WOLVERINES!
=p

i wondered a while ago in this thread why it is that the discussion, such as it is, seems to require stereotypes to proceed. i still don't understand it's function, but there's more of it now.

so why is it that this particular topic seems to require that stereotypes such a role?

Stereotypes are useful when one wants to avoid discussion.

The British would like to have their guns back.

So what?

Just another attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that there is nothing to support the fear mongering expressed in the OP (and many subsequent posts by the gun crowd) that Obama will be taking away your guns.

By every measure, most Americans want and support some level of gun control within the confines of the "right to bear arms"...the polling data makes that pretty clear.

But perhaps some would rather cling to a belief that the will of the majority shouldnt matter in our representative democracy.

A CNN poll = a poll by a far left network with skewed results. There is many more polls that state most people believe that there is enough laws already and we should ENFORCE the laws presently on the books.

I also think the fact that Britain now realizes it's mistakes and is trying to change things should be a lesson to us here in the States.

lollololololololol

You mean like Gallup, Ipsos, or maybe Harris? I wonder where we could dig those numbers up....

What most Americans want is irrelevant. The Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms, and Obama has posted his intention to severely curtail that right on the whitehous.gov website.

The Bill of Rights was put in place, in part, to prevent the "will of the majority" from denying rights to the minority. The preamble to the bill of rights states that the bill of rights simply enumerates rights which are inalienable and no government has the right to take away (nor does a majority of the population). An opinion poll has no impact on that whatsoever.

What Americans want is absolutely NOT irrelevant...it is at the heart of a representative democracy...as long as it respects the Constitutional rights of the minority.

There is NO absolute right to bear arms...that has been decided.

The extent to which that right can be restricted or regulated is a matter for the "people" to express their will, the legislature to act, and the judiciary to be the final ejudicator.

Oh..and polls are another expression of opinion...just as a protest march.

From the beginning of the film: These are a tiny, TINY minority of people who live in the countryside and like torturing foxes in a manner which if urbanites did likewise to urban foxes, they'd be charged with animal cruelty instantly. Gun nuts, not real sportsmen or farmers, tagged onto that movement by characterising their lust for unregulated gun ownership as a 'traditional right'.

Horseshit.

You can find loons in every society and those interviewed in the film most certainly fall in that category.

The solution to the gun problem is more guns. Fantastic.

It is PERFECTLY within the law in the UK to own a gun... you need a police-issued licence (two referees and a mental health check up) and to either leave your gun in a sports club OR in your own home - within an accredited gun safe. My family now live in a rural area and many people own guns out there.

Tony Martin, the case mentioned, shot two men in the back as they were running away from his home, killing one. As he mentions, it was the third time he'd been burgled that year and he's quoted, though I can't find it atm, as saying something along the lines of 'i was going to make damn sure it wasn't happening again.'.

In other words, he set out to do harm, with malice aforethought and killed a man.

Murder.

The Daily Mail - which was an avid fan of fascism back in those heady days of the 30's and still operate on an editorial policy of feeding their readers a dose of daily hate - headed a campaign of misrepresentation in the media which eventually led to political pressure and this disgusting man, a murderer, having his case reviewed.

If you're going to make a case for reviewing gun laws, then putting Mr Martin out front is not the best way to go about it... After all... he had a gun, so what's the point about brits wanting their guns again? huh?

The British people do not want more guns in the UK, they want the elements of society that fuel gun ownership, availability and use reduced or eliminated. More and more people are starting to wrestle with the idea of legalising drugs, in the face of a media that doesn't really put over anything but wholly negative drug stories, and removing the vast majority of it and its related crimes, where most gun crime in the UK stems from.

American show goes over to a foreign land, picks out a handful of nuts and misrepresents them as popular opinion. My, that's a novelty. :shakehead:

Ugh. Nevermind. Legislators will hear from gun owners if they push another AWB.

Moderate gun controls? Ok. Demonizing 'hi-capacity magazines' and 'Bayonet lugs?'....wtf.

A bill in the works right now?

Can you provide a bill number please.

Who is the prime sponsor? other co-sponsors?

