Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warning: Object to Assault Weapons and Be Destroyed!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warning: Object to Assault Weapons and Be Destroyed!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

  • #2
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

    Comment


    • #3
      Being a strong supporter for gun rights and the right to bear arms, I am somewhat in agreement. I have no problems owning assault weapons, but I see no reason using them for hunting purposes. I believe we should have the right to own any type of weapon we wish, but the use of those weapons are to be questioned.

      Assault weapons are weapons that are used by terrorists, the CIA, FBI, the Secret Service, the Military, Special Forces, etc. They have no place in the hunting fields. I have to agree with this gentleman on this one.

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't help but suspect many on the forum will pass on the opportunity to comment on this article simply because the message it conveys about the influence of the NRA is true.

        I have the exact opposite view of gun ownership than that put forth by the NRA. All the Second Amendment gaurentees (sp?) is ownership of a smooth-bore flintlock musket, the only weapon existing when the article was written.

        Nobody but an armed military force or a terrorists NEED an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon.

        The NRA and its membership should pack up move to Iraq where it has become an NRA utopia with every idiot owning a gun and using it to make their point.

        My point of view was formed while in active combat and I had a human figure in my sights, pulled the trigger, and killed him. I have also been on the receiving end and have the bullet holes as proof.

        Get the guns off the street and out of the hands of those who have no business with them other than the sense of power they derive from their possession. A shotgun or bolt action rifle will satisfy the needs of any true sportsman or hunter.

        Comment


        • #5
          At one point I would have totally agreed with Baremore. Now, I am not so certain. Here's why.

          Katrina and Rita revealed just how fragile our social infrastructure is; and in case of disaster, civil meltdown, or uprising how incapable are the police of protecting me and mine. Hell's bells, even the police were holed up defending themselves against the children of the night.

          I think it is prudent in today's world to be properly armed AND TRAINED! in order to defend ones'self until help gets there.

          I do not want the bad boys to have me out-weaponed. The assualt weapons ban was well-intentioned but so gutted by NRA lackeys that it was virtually useless. The reality is that many really bad people have fully automatic weapons of one sort or another. That is reality, and since I live in the real world I do not, in case of emergencies such as I have iterated above, do not intend to be killed or robbed of my survial supplies by some cracked-out idiot.

          I would prefer it otherwise. Very much I would prefer it otherwise.

          And, let's not confuse hunting and sporting with self-defense. You do not need an assualt weapon to bring down a wild hog, even these nasty old E. Texas feral hogs. Or to teach marksmenship to a twelve year old. I started my daughter with a BB gun, she now is damn near as good a shot as I, and I can place a round up a gnat's bilge pipe at 500 yds with sight and twice that with telescope.

          Shotguns and bolt action rifles are sufficient for hunting, fully automatic or semi-automatic weaponsa are not required.

          As to the NRAs preposterous political. posturings, pshaw! They should be honest and stop hiding behind the "sportsman",
          "marksmenship training for children" B.S. and own up to being a stealth pac for the the gun-makers.

          Comment


          • #6
            The NRA used to be a great organization. When I was a youngster every kid considered taking an NRA 'safety' class a rite of passage, far more important than any Scout 'Merit' badge.

            Like a lot of people I walked away from the NRA when it became a political organization that used sportsmen rather than serving them.

            It doesn't surprise me that they turned so quickly and viciously against Zumbo, apostasy is always the worst sin in any cult.

            Don't lump me in with the gun haters, I don't want to see the privilege of owning firearms denied to law abiding citizens.

            Now excuse me, I'm going down to the old quarry for some RPG target practice.

            -Mark

            Comment


            • #7
              The question is should any kind of weapon be banned? Should average Americans have the right to own 50 caliber machine guns? Grenade launchers? AK-47 Assault rifles? Anti aircraft guns? The list could go on and on and a person wonders where the line should be drawn as to what kind of weapons that people should and should not be allowed to own.

              Comment


              • #8
                This country was formed by free men with GUNS! There are always people who abuse the privilege of owning a weapon and always will be. There are many valid objections to assault weapons by sincere people because of this.

                I grew up with guns and was taught by my father, a career infantry sgt. who won many rifle matches in his day and fought in a couple of wars. I see nothing wrong with owning them, but training is A NECESSITY, otherwise bad things have a good chance of happening.

                Assault weapons have no place for hunting, but for protection of family and property? Maybe. If you are alone with your family are you going to try and defend your home against a group of armed looters?

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:
                  Assault weapons have no place for hunting, but for protection of family and property? Maybe. If you are alone with your family are you going to try and defend your home against a group of armed looters?


