malorn and desync on why America needs Assault Rifles

depends on the attacker...

if you're talking about a 260 lb man with above average strength vs a 120 lb woman who, while in good shape and aware of how to throw a good punch, simply doesn't have the weight behind a defensive move to even phase him, she's still gonna lose.

i know. if i had been alone with him, i'd either be quadriplegic or dead.

tasers are fine IMO but there are some cases where without some kind of weapon, you're screwed. i hate to say it, i hate to remember it, but it's true. even if there were a kitchen knife laying within arm's reach it would have saved me a tremendous amount of grief.

 

Sexist? Because I want to protect women from the evils of the world? Because I know from first hand experience what USUALLY happens when a woman tries to defend herself (without a gun) against a doped up crackhead or rapist? You're so naive.

The woman could have easily defended herself had she owned a firearm. Once again, you've proven your ignorance on the matter and once again you proclaim how a taser would be just as effective. A taser doesn't shoot through doors. This woman had barricaded herself in her room with her dresser. We could hear the suspect banging on the bedroom door trying to get in. We could hear, as the suspect forced his way through the broken door and onto this poor woman. If you think this shaking, frantic, scared woman could have defended herself effectively with a tazer, while the suspect is charging her.. then you are not too bright.

 

Good point. Precisely the reason not to ban assault rifles. The Iraqi's, who I doubt currently have the technology to make a light bulb, are currently fighting with what could be considered on the level with the world's best army. An army can easily take on one individual but history has shown a well armed "army of indivduals" is nearly impossible to defeat.

OK Evan, hmmm, lets see. Obama is a Midwest Democrat from Illinois. And you are still wondering what his stance on gun control will be?? Puleeezz!!!

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 03:48 PM) [snapback]394712[/snapback]</div>

I shall heed your warning, but I must say, I believe the only thing I said which I shouldn't was regarding how I "Protected morons" like her. Other than that, I've done nothing but provide factual, intellectual debate. I've already been called a sexist, a moron, a loser, and an idiot. All by the same "Christian" liberal.

Your warning is fair, but I plead you to look futher into whom is committing these offenses before any further bannination ensues.

livelychick has contributed nothing to this thread other than nonsense emotion based responses. I've made my points, and I've commicated them clearly. I've got nothing to add really. livelychicks responses pretty much speak for themselves, and the type of people that want to ban guns.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]394727[/snapback]</div>

The publicly stated reason was to reduce crime. However, after a full decade of AR ban and about 3 years of reflection after its sunset, we know that it had no measurable effect on crime.

The assault rifle ban was a ban on cosmetic features, not functional aspects of a firearm. Such as a bayonet lug, collaspable stock, pistol grips, etc..

It specifically excluded any regulation of machine guns, class III firearms.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]394730[/snapback]</div>

I understand.. I just get a little worked up when people have such utter contempt for the Constitution and our American way of life.

:angry:

 

Since the Constitution was written in the 18th century go ahead and follow the spirit of the law and own all the muskets you want. Since you own them to protect your family against the tyranny of the government go ahead and shoot all the officials you want. Since you are obviously consitiutionalists by your quotes, I know you wouldn't use those muskets against anyone else like radical religionists who come a-knockin'. Then again, if you plan to use those muskets against those radical religionists you'd have to have a constitutional amendment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Feb 22 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]394695[/snapback]</div>

Read more carefully, grasshopper. Nowhere in my post did I mention banning/removing ALL guns. I question merely the right to own an assault rifle in the guise of home protection. My analogy was not idiotic, merely exaggerated, and even then maybe not so exaggerated. Has there not once in history been a case of one nut trying to hold off a police force by himself and it ending badly for him?

I think we make a lot of assumptions when any of us claim we KNOW what the original authors (of many important documents) were thinking about a much of what was written.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question of if citizens owning assault rifles is a good idea, why isn't citizens owning nuclear missiles also not a good idea?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 04:32 PM) [snapback]394751[/snapback]</div>

Thanks. :lol:

My firearms are safely put away in my home, causing no danger to anyone unless they violate my home or livlihood.

A nuclear weapon, on the other hand, is indeed a WMD that does not discriminate.