Eat your heart out.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

A bill that has no co-sponsors and wont have a chance in hell of getting a hearing w/o co-sponsors. In effect, a bill that is DOA.

Do you have any idea how many bill are introduced that get absolutely no where....something along the lines of 95% of all bills introduced.

Meh, I see it as opening the gates towards another AWB.

I'm still amazed at how little the population knows about guns, yet feel strongly enough towards it to support a ban.

The last attempt at an AWB had a handful of supporters in the House and NO companion bill in the Senate. It was DOA.

I agree that a very small minority of members of Congress have "banning guns" on their agenda and such bills will be introduced every session...and it will be DOA again.

No member of Congress can be prevented from introducing a bill....there are 10,000+ bills (and resolutions) introduced each session of Congress....at best, maybe 100-200 are enacted.

There are bills introduce every session to make Christianity the official religion of the US.

As a DC resident, I am not worried about the bill that we see every other year to cede Washington, DC back to Maryland.

Dennis Kucinich will introduce his annual bill to create a cabinet level Department of Peace.

Objective observers take these for what they are.

unfortunately, the NRA, although it knows the truth about the recent gun bills as well as any inside observer, is not objective and uses these "no-chance/doa" bills and grossly exaggerations their remotest (zero) possibility of passage for fund raising purposes.

I wonder how "DOA" they'll be when Schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy or Reid attached them to a Bailout bill, or the 2010 Defense Appropriations, or some other "must-pass" piece of legislation as a "rider?" That's how the Firearm Owners Protection Act was used, behind the scenes, to kill civilian-legal machinegun manufacture in May of 1986. The rider was attached, a vote was held in the middle of the night, and by the time anyone who could/would have objected was allowed to -read- the amended legislation, it'd already been passed in the dead of night, just like a congressional pay raise.

The mere existence of these bills is a serious threat, since any of them could be attached in that same manner at any time.

Yeah, screw all this legislation and the economy. Let economy fix itself and I figure anyone trained by the US military is probably able to fend for themselves. I mean if there's even a slight possibility someone might try to keep me from buy a machine gun I'd rather the whole country go to hell before that happens.

You are aware that the only person to ever commit a crime with a legally-owned machinegun was a cop, right? And that it's only happened -once- since the NFA registry was begun in 1934?

And this is relevant how?

Sorry, but you really dont understand the rules of the House or the Senate. Any "substantial" amendment passed by one house, even in the middle of the night, still has to be approved by the other house....so in fact, one house in Congress always has the time to review any of these "midnight" amendments.

It cant happen the way you described and I doubt that it did in 1986, but I'm not interested in wasting my time to check the Record of 20+ years ago.

(added: a quick check of the Record...the Senate passed a version.....the House amended it (at night) and sent it back to the Senate where it sat for nearly a month, giving every Senator plenty of time to read the amendment...it was then debated for a day and passed by the Senate.......it looks to me like your version of what happened in 1986 is another one of those NRA myths!)

And the last time something marginally comparable to attaching an AWB (or anything gun related) to a defense appropriation bill was attempted in the Senate with a proposed amendment (what you call a "rider") to the Dept of Homeland Security Appropriations bill in 06 to allow for the confiscation of weapons during a "state of emergency" and it was defeated 84-16, with Obama voting with the majority.

That there is a problem, isn't it? From the beginning of this country, it was a representative democracy, or a republic, so that the majority could NOT limit or deny the rights of a minority.
-----Added 1/2/2009 at 02 : 54 : 34-----
and just like the dred scott decision or kelo decision, this is fatally wrong. People who fear the freedom of others like using the 'no right is absolute' craptastic argument to limit the rights of others they don't like, plain and simple. Because of the overreaching decision making no right absolute, it now comes down to whether a majority of the people feel that a right isn't limited enough. Theoretically, it could come down to 'shall not be infringed' means as long as you carry pepper spray, you're armed, therefore your right to bear arms is not infringed.

'no right is absolute' is probably the most overreaching and abusive judicial precedent ever set in our history

The Supreme Court decision in this case differs from your statement. It is now a matter of record, and legal precedent.

supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

You conveniently left out this section from the same decision:

Not conveniently left out, it was simply the opinion of a dissenting judge. The decision was 5-4 and the result is as I posted it.



