RE: A new ACW..

RE: A new ACW.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

2ndACR -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 12:58:39 AM)
No such thing as an "assault weapon" wish people would quit using that name. I hit you with a base ball bat, the bat became an assault weapon. The proper name is a military style semi automatic rifle. I am prior infantry, so tanks do not scare me. Just rolling steel pill boxes. Open country, like desert, yes, I might have some fear. Wooded, hilly or urban and they are just rolling coffins. I do not advocate civil war, but I will never turn my guns in, they will have to take them from me by force, and I will fight for my constitutional right. Even if I do wish the left would all collect in one place, say in the Utopias up north that they have built, while us right leaning folks go to where we have built our Utopias, the south. They can live under what ever laws they want, tax themselves silly, spend how ever much they want, but I want OUR side to say, "sucks to be you" and we can live under our laws, pay our taxes and spend what we need to. They leave me alone, I leave them alone, problem is, they refuse to leave me alone, they keep trying to jack with my rights.

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 1:01:14 AM)
Five Rounds....I'am just getting started with 5 rounds.[;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Qwixt quote: ORIGINAL: chijohnaok quote: ORIGINAL: Qwixt Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds. Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military. Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"? Who does "these guys" consist of? Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this? The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence.

Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 1:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Qwixt quote: ORIGINAL: chijohnaok quote: ORIGINAL: Qwixt Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds. Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military. Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"? Who does "these guys" consist of? Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this? The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence. 1) I'm not sure who is advocating violence in this case. (caveat: If government used unconstitutional means to infringe on constitutional rights, then I can see where some might feel they would be forced to stand up). 2) regarding your first sentence: "Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about"; there are currently limits on firearms. Access is not unlimited. In efforts to further limit access, where is the line to be drawn? In the context of the right to bear arms in comparison with other constitutional rights, what if efforts were undertaken to restrict those rights? Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not? Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted? Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause? Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays? Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating? Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases? Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name? Some of the examples I gave are silly. But the point is, when you start to tinker with and restrict one right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then the door is cracked open just a little bit for doing the same with others.

junk2drive -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 1:23:09 AM)
Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not? Christmas displays come to mind... Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted? Media picks and chooses who gets air time now, demonizes some as whacos, edits audio and video for effect... Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause? Already happens with gang members Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays? See NDAA Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating? Like reading our email, monitoring facebook, phone calls? Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases? Guantanamo? Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name? Got me on that one.

Qwixt -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 1:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chijohnaok 1) I'm not sure who is advocating violence in this case. (caveat: If government used unconstitutional means to infringe on constitutional rights, then I can see where some might feel they would be forced to stand up). 2) regarding your first sentence: "Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about"; there are currently limits on firearms. Access is not unlimited. In efforts to further limit access, where is the line to be drawn? In the context of the right to bear arms in comparison with other constitutional rights, what if efforts were undertaken to restrict those rights? Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not? Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted? Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause? Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays? Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating? Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases? Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name? Some of the examples I gave are silly. But the point is, when you start to tinker with and restrict one right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then the door is cracked open just a little bit for doing the same with others. 1. Well the topic is new civil war, and that would require some violence. 2. Nowhere in the second amendment does it guarantee unlimited access to all types of weapons. When it was written, I highly doubt that the writers could envision the advances made on guns today. U.S. citizens will always have the right to bear their .38s, .44s, shotguns, hunting rifles,... The restriction of types of guns is nowhere near the same thing as restricting any of the other listed rights. You can still protect yourself and hunt with all those guns I mentioned.

