Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by kmwmtd
    Completely different situation - that was essentially civil war, not an planned invasion.
    Civil war means there was no planned invasion? Explain that please. They dont plan in civil wars? Your point about not knowing who was on what side was great though. It worked to our advantage. The Brits didnt know who was an enemy until it was too late, partly because the public had guns. If they had just the troops then it would have been much easier for the redcoats to figure and and they might have won.

    Quote Originally Posted by kmwmtd
    By the way, people who finish their points with "Ya whatever" immediately lose 50 IQ points in my view. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old saying "You smell! So there!"
    Thankfully I didnt really lose 50 IQ points. Due to that fact, I can see that your last sentences were intended to indicate that I am stupid and immature. I would appreciate it you could keep the personal attacks to a minimum, we're trying to have a discussion.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    I was just wondering if someone can explain to me why an assault weapon is necessary for home defense? (This does not include the dude who's got 10 acres of prime sensemilla in Humboldt County.)
    Assault weapon is a term coined by the antigun lobby to make the weapons scarier. All weapons can be considered assault wepons if you can assault someone with them.

    It isnt a question of necessary. If I want to have a house full of various guns and can afford them and know their proper care and handling and take reasonable safety precautions against their misuse, whats the problem? 2nd amendment to the Constitution says I can have em.

    I could kill you just as easily with a pencil as with a gun. I'd just have to be a little closer. Or a two inch paring knife. Or my car. Or my belt. Shall we ban all that stuff too?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  3. #43  
    "A new Moveon PAC ad implies machine-guns are becoming legal, which isn't true. And it blames Bush, even though Bush said he would have extended the ban on assault weapons."

    "The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign."

    http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #44  
    So the multiple uses for Assault weapons so far is Killing people, wounding people, and target practice? Hmmm, does that balance against the need for safety of our police and citizens? Woof says the he is safe, but if the general public can buy theses things how safe will we be?

    Also, please stop saying that you could kill with some normal household object. There is no news in that. As I've said in other posts, the items you list are not primarily designed for killing and maiming.

    The second amendment says that you have the right to bear arms. It does not say that you have a right to any specific weapon or any number of weapons.
  5. #45  
    Bush did say that he supported the ban. He must be some leader if he couldn't get his own party to even bring up a vote on it.

    Of course, he never asked for a vote. I guess that his actions speak louder than his words.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    Bush did say that he supported the ban. He must be some leader if he couldn't get his own party to even bring up a vote on it.

    Of course, he never asked for a vote. I guess that his actions speak louder than his words.
    Bush committed publically to extend the ban. Congress, the legislative branch, never passed the extension of the ban.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #47  
    To publicly commit to something and then never do anything about it is some commitment.

    He is President and a Republican after all. He does have some influence over Congress.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    He is President and a Republican after all. He does have some influence over Congress.
    There were no democrat congressmen available to introduce a bill?
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #49  
    You probably mean Democrat as all in Congress are democrats. Yes there were Democrats in Congress who could have introduced the bill, but if the President were really behind his commitment, would he have to rely on the Democrats to help him?
  10. #50  
    Wow, this topic still lives?

    Well okay then, nothing is being done about the ban because the ban didn't do anything. The weapons that this law affected were altered cosmetically in order to comply. AK47's and the like are still banned under other laws.

    Here's some more to digest, Assualt rifles like the colt AR15 were never affected by that ban, that is you could by an AR15 before the law expired just as easily as you can now that the ban has expired. There was newer an issue brought up about them.

    In the end, I really don't care about people owning or banning handheld firearms, I care more about proper education.
    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
    "Computers are a lot like air conditioners - they both work great until you open windows." -Anonymous

  11. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    Also, please stop saying that you could kill with some normal household object. There is no news in that. As I've said in other posts, the items you list are not primarily designed for killing and maiming.
    If you will stop putting forth the silly notion that a law will make anyone safer. Laws never have and they never will. If someone intends to harm aomeone else they will do so irregardless of the law. Especially if they, as was indicated earlier in this thread, suddenly go off their rocker. The bottom line is as Peter Brown's signature says "Guns don't kill people. People kill people..."

    Peter, just because I'm curious, can you explain why your signature says this? It strikes me as odd given the views you have expressed in this thread.
  12. #52  
    Laws can and do make society safer. Yes, they can be broken. But to say that they dont' make anyone safer is the silly notion.

    Why do you suppose it is against the law to murder, steal, and rape? If there were no laws against these things what would stop your average citizen from commiting this kind of behavior on a regular basis?

    If we can keep 95% of the people from commiting these crimes by laws, isn't that better than 0% with no laws?
  13. #53  
    there are certain nations that have such significantly lower statistics regarding murder by guns.
    what is it about these nations that create an environment that motivates less violence?
    socio-economic structure? balance of wealth? equality of education and opportunity? freedom with less laws? more laws? history of the country? cultural mix? more or less opportunity to succeed? media?
    crime. its just a guess, but many without the means and opportunity to advance in the nation's society turn to crime to survive. they turn to guns to grease their wheel and allow them to carry out their crimes whether it be thru theft, drugs or violence.
    so guns are the ballgame. now, law-abiding citizens, to protect themselves, turn to guns as well - some to assault weapons depending on their perception of the level of threat.
    when the socio-economic structure is kept status quo and these criminals have no other options but crime, the habit of crime with guns is propogated.
    and then the vicious cycle - crime & self-defense.... and on and on.
    is it possible that if a nation had more of a balanced level of opportunity for all on every level, would we decrease the need for guns for crime? or would we have it just the same?
  14. #54  
    I don't think you've read my sig. to the end. Of course a gun needs someone to pull the trigger, but take away the gun and you take away the crime.
    Animo et Fide
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    I don't think you've read my sig. to the end. Of course a gun needs someone to pull the trigger, but take away the gun and you take away the crime.
    My apologies Peter but the explaination of your sig is close to the dumbest thing i have heard in this thread. If the person or the monkey wants to kill someone and the dont have a gun, another way will be found. How do you suppose anyone was killed before guns? Your statement also implies that given a gun anyone will commit a crime. So all gun owners and users are now going to commit a crime. So if you picked up a gun you would commit a crime? Are police going to commit crimes? Military? Hunters? Do guns have a criminal enhancing element in their structure? Which component is it?