Larry

No...the opinion was part (Held 2.) of Scalia's decision writing for the court. The minority opinion is entirely separate.

We can post the entire syllabus if you wish but it does not change the decision in the case. The wording states precisely that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the lawful protection and in the defense of self, family and property.


Nobody really needs a .50 caliber Barret rifle to deter theives, but it works. We don't need military style, high capacity rifles either. They serve no purpose at all in the home, the sport of shooting, or in hunting game for food. These are not facts, they are simply my opinions on those weapons, other may differ. Along those same lines, we don't really need 200 channels of television when 2 or 3 will do just fine, right? We don't need anything at all, aside the most basic necessities for survival, but then we're supposed to be a bit more civilized than monkeys, right?

The problem is that a ban on any single type of weapon is legal precedent for panty waisted knuckleheads to use as fodder for bans on anything else that they're afraid of, or don't understand. People that don't want the personal responsibility that comes with liberty and freedom can move to France if they wish.

My point is that our rights, and freedom to exercise those rights, made this country what is once was, and could be again. If we continue to cower in fear, plant our heads in the sands of ignorance, and allow the few to impose their will upon the many we will most certainly cease to be citizens and become subjects of the same iron fisted oppression that sparked the beginning of the revolution.

So in closing this argument, your statement that the second ammendment does not provide an absolute right to bear arms is false. You may wish for the opposite to be true but, wishes aren't reality.



Larry

You don't really need an M-1A2 SEP Abrams... and you can't have one. You really don't need a M2HB heavy machine gun... and you can't have one. You may wish for the opposite to be true but, wishes aren't reality.

Ahem, actually, if you are willing to cough up the dough, you can have them...perhaps not an Abrams because there are none being made for civilains right now, but other tanks and definately an M2.

In fact, the reality at the moment is the Supreme Court's decision in its entirety and not simply the portions of the decision held by the Court with which you agree.

And that includes...."It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Read my post where I stated my opinion against such lunatic frivolity and try to make your point again. :)



-----Added 2/2/2009 at 09 : 45 : 11-----
I didn't think it would be necessary to point out that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to own guns or that people shouldn't be allowed carry them into the McDonalds playground for show and tell with toddlers. :confused:



Larry

It appeared necessary because of your insistence that the right to bear arms is absolute..and now, in this post, you recognize that it isnt absolute.

Thank you!

Not being made for civilians you say? How odd.

And yes given the right paperwork one might be able to buy an M2 full auto but you have admit there are arms you can not buy, right?
-----Added 2/2/2009 at 10 : 12 : 23-----
I don't even know what your opinion or point is at this point. It seems to be contradicting itself.

My point is you are not legally able to buy any weapon or weapons system you want.

The argument has always been that the second amendment was not a right given to citizens and that it only applied to members of the armed forces (militia), and then only in performance of their duty. That is a wrongheaded assupmtion and, inspite of evidence to the contrary, you still maintain it.

I simply stated that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, in reference to ordinary citizens purchasing, registering and keeping a firearm, and it is. I assumed that anybody here would understand my inferred application of the ammendment and the ruling of the court.

I never implied that ordinary folks have, or should have the right, to buy operational tanks, fully automatic weapons, or ridiculously large weapons. The kind that serve no purpose in the defense of your family, home or property. I stated that the exact opposite was my opinion, also the result of any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, but, you all conveniently ignore that with every reply you make.

I have also stated that the downside with the right to keep and bear arms is that almost any written/legal restriction on the type of weapon a citizen is "allowed" to purchase and keep is an open door to more restriction and therefore, restricted liberty. I maintain that the current,"common sense" laws preventing the purchase of de-commissioned battleships, and such armament, do what they were written to do, enforce the use of common sense.

You can't just go the gun store and buy the types of weapons that we all know to be useless outside of a military action. RPG's, surface to air missiles and such are just off limits to us, and for good reason. While you can buy a tank, it's weapons are rendered inoperative. It's just a huge lump of mobile metal with an engine. So, if some nut wants to buy a tank and park it in his front yard, that's his life, not mine. It's his choice, even if it is stupid. I'd rather a loon have his tank, and subsequent public ridicule, and keep my rights, liberty, and freedom intact.

By the way, I'm not a gun nut with an arsenal that rivals the local law enforcement, I'm just an American.


Larry

PS,
I love this forum.:thumbsup:

so is the right absolute or not? you say it is, but then list all of the arms that shouldn't be allowed. pick one

Some of the most ardent protesters posting in this thread aren't natural born US citizens or even US citizens and apparently the idea of freedom to purchase and own a firearm simply because you choose to is difficult to grasp.

We can only hope the unarmed European socialist experiment will be over before the idealogy completely transcends the big pond.

You used the "r" word....registering! I call "infringement"!
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 06 : 32 : 48-----
Keep hope alive!

..

Hahaha, this reminds me of the Family Guy episode where all the towns people are "Why the f*ck do we need guns for?" So they burn all the guns. Immediately after, mutated Stewies come and destroy the town while they scream, "quick pull the guns out of the fire!"

In all seriousness, I have taken so many new people shooting who then realize that guns aren't actually evil...

*Edit:* Btw, this thread needs to die. Nobody's really listening to the opposition.

I havent seen any "gun grabbers" here but I can't speak to what you see in your head.

I have pointed out repeatedly that the OP is based, in large part, on false and misleading information perpetrated by the NRA and "gun nuts" (I would not normally use that term, but it seems fitting to respond in kind on behalf of the unseen "gun grabbers")

I think it would also be clear to most objective observers that additional federal gun control legislation is not on Obama's agenda nor is there enough support for it in Congress in the highly unlikely event that Obama would chose to make it an issue.

And finally, the Heller case made it clear, again to most objective observers, that 2nd amendment rights are not absolute.

If that is "fear and ignorance" then I guess it is the burden we "gun grabbers" must bear.

Who said guns are evil? Who said the government should take your guns away? Find one post in the past 17 pages that say either of those things. I HATE this response to anything deemed "anti-gun" by the pro-gun people. It's possible to personally dislike guns and not want to own one, and/or to feel that citizens don't need AK-47's in their gun racks, without thinking guns are evil or need to be seized.

How can you argue that additional gun control legislation is not on Obamas agenda when he says quite clearly that it is on the whitehouse.gov website?

I can understand and agree with the argument that he has bigger fish to fry and it won't be at the top of his to do list, and I also agree that many senators/congressmen will be loath to support anti-gun legislation due to the fallout from the '94 ban. However, it IS on his agenda (and the democratic parties agenda) and therefore could possibly end up in a bill whenever the opportunity presents itself.

..

Because its on the WH website or the DNC platform doesnt put it on the agenda in any "real time" political terms. They are broad policy statements, quite different from an action agenda. IMO based on the realities of the political landscape, it is not on the top of his to-do list or the bottom of his to list or anywhere on his list....everything in a policy statement doesnt make its way into a component of a legislative agenda.

But it makes a convenient red herring for the NRA and gun rights advocates to continue to spread misinformation like....

....the notion that something "could possibly end in a bill" (just another myth).

Gun control legislation is not like an earmark...it just doesnt appear or "end up" in a bill...it would have to take the form of a "substantive" amendment and it only takes one Senator to kill it instantly or at the very least to force it to go through a rigorous process in at least one house and then kill it later.

You just simply cant ignore the political realities.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 10 : 26 : 53-----
Stop with this experience bullshit, please!

One doesnt need to have been a reporter to have an opinion on or understand the rights of a free press under the 1st amendment.

One doesnt need to have gone through the criminal justice system to have an opinion or understand the rights of a defendant under the 4th and 5th amendments.

you're the one sliding down that slippery slope, not me. my opinion that citizens don't need AK-47's doesn't mean I think they should be taken away.

..

so what you're advocating then is not removing the right to have those weapons, just removing the inventory of them, right?

I'm not advocating anything pro-active at all, just expressing my personal opinion about them

Have you been hiding under a rock with your ak 47?