2ndACR -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 1:49:06 AM)
See there was this little thing called the Militia Act 1792 (IIRC) that was connected to the 2nd Amendment, but you will never hear about it. Going from memory, it stated that ALL male law abiding citizens were to own and maintain proficiency with a military style rifle of their day and age. I have hunted with my AR15 and my M4 version, guess they count too as hunting rifles. How about my dad's M14? I know he has used it hog hunting with me. Plus my shooting range ventures employ about 3 full time US employees, due to the amount of ammo I shoot when I go, the number of targets I rip to shreds, the metal smelters that melt all the brass and then ship off to have them reformed into something else. Us target shooters help the economy. I dare anyone to say they can go to a range with an AR15 or M4 and shoot 20 rounds and be happy. I travel with about 500-1000 rounds when I go. 500 is just me, 1000 if I let the wife, step daughter and boy go too. That is just for my .223/5.56 green tips.

Missouri_Rebel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 2:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn quote: ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel The Bill of Rights are not up for debate. Period. rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc. I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges. They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation. Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say. 'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.' Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well [:D] I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it. But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy? I don't have manufactured fears nor hatred. My fight is one born out of love for my decedents that their Rights are maintained, whether it is the 1st 2nd or 10th. These things are important to me. 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.' And I believe others have touched on what would happen. The military personnel that swore an oath to defend the Constitution and meant it would be the driving force, yet I'm afraid it would be a larger scale of bleeding Kansas and other actions. I just feel like this country has become an old married couple who cannot agree on anything and it may be time for a 'divorce', preferably peaceful. Honestly there would be support from all sides I believe. What kind of government would I like to see? Simple. A Constitutional Republic. I already have a good name for the new country. We would call it..............................................America. Because at the point where I raise my weapon against my neighbor is the time when what was once America resembles Her no more. I would not be attacking Her, I would be defending Her. Let those who would change Her beyond recognition come up with what kind of country they would want. Here is Chuck Woolery on 'assault weapons'. Sometimes wisdom and support come from the most unlikeliest of places. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o 'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.' Lastly, I refer people to The Bath School Disaster. Not a gun used and the biggest school slaughter in our history. There will ALWAYS be evil people just like there always have been.

Missouri_Rebel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 3:34:41 AM)
and rhondabrwn. I appreciate your passion for those less fortunate than yourself and it is something near and dear to me as well. A boaster would tell you of their exploits of helping those in need while I prefer to do my charity mostly private. I have given when there was little to give because I felt there was always someone who was needier than I and that we would manage fine as always. We share an interest here. But all too often I have seen that many want a handout instead of a hand up. That troubles me. Again, not all or even close to all. I come from one of the poorer parts of this great nation and have worked as much as 3 jobs at once to better myself. Life challenges ensured that I was only able to have an eighth grade education because someone had to work. That alone is very embarrassing to me and something I am not usually forthright in sharing. I have also been broke more than once, the last one costing me all I had but, through more hard work and determination I have come out stronger and more prosperous than ever while never taking a nickle from the government. I fear that we are becoming an entitled nation where people think prosperity is a Right. My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work. For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though. His kind make me ill and there is no one that will do anything about it because those you would complain to are the biggest enablers there are and their job hinges on giving away the treasury. I have been an employee and an employer so I have seen both sides of that issue. I remember many times not taking a check so my employees received one when those paying on a 90 day rotation were too numerous. And I recall giving out Christmas bonuses at the expense of taking any profit for ourselves on more than one occasion. Think how it felt when we paid vacations without having the funds or time to have one ourselves especially how needed it was considering the long hours the business called for. Hope this makes sense? I'm tired as I was up at 5 a.m. to go do it all again. Is it too much to ask the govt to be niggardly with my taxes? I think not.