    Guns and crime are not mutually exclusive. All guns are not used in crimes and all crimes do not involve guns therefore take away the gun and take away the crime is completely bogus.

    I wonder do the monkeys that kill each other in the wild (and yes they do this) have a secret cache of guns somewhere or are they somehow able to commit their 'crimes' without them?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    Laws can and do make society safer. Yes, they can be broken. But to say that they dont' make anyone safer is the silly notion.

    Why do you suppose it is against the law to murder, steal, and rape? If there were no laws against these things what would stop your average citizen from commiting this kind of behavior on a regular basis?

    If we can keep 95% of the people from commiting these crimes by laws, isn't that better than 0% with no laws?
    Laws are just words on paper. They mean nothing woithout a populace taht has respect for them and a body to enforce them. They are kind of like instructions. If you dont read them and do what they say they mean nothing. They themselves dont make anyione safer. Peoples willingness to accept them and abide by them is what makes people safer. There will alwasy be those who dont do this. Those folks were around before there were guns and will always be around. I am amazed that isnt clear.

    What keeps the average citizen from commiting rape murder and theft is a sense of morality and a desire to live in a society that is safe. Laws do not even have to exist if the people of a society understand that certain things will not be tolerated.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    So the multiple uses for Assault weapons so far is Killing people, wounding people, and target practice? Hmmm, does that balance against the need for safety of our police and citizens? Woof says the he is safe, but if the general public can buy theses things how safe will we be?

    Also, please stop saying that you could kill with some normal household object. There is no news in that. As I've said in other posts, the items you list are not primarily designed for killing and maiming.

    The second amendment says that you have the right to bear arms. It does not say that you have a right to any specific weapon or any number of weapons.
    So what if an object is designed for killing. Doesnt mean it will be used to do so. We designed thousands of nuclear missiles to destroy the USSR but never had to use them. The fear of them was enough. If people know I am capable of defending myself and my home, they will be more likely to avoid me because I am not an easy mark. I can and will kill to defend myself.

    Lets just say we were neighbors and there was a group of thugs hitting houses in our neighborhood. Eberyone on the block kows I am a gun enthusiast, a hunter and a competetive shooter. You hate guns and wont let them anywhere near your home. In fact you are so pissed that I have them next door to you that you are very vocal about protesting my gun ownership. Now these thugs come through our neighborhood and case the houses for a robbery. Which house will they rob? The one were they will likely be shot to death or the one with no defenses but the telephone? Even if they pick my house, they wont succeed because I am a good shot and happy to shoot them all. You probably wont even get 911 dialed before they rip the phone from your hand. If you do get to make a call, call me cause I'll get there much quicker than the cops.

    If it'll make you happier DH, I'll use the Desert Eagle pistol instead of the Uzi. Then it's not an "assault weapon" and you wont have to feel bad.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #58  
    by 'crime' I meant gun crime. I am suggesting that you can remove guns from the equation altogether.
    I'm a lot more scared of a criminal with a gun than without one. Restricting the availability of guns does also restrict the availability to criminals, I guess that's the part you don't believe.
    Last edited by PeterBrown; 09/15/2004 at 03:38 AM.
    Animo et Fide
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Civil war means there was no planned invasion? Explain that please. They dont plan in civil wars? Your point about not knowing who was on what side was great though. It worked to our advantage. The Brits didnt know who was an enemy until it was too late, partly because the public had guns. If they had just the troops then it would have been much easier for the redcoats to figure and and they might have won.


    Thankfully I didnt really lose 50 IQ points. Due to that fact, I can see that your last sentences were intended to indicate that I am stupid and immature. I would appreciate it you could keep the personal attacks to a minimum, we're trying to have a discussion.
    I didn't say that there was no planning in a civil war - I said that in that sitiuation (which was essentially a civil war as everyone was originally part of the same 'nation') the 'rebels' with guns were no defending against a planned invasion - they were ordinary people stirred into action against the people who were there to protect by a few business men unhappy about taxation. The British were caught completely by surprise at the speed at which events took place. If it had been a planned invasion by the British (using their fairly typical brutal methods of the period), the outcome would certainly have been different.

    As for the 50 IQ points comment, you can infer whatever you like from that, but since when did "ya, whatever" qualify as "a discussion"? As for personal attacks, I remind you that your comment "Really no point in arguing with someone who can't even use their imagination" came before my IQ coment.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by kmwmtd
    As for the 50 IQ points comment, you can infer whatever you like from that, but since when did "ya, whatever" qualify as "a discussion"? As for personal attacks, I remind you that your comment "Really no point in arguing with someone who can't even use their imagination" came before my IQ coment.
    Thanks for the back up kmwmtd, but please don't get riled on my behalf! I'm a big boy now you know
    Animo et Fide
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions