A gunfree USA (education system, Washington, capital, liberals)

[Huckleberry3911948]

this old thread is 88 pages long. i will not go thru all 88 pages to see what i posted and when.
the notion of firearm ownership is too ludicrous for consideration---- unless you have been raped or mugged or seen it done. support NRA support state militias. 32% of all homocides do not involve firearms in any manner, why the multi million dollar push to disarm the american citizen. a firearm is 3 times more prone to be used for defense than offense.
the menacing gun grab movement is not coming from concern for public safety--but something far more sinister.

[traveler92]

Criminal #1: Hey, did you hear the government banned guns?!

Criminal #2: They probably don't know about our illegal guns...We better call the gov't up and tell them so they can pick them up.

Criminal #1: This sucks...looks like we can no longer commit armed robbery.

Criminal #2: Yeah, I was really looking forward to blowing my ex's brains out...OH WELL!

*both skip off to college*

Banning guns would never work. There are so many guns out there to account for plus all of the illegally owned guns. Drugs are illegal...does that stop people from obtaining/selling them? No, if guns were "banned" there would be a whole underground market for them like just drugs. Gun control is not a deterrent to crime. The criminals are not going to stop using guns because the laws says to. The law tells them not to do a lot of things but they do not care.

[cp1969]

Yes, one only has to look at how effective the DEA has been at making the USA a "drug-free society" to predict the effectiveness of legislation attempting to make the USA gun-free.

They've got it all wrong. We should be demanding a society of free guns instead of gun-free.

[Memphis1979]

Nothing wrong with guns. I support gun ownership.

However, having said that, I do not believe that people need assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, and things of that nature. Hand guns are fine, as they are good for home defense.

JMO

[stycotl]

i don't think people need assault rifles either, or handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, stereos, cars, swimming pools, dogs, cats, bicycles, tricycles, skateboards, pogo sticks, trampolines, electric shavers, garages, boats, deoderant, health care...

good thing we aren't allowed by the guv'mint to only have the things that we need.

[cp1969]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

Nothing wrong with guns. I support gun ownership.

However, having said that, I do not believe that people need assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, and things of that nature. Hand guns are fine, as they are good for home defense.

JMO

If you believe, as the writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did, that the need to give people a right, not a privilege, to own firearms was essential to keeping the government in check, not to hunt ducks or shoot targets, then the people need to have roughly the same weapons as the government they are trying to keep in check.

Does this mean tanks? Jet fighters? Nuclear weapons? It's a moot point because nobody could afford them. But if the time comes, those things are worthless to a failing government anyway. The military is made up of citizens, many of which would not turn their weapons on their fellow citizens. What few who might would be easily overwhelmed by a mere 20 million man army.

Surely we could drum up 20 million patriots out of 300+ million citizens if we had to.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by stycotl

i don't think people need assault rifles either, or handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, stereos, cars, swimming pools, dogs, cats, bicycles, tricycles, skateboards, pogo sticks, trampolines, electric shavers, garages, boats, deoderant, health care...

good thing we aren't allowed by the guv'mint to only have the things that we need.

We have a standing military to take care of our defensive needs against the rest of the world.

If we had no standing military, then I can see a reason for having assault rifles. Hell, I bet I can do considerably more damage with my hunting rifle then you can with an assault rifle any day of the week.

Lets look at history. In the 30's we had gangsters and criminals running around with fully automatic weapons. While today some criminals have fully automatic weapons, most of them don't. Its hard to come by them, even in the black market. If you legalize fully automatic weapons, then it will become easier for criminals to get to them.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by cp1969

Does this mean tanks? Jet fighters? Nuclear weapons? It's a moot point because nobody could afford them. But if the time comes, those things are worthless to a failing government anyway. The military is made up of citizens, many of which would not turn their weapons on their fellow citizens. What few who might would be easily overwhelmed by a mere 20 million man army.

Actually, citizens can buy tanks (ask Governor Arnold). They can buy Jet Fighters - we have people locally that have recently bought surplus F-15's.

[stycotl]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

We have a standing military to take care of our defensive needs against the rest of the world.

what does that have to do with "assault rifles?"

If we had no standing military, then I can see a reason for having assault rifles.

do you know what an "assault rifle" is?

Hell, I bet I can do considerably more damage with my hunting rifle then you can with an assault rifle any day of the week.

definitely. so why should they be banned?

Lets look at history. In the 30's we had gangsters and criminals running around with fully automatic weapons. While today some criminals have fully automatic weapons, most of them don't. Its hard to come by them, even in the black market. If you legalize fully automatic weapons, then it will become easier for criminals to get to them.

what does this have to do with "assault rifles," you know, the *semiauto* weapons that you just admitted are less powerful than a deer rifle? i haven't actually heard too many people talking of making autofire weapons any more available than they are now, so i must then think that you are mistakenly confusing automatic weapons with ar-15s and other "evil black rifles."

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

We have a standing military to take care of our defensive needs against the rest of the world.

Whats that got to do with it? If anything it reinforces the needs that the second protects. The guys that wrote it had just defeated a tyranical standing army.

If we had no standing military, then I can see a reason for having assault rifles. Hell, I bet I can do considerably more damage with my hunting rifle then you can with an assault rifle any day of the week.

If you believe that it blows anything you might suggest as a reason for banning automatic weapons out of the water. Besides the fact that true assault weapons have been severly restricted since the 30's & have no bearing on current legislation. The real issue is its obvious that there will never be enough gun control until they are banned & the control freaks can move on to other things.

Lets look at history. In the 30's we had gangsters and criminals running around with fully automatic weapons. While today some criminals have fully automatic weapons, most of them don't. Its hard to come by them, even in the black market. If you legalize fully automatic weapons, then it will become easier for criminals to get to them.

Who is pushing for legalizing automatic weapons? While I personally believe criminal activity should not be used to determine what I can & cannot do, I havent heard much of an outcry about legalizing automatic weapons. The "assault weapons" we talk about are just semi auto weaponry. Its not a far flung thought, if you know anything about history, to say a bolt action hunting rifle is an assault weapon. Matter of fact its morelogical & truth related to call them assault weapons than it is to call AR15's assault weapons. Bolt actions based on the old Mauser & other designs were used in many conflicts including WW1 & WW2. Hitler did his job in Europe with an army armed with bolt action assault weapons.
The only widespread semi auto was our M1. No semi auto AR15 type gun has ever been used by any military anywhere as is also true of the AK47.
Semi autos were pushed aside as soon as automatic fire in a handy light package became a feasable reality.

But anyway there are alot of things that enabled Al Capone & still enable todays criminals to a much greater degree than automatic weapons.
Banning private automobiles would be much more effective & if the anti's & the confused cared half as much as they act like they do they would be willing to make a small personal sacrafice & endure a small inconvenience to ensure that the myriad of crimes only possible because of the ease of anonymous transportation were not possible.

think about it, no DC sniper, no drive by's, no St Valentines day massacre, no bootlegging during prohabition, no drunk drivers, no or severly reduced drug smuggling, no bank robbery, no way to get around unnoticed with anything larger than a handgun. Virtually every crime we lament would be reduced big time. And as a bonus there is absolutely nothing stopping us from banning the single most commonly used crime tool.
As a side effect it would reduce carbon emmisions & reduce our dependence on forign oil & keep billions spend on forign autos in the country.

But our lazy politicians & dim witted citizenry choose to try to treat a symptom instead & unravel the constitution instead.

In short its an utter load of crap.