Nobody is trying to restrict the 1st amendment?
Take some time to look at how the Bush administration has tried to restrict media (and public) access to government documents.

Nobody is trying to expand the power of the government under the 4th and 5th amendments?
Ask dk about search and seizure or warrantless wiretaps or eminent domain.

Your suggestion that you should have experience with guns in order to express an opinion on the 2nd amendment is just ignorant.

don't get me started. LOL

I cant talk about anymore.

I have never been subject to search or seizure or eminent domain.

Curious. Do tell. (I'm not challenging you, really am curious).

Lack of direct experience undermines some credibility as compared to those who do have experience. Compare, the attorney to the layman about the Criminal Justice system. Who's more credible?

I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about, I'm saying getting direct experience will balance out your opinion and give you greater credibility.

I've been on both sides of the fence regarding guns. I do think guns have been politicized far too much. They used to sell pistols at Sports Authority. Then Columbine happened and all of a sudden guns were treated like radioactive substances.

..

Social harm stuff. Much in the way that cars must have certain safety features and potheads protest when they're not snacking.

On restrictions of a free and unfettered press guaranteed by the 1st amendment:

In the last eight years, federal agencies had restricted media and public access to government documents because of a 2001 memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft....according to a GAO report.

Almost a full third of the total number of FOIA officials surveyed (31 percent) reported that because of the memo there was a decreased likelihood that their agencies would make a discretionary release of information. Additionally, one-fourth of the FOIA officials surveyed reported that Ashcroft’s memo has changed the use of specific FOIA exemptions. For a single memo the impact indicated by this simple survey is considerable.

GAO Report Indicates Less FOIA Information Under Ashcroft - September 22, 2003 Vol. 4 No. 19 - OMB Watch

I find this amusing if not insulting.

Its funny how many conservatives like to describe liberals as "elitist." IMO, to suggest that someone needs experience with guns to have a knowledgeable opinion is far more "elitist" than anything I've read from any gun control supporters in this discussion

In fact, as far as experience = knowledge, I havent seen "greater credibility" but rather quite a bit of misrepresentation (by gun rights advocates) of Obama's position and voting record on gun control, on how gun amendments can be "snuck into bills," etc.

The opinions and knowledge on the 2nd amendment of those who have no direct experience with guns may differ from those who have weapons for sporting purposes whose opinions and knowledge may differ from those who want a gun for home protection whose opinions and knowledge may differ from those who just want to own a gun for whatever reason whose opinion and knowledge may differ from those who have used a weapon against another human being.

All of the above represent segments of society that are impacted by gun legislation and no one groups opinion is more valid than the others.
-----Added 4/2/2009 at 09 : 20 : 10-----
I dont speak for people who want to ban guns and I dont presume, like you do, to know their reasons.

And I respect their right to express their opinion for whatever reason. They are citizens too and I dont treat them as less than equal to have an opinion with which I might agree or disagree.

Thought this was pertinent.

I would attribute much of the "scare" to the NRA's misrepresentation of Obama's record that the above "news" report perpetuates.

A $10 million communications campaign can spread a hell of a lot of misrepresentations!

Lou Dobbs...an objective reporter?
-----Added 5/2/2009 at 12 : 25 : 03-----
I think this is pertinent...from the standards of professional journalists offered in another thread:

--Test the accuracy of information from all sources... Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

-- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

-- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

It would have been more professional and objective if Dobbs had given an administration spokesperson the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Don't you think?

But then again that might well have undercut Dobbs' agenda.

I must say some more conservative branches are using scare tactics. However, with many people in power who're anti-gun, that gives me valid cause to be worried.

Rahm Emmanuel, the White House chief of staff seems firmly anti-gun. Same with Eric Holder.

The difference in the videos....Emanuel speaking at a clearly identifiable Brady event so its clearly an advocacy speech (with a counter-message imposed on the vid...nice touch!). The Dobbs video presented as a "news" story with the headline "freedom under fire."

The art of communications manipulation!

Fine....be worried.

I think you are wasting your energy on a non-issue in terms of the Obama agenda....with so many pressing issues on the agenda where he wants bi-partisan support.

Particularly if you look at objective "vote counting" in the Congress...it only takes 40 senators to block any legislation and there are at least 4-5 Democratic Senators, along with nearly every Republican Senator, who are not gun control advocates...that makes 44-45.....any bill --> DOA...just like the 110th Congress where the Senate didnt evern bother introducting a companion bill to the one that comes up in the House every term (with a handful of die hard sponsors).

But it does keep the $$$$ flowing to the NRA to pay for those $multi-million communications campaign (more than 10x what the "other side" spends)!

You make a good point about filibuster. We'll see where the gun control issue goes as the year(s) progress.

Btw, Emmanuel makes a huge correlation = causation error.

He also talks about a jump in hand gun crimes, yet the AWB was targeted primarily at cosmetic *rifle* bans. Meh. We'll see.

It keeps the money flowing to groups like the Brady bunch also. It isn't the only the NRA that spreads lies and misconceptions.

I agree the gun control side often misrepresents the facts as well.
-----Added 5/2/2009 at 07 : 27 : 45-----
Yep....I haver never suggested otherwise.

The difference....10 to 1 in spending by the gun rights side.


yes please!

I thought it had been said that President Obama was going to be too busy to do something like this?

ABC News: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

I just read Holder's quote:

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,"

There are many policy changes Obama might "like to make", but that is hardly the same as "intends to pursue" in light of the current agenda and continued interest in pursuing bi-partisanship.

Relax, the AWB introduced last year, with few co-sponsors, died in committee in the House w/o a hearing and did not even result in a companion bill in the Senate.

Why would he waste political capital on a bill that he knows would be DOA on arrival on the Hill?


---------- Post added at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:58 PM ----------

But this does mean another NRA mass mailing on the way!

Thanks, I get enough of their gimmie-$$$ paranoia with the glossy ad rag they mail me every month.

Ugh.

Pelosi nixed the idea. Oh Holder. First you call us cowards, then you step outta sync with your party.

Senate votes to ease D.C. gun access; Pelosi nixes assault-weapons ban - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Thank god. I was about to buy 40 more Pmags :lol:. /sarcasm.

thanks for that link...

Wait, so there was a ban on guns on the books in DC when that guy opened fire on the White House in the 90s?

Is everybody happy now?

The gun guys can relax and I might get voting rights in Congress

guess not.

again, just because he's pushing for another AWB doesn't mean he'll get it through.

not what i was talking about. I was talking about the DC voting rights.

my bad....carry on

Most Americans support that? /me laughs. Most Americans are on TFP, is that right?

We need to rip out all the gas lines in every single house. It's an explosive and a deadly inhalent. You could be a threat to your neighbor if you use them improperly. Same with the chemicals under your sink, your baseball bats, fuck it...lets ban knives like Europe. It's working out real well over there.

All my neighbors who had Obama signs planted in their yards are the same sheep who when the hurricanes come through every year nudge up to me because they know I CAN AND WILL take care of myslef and my family. The other eight months out of the year they all whimsically flail around here waiting for the government to take my nasty guns away from me.

Keep your chin up, sir. The government will take care of you. The police are only a phone call away. Sit tight, wait for them to come and handle the paperwork after the fact.

Oh and one last thought...ALl the weapons bans and limitations our dear president is wanting to impose upon us. Yeah, those don't apply to him. He'll still have his government security, paid for by me, with their weapons of their choice, protecting him. Why? Because he's better than you or me of course. He should have the right to protect himself on a higher level than you or me. Right? I mean his life is worth more, right? My beautiful, smart daughter...nah, fuck her she's a civilian. Besides, I might hurt someone If I have something rational and valid to protect her with. No way could I have the brains to handle a weapon as responsibly as the guys I pay to protect Obama. No way. I'm just a citizen.

I'm sorry, Ruprex. Was that supposed to be a response to what I wrote, or did my words just set you off on a rant?

I still don't know where people live who act like we live in the wild west. It's clearly not where I live

The guns that some people want to ban are way more cool than those available in the Wild West.

I still don't know why people try to use the 'wild west' analogy to somehow signify anyone wearing a gun is some sort of cowboy. People wore guns in the wild west so they could defend themselves from human predators. we have human predators in this day and age, so why wouldn't people still wear a gun?