                  In order to provide real protection and knowing that many out in the real world already own assault weapons, should not people be allowed to own more aggressive and powerful weapons such as flame throwers, howitzers, and heat seeking stinger shoulder fired missile systems? Should anything be banned?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Come on - whatever is banned you can get elsewhere - by internet from south America when there is need - just those that follow the law will be unarmed then - since it is impossible to free your place of arms forget about it.It´s your MIND that has to change - every little problem you start screaming f... y... and things like that and 2 minutes later you get your weapons out.
                    Conflicts can be solved without the use of gun´s - that is a lesson you should teach your kids - not the use of machine guns.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think it is wrong to go after the guy after he made an unfortunate remark. I do disagree with him about hunting P-Dawgs. I think an AR-15 in .223 caliber is the perfect rifle for that. The caliber is absolutely correct for a varmint that size. I would not use it on a deer or anything bigger unless I am in Iraq where it has proven ineffective at the typical ranges in an urban setting.

                      I own several guns including one of the AR-15 variety which is a civilian-ized M-16. I don't shoot that one very often but I do go shooting every weekend. I don't like some of the things the NRA has done in the past but I feel someone must take a stand against the constant chipping away at gun owners rights.

                      Outside of nudism one of my favorite activities is shooting. I own 8 firearms and I use everyone of them. I am a hunter I also just plain enjoy shooting. I took my boy out yesterday and we shot over 500 rounds of .22 ammo! We had a great time just father and son plinking away at cans. Most of the gun owners I know are responsible productive members of society. We feel very strongly about owner rights to own and use firearms responsibly. We cherish our rights as much as nudists cherish theirs. A thing to remember is an attack on one persons liberties is an attack on all liberties.

                      The NRA is to gun owners what NAC and other similar organizations are to nudists. A political arm that protects our rights.

                      A gun is no better or worse than the person who uses it. It is the person that makes all the difference.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The problem with threads suchs as this is that someone always extends the debate into the ad absurdum area. The issue is not whether ordinary people should have inter-continental ballistic missles or Raptors, or coastal artillery, to defend themselves.

                        The cost and availability of such are prohibitive even to the street ruffians and gangsters who present the real threats. The real issue is the role, if any, automatic weapons have in a free society.

                        But, when the Crips, Bloods, Bandidos, Aryan Brotherhood, Lamar the crack dealer or Billy Ray the Meth scientist, and et all, have fighters and bombers in the air, hell yeah, I'm gonna get me a stimger or two.

                        Where is the line? the line is whatever weaponry I need to defend myself from possible threats against which the agencies charged with protecting me are not capable.

                        Right now, that remains automotic weapons for the house and property. Just out and about, on the streets as it were, a 45 and K-Bar do me just fine. Never know when a neo-con is gonna jump out from behind a bush brandishing a WMD.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Sometimes we extend a debate into the absurd region in order to make a point. Fear is a great motivator. Wealthy people can afford whatever weapon that they chose to purchase.

                          Back in the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a huge surge in gun buying. (In those days there were no background checks and anyone who could write a check could purchase a gun through the mail). Many people felt afraid that if there was a nuclear attack against the East coast of the USA, there would subsequently be marauding hoards of surviving maniacs roaming the destroyed landscape in search of food and supplies. There would be a complete breakdown in law and order and every man, woman, and child would be left to defend themselves as best they could - with or without guns. This was a real scenario from those days.

                          Fast forward today and fear and a lack of confidence in police protection motivate people to purchase guns for protection. People are very divided as to what restrictions, if any, that we should have on gun licensing and ownership.

                          Case in point: In England people are not allowed to purchase guns as freely as we do here in the USA. In England, people have decided that most (except in special cases like special forces) police officers will not be armed with guns. It is a real ordeal to justify why a person wants or needs a gun in England. Most people in England have expressed real shock as to the level of violence and availibility of guns in the USA.

                          Another case in point: In Canada, people are not allowed to purchase guns as easily as in the USA. There are numerous licensing and registration restrictions that restrict guns to only those who are educated and qualified to store and use them. There have been several articles in the Toronto Sun concerning the fact that most of the street guns that enter Canada and are brough into the greater Toronto area are smuggled into Canada from the USA. RCMP officers stationed at the border crossings are certainly aware of the possibility of being shot and killed by USA youths.

                          The decisions made in both England and Canada are that only those who pass all of the tests and demonstrate that they can handle and store weapons properly be allowed to keep them.

                          In the USA we are awash in guns and it appears that any call for strick programs and proceedures such as in Canada or England are always quickly shot down. Just look at the flack that Bill Clinton took for calling the NRA to task.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Canada versus the USA:

                            Results of Canada's New Firearms Act
                            On Feb. 11, 2000, the Canadian Firearms Centre reported the following objectives of the Firearms Act of 1995 as already being met:

                            Across Canada, 1,287 firearms licenses have been refused or revoked for public safety reasons since the new law came into effect December 1, 1998. This is over ten times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals than the total for the past five years.
                            Thanks to continuous background checks, 653 new applications have been refused for public safety reasons and we have revoked 634 licenses to individuals who were no longer eligible.
                            Since Dec. 1, 1998, approximately 8 percent (3,439) of all gun sales have resulted in cases where the new background checks required further investigation. Of these, approximately 8 percent (281 cases) of the sales were refused.
                            The new spousal notification line has received over 2,800 calls. This has proven to be an excellent tool for an applicant’s spouse (or others) to share concerns about public safety.
                            Police now have an online registry of owners and their firearms.
                            Extensive background checks are conducted on every person (59,132 to date) who acquires a firearm. (Similar to the requirements of the United States' Brady Handgun Control Act, Canadian authorities conduct extensive background checks on every applicant before a license is issued and before a firearm is transferred to a new owner.)
                            New Act Challenged in Court
                            Canadian anti-gun control advocates have recently challenged the new Firearms Act in the Canadian Supreme Court.

