U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2019, 10:21 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,698 posts, read 32,461,018 times
Reputation: 20108

Advertisements

This option would only collect a few.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...al-candidates/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2019, 10:41 AM
Status: "but it depends on what the definition of "is" is." (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,580 posts, read 639,711 times
Reputation: 1136
The 1994 assault style weapons ban was intended as a first step towards common sense bans. Everyone knows that. Conservative writer Charles Krauthammer said it at the time.

Quote:
The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable….Nonetheless, it is a good idea ….
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in [the direction of disarming the citizenry]. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
I suggested a ban on the AR-15 early in this legislative session but unfortunately the D-controlled house did not take heed. Pass it, and then let McConnell and Trump block it, and then lose their seats in 2020. I would also ban the AR-14, and the magnum. No, it would not solve the problem, but it would give important symbolism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 10:47 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,698 posts, read 32,461,018 times
Reputation: 20108
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
The 1994 assault style weapons ban was intended as a first step towards common sense bans. Everyone knows that. Conservative writer Charles Krauthammer said it at the time.



I suggested a ban on the AR-15 early in this legislative session but unfortunately the D-controlled house did not take heed. Pass it, and then let McConnell and Trump block it, and then lose their seats in 2020. I would also ban the AR-14, and the magnum. No, it would not solve the problem, but it would give important symbolism.
Good, my AK is safe from scary symbolism.


I was prepared to symbolically become outraged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 11:24 AM
 
37,604 posts, read 16,312,120 times
Reputation: 8538
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
But it sounds good to people who are scared of mean bad guns.
"But it sounds good to people who are scared of mean bad guns."


A correction, if you don't mind, But it sounds good to people who are scared of mean LOOKING bad guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 11:25 AM
 
37,604 posts, read 16,312,120 times
Reputation: 8538
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Sounds like the only recourse is to repeal 2A.
Go for it! I'll enjoy the laughter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Ohio
20,115 posts, read 14,354,321 times
Reputation: 16312
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.
That's because you're inexperienced and ill-informed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.
Uh-huh, and throughout US history, soldiers have fired on unarmed civilians killing them.

You've never led troops on the battlefield, so you couldn't possibly understand.

Soldiers do not ponder the constitutionality of orders before carrying them out. In fact, soldiers are no more or less knowledgeable about the Constitution than average civilians are.

The only ones who might actually question the constitutionality of an order are general officers at the division, corps and army level.

But, if they agree with the decisions made, they will not question it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.
You couldn't be more wrong.

Britain doesn't even have a written constitution, and the constitutions of other countries are not like ours.

The cultures are vastly different, too, which is another massive fail.

Their governments are not like ours for any number of reasons. Their governments don't even have the same goals as our government. The people and the governments have vastly different beliefs, values, ethics and morals than our government and people.

For that reason, you may contrast them, but never compare them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.
Not relevant, and your lack of education, training and experience in all things military is proof you don't understand.

Like so many, you're devoid of imagination and your only frame of reference is the antiquated irrelevant US Civil War.

Sorry, but in asymmetrical warfare, you do not line up on the field of battle against an opposing force and start shooting.

In fact, the whole point of asymmetrical warfare is in keeping with the wisdom of Sun Tzu and to avoid any head-to-head confrontations of any military unit of any size.

In a revolutionary war, which is a type of civil war, and in a war of secession, which is also a type of civil war in which the goal may be colonial independence, or national independence or simply self-determination, the goal is to get the government to acquiesce.

It is not necessary to engage with or even defeat the military in order to get the government to acquiesce and make concessions.

There are many, many ways to force the government to concede, and none of them involve military action.

You don't even understand that 90% of the bridges in the US can't even handle armored vehicles.

So much for your technology.

You've never been in a tank and certainly never been on the CAT course.

You don't even know what CAT is.

It's the Canadian Arms Trophy. It has nothing to do with rifles and everything to do with tanks.

You maneuver your tank through an obstacle course engaging targets. Your scored based on time and successful engagements.

An M60 crew beat an M1 Abrams crew.

With all its technology, the M1 crew lost.

So much for your vaunted technology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:29 PM
 
10,525 posts, read 10,427,475 times
Reputation: 4063
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
The semi auto is the standard type of firearm in use today. It's been the standard for both military and civilian use sing the 40s when the M1 Garand became our standard. There is nothing scary or "highly destructive" about any semi auto over any other firearm.


Truth be known a bolt action hunting rifle with a 3 shot integral mag is just as capable of mayhem and murder as even a true "assault rifle." This is a proven fact and not open for debate. Private firearms are a fact of life in the US. Changing that via legislation will not do a thing to curb violence committed with guns.


There is no answer to stopping that. None. Criminals and madmen will always have and will continue to misuse firearms as long as the sun keeps coming up in the morning. Taking my right to be armed away won't stop that. Even in countries where personal weapons are strictly prohibited the criminals still have them.


Whether we like it or not there are evil people out there. And they will continue to be evil and have harming us at the front of their minds.

Iagree:
Whether we like it or not there are evil people out there


Most of these evil people prefer a military looking type weapon.

Taking my right to be armed away won't stop that. No one is trying to disarm you in regards to this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:34 PM
 
6,347 posts, read 2,952,525 times
Reputation: 16094
Marshall law allows open fire on any living being who isn't in compliance of the "order" given to the peon.

I'm all for ridding assault rifles. Go back to Spears. Or hand to hand combat. My iron level is just fine and I don't fair well with lead in me.

I've gone 56 years without one and while I was the recipient of a bullet it didn't make me want to be armed. I know the other side. It's not worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 03:43 PM
 
Location: El paso,tx
2,234 posts, read 849,356 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.

2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.

3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.

4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
Semi auto rifles have protected numerous homeowners from multiple armed home invaders. Google it. There is page after page. A revolver would have bern been useless in those situations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2019, 07:07 PM
 
704 posts, read 600,778 times
Reputation: 1597
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker View Post
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.

I would argue that this is not true.


1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.

2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.

3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.

4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
If the military defended the bill of rights and fundamental freedoms they would have revolted in 1794. Soldiers blindly follow orders of the government who is paying them. 90% of laws today infringe on fundamental freedoms of body and property so I have zero faith in the military to do what is right nor do I have faith in the militarized police forces because they would have arrested themselves a long time ago starting with tax laws, seat belt laws and the war on drugs. Until cops give up their assault weapons and we are on an equal footing then the public should not have to as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top