The question is a silly strawman argument with no basis or validity, apples and oranges..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 22 2007, 04:26 PM) [snapback]394744[/snapback]</div>

Hey, buddy.. I gave PLENTY of quotes from the men that wrote the document on what their freaking intentions were... come on now.

 

First, can someone post the complete text of the ban in question? I have to admit that i only know of it in passing, and would hate to base judgment on incomplete or inaccurate information. I believe many people get confused when talking about semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, and how they apply to the ban. A good explanation would help to remove such confusion.

That being said, i support a persons right to bear arms to a certain extent. A weapon designed for self/home protection (like a handgun) is fine with me. One designed for hunting (a shotgun or rifle) is fine by me. The problem i have deals with the idea of being able to shoot multiple targets extremely quickly. A fully-automatic weapon, IMO, should be banned. Needing to shoot that many rounds with one pull of the trigger serves no one any good. Additionally, semi-automatic weapons should have a limit on their magazine size. There's no reason for someone to have a 50 count magazine. Limiting the size of the magazine does not impede ones ability to protect oneself or property, nor does it impede ones ability for hunting - very rarely do you have 50 criminals entering your house at once, and if you do, I'd be willing to bet you would get shot long before you killed them all, and very rarely will an animal sit still long enough for you to shoot 50 rounds at them. IMO, a 5 or 10 round magazine would be way more than enough for whatever purposes you had in mind.

And for the gun nuts out there, should Bush get the idea that it would be easier to invade America than it was to invade Iraq (after all, we have WMD's and religious nutjobs too!), you can still gather in mass with your weapons and fend him off. The only difference being that you would have to settle with reloading occasionally. Man, what a PITA.

 

It is troubling that these discussions almost invariably deterioriate into name calling.
I understand that people are passionate about certain topics.
Having thought-provoking discussions is a good way to check your logic and see if your
beliefs hold water.....they may even cause you to change your mind....you just have to be open to it.

The premise behind the second amendment is as valid today as it was when it was written (and, no doubt, a long time before it was written too). Times change, technology changes, even our collective sense of morality seems to evolve, but those changes don't nullify the agreed upon idea that self-preservation
is not something that's granted to you.....you're born with it....just like you're born with the abilities
of free thought and rationalization.
Our views begin to differ when we talk about what kind of tools are acceptable for us to use in that self preservation; for some it's limited to a tazer, for others assult rifles are fair play. An assult rifle may not be the preferred tool for me for home-defense, but I also don't think I (or the government) need to make that decision for everybody via legislation.
Do I really need a car with 500 horsepower that can go 180mph? No, but one of the great things about this country is that if I want one, I can have one. Sure there are laws that keep me from driving 180mph
and other laws that punish me is I kill somebody driving that speed, but I have the freedom to use my own good judgement and not do anything stupid.

Assult rifles, contrary to what others may argue, are not designed to maximize the ability to kill humans, nor do they posess some innate purpose to do so.....it takes a human exercising their free will to pull any trigger....just like it takes a human exercising bad judgement to drive wrecklessly and kill someone.

I think we're mostly rational people who have more in common that we do different.
Please try and remember that when you're tempted to polarize your view by making a "way out there" arguement or insulting someone on the "other side".

Just my two cents....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]394777[/snapback]</div>

Didn't work though, did it?

Habeas corpus abolished, no-fly lists, unrestrained wire tapping, detention without charge or trial, and as far as I can see those bearing arms have still to make their move.

Presumably they're keeping their powder dry until some tyrant tries to bring in universal health care. :lol:

 

I am very happy to see fellow Prius drivers that also love our Country and our Constitution.

GeoGeek, very good sir. You are indeed correct in that an AR is no more malicious as any other firearm. Pulling the trigger is all it takes. Unless you have a Class III license, having a fully automatic firearm is out of the question.

I believe alot of people assume when someone says "Assault Rifle", they think it means "Fully Automatic".. This just isn't the case. My Glock can go BOOM just as fast as my AR can. A trigger is a trigger is a trigger, as long as it isn't fully automatic.

efusco, you stole my heart with your last post. haw haw