                            They argued that the Canadian Parliament did not have the constitutional power to enact parts of the Firearms Act. They are asking that responsibility for firearms control laws remain with the individual provinces. The Court has not yet issued a decision.

                            For complete details, see Gun Control Challenge, by About.com Canada Online Guide Susan Munroe.

                            Are Canada's Gun Laws Effective?
                            Especially since the Firearms Act has come into full effect, Canadian gun laws are among the toughest in the world.

                            Handgun registration has been required since 1934, with possession of handguns limited to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.

                            Are Canada's gun laws effective? Here are some figures from the Canadian Firearms Centre:

                            There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
                            For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
                            For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
                            For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
                            For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.
                            Does this mean Canadian firearms laws are more effective at preventing gun-related crime than U.S. laws?

                            Should the U.S. Enact Gun Laws Similar to Canada's?
                            Before you decide remember that 31 million people live in all of Canada while 32 million people live in California, U.S.A. alone. The current population of United States is just over 274.3 million. In Canada, an average of 3.4 persons live in each square kilometer of land. In the Unites States, an average of 29.8 persons live in each square kilometer of land.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bill Clinton's Gun Laws:

                              PRESIDENT CLINTON:
                              HIGHLIGHTING THE NEED TO STRENGTHEN OUR GUN LAWS
                              June 21, 2000


                              "Today's report demonstrates that our Administration is tough on gun traffickers who peddle guns to criminals and young people. But Congress must also close the deadly loopholes in our laws that make guns accessible to criminals and children in the first place."

                              President Bill Clinton
                              Wednesday, June 21, 2000

                              Today, President Clinton highlighted the release of the nation's first-ever comprehensive gun trafficking report. The report shows that of 1,500 ATF trafficking investigations, more than 84,000 guns were diverted to the illegal market and were often later used by criminals to commit violent crimes. In addition, the report shows that gun shows and corrupt gun dealers were major sources of trafficked guns - providing further evidence of the need to strengthen our gun laws. In response to these findings, the President renewed his call on Congress to pass stalled common-sense gun safety legislation and to provide law enforcement with more tools to crack down on gun trafficking, corrupt gun dealers, and other armed criminals by funding his National Gun Enforcement Initiative.


                              RELEASING THE FIRST-EVER GUN TRAFFICKING REPORT. Today's report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, entitled Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers, documents 1,530 ATF firearms trafficking investigations conducted from July 1996 to December 1998. While the report shows a strong record of enforcement against traffickers, it also shows the need to strengthen our gun laws to reduce access to illegal guns in the first place. Key findings include:


                              ATF trafficking investigations have led to the prosecutions of more than 1,700 defendants;
                              Many trafficking investigations involved armed violent criminals;
                              Gun shows and corrupt gun dealers were primary channels for illegal guns; and
                              Over half of the trafficking investigations involved guns later used in crimes.

                              WORKING TO CLOSE DEADLY LOOPHOLES WITH STRONGER GUN LAWS. In response to the findings of the report, the President renewed his call on Congress to enact the gun safety legislation passed by the Senate last year, which would curtail access to illegal guns and help prevent gun violence by:


                              Closing the gun show loophole;
                              Mandating child safety locks with every handgun sold;
                              Banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips; and
                              Barring the most violent juvenile offenders from ever possessing firearms as adults.

                              PUSHING TO ENACT THE LARGEST NATIONAL GUN ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE IN HISTORY. In order to help law enforcement build on their successful efforts to crack down on gun traffickers and other gun criminals, the President urged Congress to fully fund his unprecedented $280 million Gun Enforcement Initiative to:


                              Hire 500 new ATF firearms agents and inspectors to target gun criminals, gun traffickers and corrupt gun dealers;
                              Fund over 1,000 new federal, state and local gun prosecutors to take dangerous gun criminals off the streets;
                              Create the first national ballistics testing network and expand crime gun tracing to help identify more gun criminals;
                              Fund media campaigns to discourage gun violence and send a tough message on penalties for breaking gun laws;
                              Expand the development and expansion of "smart gun" technology.
                              Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee last week approved a spending bill that guts key components of the President's initiative by failing to include $150 million for state and local gun prosecutors, and funding for local anti-gun violence media campaigns and smart gun research.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X