That's my point. Where do you all live that you live in daily fear of "human predators" coming to hurt you or take your stuff? And how dangerous are these "human predators" that you need assault weapons to defend yourself rather than a hand gun or a shotgun?

Who are you to make that decision for me?

I didn't say I was making that decision for you. I'm asking why you need it. Don't project shit onto me, dude. It's a legitimate question.

Right. It's not where you live.

I live in a much more dangerous area--just last month one of my classmates got robbed at gun point.

So as the argument someone made before, people live in different locales. Some locales demand more 'Independence.' Other locales are much safer.

And in reference to the all dangers 'assault rifles'--some are better for home defense than pistols, FYI. (AR-15 loaded with 50gr JHPs--controllability, decreased lethality after overpenetration, capacity etc.).

Ok, I live in a military town, and as is typically the case during hard times crime rates are increasing rapidly. There is considerable gang activity and street signs in my neighborhood are being tagged (and then painted over and re-tagged) by Gangsters Disciples and Latin Kings. Violent crimes against soldiers are on the rise as they have stable incomes and thus things to take. Crimes against soldiers wives are also on the rise while their husbands are deployed for the same reason as well as the obvious...they are home alone for a long period of time.

Being in a military town it is not unusual to see body armor in the pawn shops (usually illegally) and even petty criminals have easy access to armor and weapons (and friends).

If I have time during a home invasion I am going to grab a long gun, in part because I am more confident on it's ability to punch through whatever vest/nonsense the assailant has brought to the fight (since he is knowingly breaking into an occupied home). Additionally I have better control over round placement, increased stopping ability, faster re-engagement, and a higher magazine capacity. This becomes especially important if multiple assailants are involved.

I fully expect anyone who knowingly invades an occupied home in a military town to come fully prepared for a fight.

I am making a personal decision with regards to my level of preparedness based on my life experience, ability and perceived risk. For someone else to tell me I have no reason to keep a firearm for self defense is arrogant in the extreme.

As for keeping an 'assault weapon:' such weapons are simply firearms which are designed to be particularly useful in combat/defense situations and thus ideally suited to the homeowner looking for a way to protect himself/family/property, potentially from multiple armed attackers.

I'll put my two cents in, as this is a legitimate debate.

I grew up in a rural area, where firearms in the home were more common than not. Growing up, firearms were not treated as something "bad" or "evil." They were respected, as anything dangerous should be. My father ingrained in me early the lethal nature of firearms, and they should never be taken lightly--no showboating, no horsing around when firearms where present.

That respect for firearms was reinforced when I joined the Army. Firearms are a tool, and their purpose is lethal response.

I don't own a firearm of any kind today. I don't believe that I need one. I don't hunt, and thankfully I live in an area where violent crime is rare, in comparison to more urban, more dangerous environments. If my circumstances were to change, however, I would consider purchasing a firearm for defense.

Both sides of the firearm debate have good arguments, so I won't try to sway anyone's opinion if they don't agree with me. My political leanings are by and large liberal, and some people are surprised that I am a Second Amendment supporter; my belief is that there is nothing more liberal than the ability to protect oneself and one's property, all the way up to and including lethal response.

As far as Obama challenging the Second Amendment--I wouldn't be too concerned about it any time soon. Obama has his hands full with conservatives and the Republican party dealing with economic issues; the last thing he needs is another bone of contention at the time, especially such a galvanizing topic as of gun control.

And in all seriousness, I'm not somebody who CAN make that decision for you. I'm not a U.S. Congressman. AWB's in individual cities or voting districts might happen via a public referendum, but something on a national level will only happen in Congress.

That said, I don't want to make that decision for you. I know I appear "anti-gun" most of the time, but when I ask questions like "why do you need an assault weapon to protect your home?", all I want is an answer. They aren't loaded questions.

Fair enough.

