calling for tougher penalties on the laws we already have. Funny how those go ignored, but we always keep bringing up the gun BAN issue again. And I thought they cared about my safety...

[Ratters]

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by Ratters

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

This video illustrates the difference in mindsets between citizens and subjects.

Quintessential Britishism: "God save the Queen!"
Quintessential Americanism: "F**K YOU!!!"

Shovel and shut up!

Originally Posted by Ratters

Good video on what may be our future:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=177117&page=5

I wonder if America would stand up to this if it happened here?

well England has started their line of nonsense with the whole, you can't put up barbed wire around your shed because someone trying to get in might get hurt and sue. Regardless of the fact that they had to climb the fence to get hurt. England used to be the balls. Alan Quartermain, Bond, Victor Mclaughlin type bad asses. the Scotsmen warriors who walked into battle at the sound of the pipes are having their testicles removed. I'll pass. from my cold dead hands. Sir, you are missed. man that sends a chill down my spine.