Great question. :thumbsup: Plain and simple; gun control does not work. The only people who are affected by gun control laws, are the people who buy them legally. The criminals don't care about gun laws. In fact, criminals are probably in favor of more restrictive gun laws. If you were a criminal, intent on breaking into a house and robbing(or worse) somebody, which house would you rather break into? The house in Kentucky, with little restrictive gun laws, or the house in Washington, D.C., with very restrictive gun laws? Odds are, the criminal would rather break into the house with less of a chance of his sorry ass getting shot. Just a thought.

The Obama is the enemy of gun owners, BTW. Make no mistake about it, he(and Clinton, Schumer, etc...) does want to find a way to take away guns. Like them or not, the NRA is the best organization we have to fight the gun grabbers.

I'm sorry, but it's really hard for me to take you seriously when you call the President the "Anti-Christ". I'm pretty even-keeled when it comes to religion, but the thing that always strikes me as an outright joke is all the Christians that continually claim that we're in the End Times. Which they've been doing for the past 1900 years.

As for the actual topic at hand, I quite like the way that FuglyStick phrased it. Nicely done, sir.

The NRA are a bunch of spineless, gutless, useless, bought-and-paid-for shills. They've signed onto very major gun-control bill since the NFA, and if they're our bst tool we're just plain fucked. Wayne LaPierre would happily sell us all, every one, to keep his speaking fees. The NRA didn't even have the balls to oppose Eric Holder for Atty. General, and tried to prevent Heller vs D.C. from coming before the SCOTUS.

Rotten quislings, the most effective Victim Disarmamnt organisation of the last 50 years. Fuck the NRA. IF they'd get back to teaching marksmanship and gun safety and such, I'd have no quarrel. But they sell our rights every day, and for nothing but one ration of shit after another. My money goes to the GOA, JPFO, and more ammo.

Not to mention that they've aligned themselves with the far, far right, which has set up gun ownership as an extreme partisan issue (when it shouldn't be).

I'm a life member of the NRA, so I get all of their political stuff in the mail during the silly season. I've seen them endorse pro-gun Democrats on more than one occasion, so I think it's more accurate to say that they've aligned themselves with candidates who support the "far, far right" position on gun owners' rights.

you may be right (I'm not a member). But in the bigger picture, the NRA has aligned itself with those politicians who like to claim what being a "true American" is, which puts them at odds (on an ideological level) with those who don't align themselves that way.

The larger point is that gun ownership/rights shouldn't be such a partisan issue.

Keep in mind that (in theory) the NRA aligns themselves with politicians who support gun owners' rights. How these politicians feel about other issues is (again, in theory) irrelevant.

But is it partisan *because* of the NRA, or is the NRA simply playing the game that has already been established?

In response to this, the overwhelming majority of citezens who own "assault weapons"(which is a ludicrous term, they do nothing that any other type of firearm can't do, which is launch a projectile from the end of a barrel) use them for recreational target practice or in competitions. I have no problem with safety based tests or competency tests such as being able to hit what your shooting at. But banning any type of firearm from law abiding citizens is just insane. It does nothing to prohibit criminals from obtaining them, or using them to commit crimes. It only takes that firearm out of my hands, which I was using lawfully to begin with

Derwood:

There is no answer here that you will find acceptable, so why should we answer. If I told you I wanted an "assault rifle" to shot nickels off a tree branch, you would say "why can't you do that with a Red Ryder?" It's a trick question and you know it. The Second Amendment is one of the most straight forward Amendments of them all "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the beauty of the verbage, I am not required to justify to you or my government "which" arms I have a right to bear.

I will go ahead and answer your followup question: Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment explicitly means that I can own a M1 Abrams Tank if I can afford to purchase it.

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

I'm not looking for an acceptable answer. I'm looking to learn more about why gun owners want/do things differently than myself. I'd hate to be accused of being closed-minded (again)...

depends on the gun owner, i guess. Myself, I don't hunt, but we also know how I view the constitution, it's limits on government, and it's statement of rights belonging to the people. For me, it's more a matter of my simple right and duty as an American.

That sounds like a great idea! Why stop there! I would love it if my neighbors had huge bombs sitting in their basement! While there at it they should be able to have biological weapons too. I want my kids playing around large bombs and anthrax! Imagine the fun we could all have.....