Yogi the Great -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 8:16:20 AM)
The country I grew up in and was so proud of is gone. The country my father fought for, believed in and taught me to love is gone. The belief in personal responsibility is gone replaced by those who believe others must be responsible for them and they are owed free handouts. Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you is becoming the majority belief. What the founding fathers established and believed in is a minority belief. A very wise man once said that Government is not the solution, Government is the problem. But the problem is that a growing number expect Government to give handouts for nothing in return. A smaller and smaller number of citizen producers are expected to pay more and more for a larger and larger number of non-producers. This course can only result in total collapse and/or abandonment of the principles and beliefs the country was built on. One man one vote? Imagine the electorate consists of 10 people. Easy enough to get elected, just run on the promise that everything will be paid for by those 4 people. You win 6 to 4. Not a far description from where we are. Sorry folks, I'm up late and actually surprised to see this thread still not locked. I guess I couldn't resist the temptation. Overstated above, perhaps, but we are on a wrong path. It may be too late to save our country if we can't find a way to restore the type of government and personal responsibilities we need. This should not pit us against each other if only we would actually believe in and practice those core beliefs. The American Drean need not become lost, we must earn it. Again my apologies for rambling and my hope that no one is offended.

mgarnett -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 9:40:39 AM)
Hi Guys, I read this thread with interest, coming from a country which has very strict gun control, the right to bear arms is such a foreign concept to me. I was a police office for 15 years (a detective for 13 of those years) and carried a sidearm for the entire time. I feel confident that I can comment on the AU criminal underworld, but obviously, I know nothing of the criminal element in the US. In Australia, we had a fairly large shooting massacre in 1996 in Tasmania where one man killed 35 people and injured a further 21, this was and still is, our largest gun related crime. Following on from this, the Government, with public support (although there was opposition), further tightened our gun control laws and instigated a moratorium period in which it bought back, at higher than retail price, 100s of thousands of guns from people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm. Additionally, gun owners are now required to have their firearms secured in a gun safe at all times when not in use, people cannot simply carry them around for protected at all. If you are not a security guard, police officer, farmer culling pests or other similar profession, it is absolutely against the law to carry a gun, no exceptions. One would think then, as law abiding civilians cannot carry guns, that the criminal element would have free reign. Well, speaking from experience, it is simply not the case. Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here (I'm not saying that shootings don't happen, only that they are rare). I'm citing this example, not because I think a similar process would work in the US, but as an example of why it would not. As people have rightly pointed out, US citizens have the right to carry guns, a right that has existed for a great length of time and as such, has become part of US culture. So unless one can find a way to change culture, then no law banning forearms would ever pass, let alone work (IMHO). People can argue for and against gun control until the cows come home, for every stat supporting armed citizens, there is an equal and similar stat supporting disarming citizens. Also, arguments such as, well if you ban guns then ban knives or schools or some other ridiculous option. But this is not an issue about knives, or schools, it's an issue about guns. All problems cannot be solved at once, they can only be tackled individually, it's a fools errand to try and justify gun control (or the opposite) by pointing to other issues. For example, arguments such you can't ban guns because knives are just as bad, or alcohol is just as bad, or medical incompetence is just as bad. These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue. I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position. I hope some way can be found to solve the problem, but as it's such a cultural problem (not just a gun problem), it's not going to be easy. All I can say is this, I live in a society where the population is not armed, but I feel just as safe as I possibly could in any modern society. But as I've said, guns are not part of the culture here and to be honest, having seen the seedier side of life, I'm thankful that they're not. Cheers Mark

MrRoadrunner -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 10:26:31 AM)
The bigger the government, the smaller the people? A government big enough to take away your possessions is also big enough to take away your rights? I'm a firm believer in "government should serve the people". And, that law abiding citizens should never have anything to fear from their government. Plenty of fear, by the law abiding, is here now. Mostly because those who "get things" from the government do not know where the government gets those things. They are willing to take and then allow the government to take more. I rather go down free and in poverty than allow my government to take one more freedom. It starts with one and then another ... and then another ... and another. Soon you are no longer free. Just a slave to a big power that wants to keep it that way? Our downfall will be giving up freedom for a few shiny beads. Don't get me wrong. If your government does things the way you want, and it is legal, I am all for it. I just wish others would go elsewhere to get what they want instead of taking from those who do not want what they want. RR

NefariousKoel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 12:05:21 PM)
They can have my waffles when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

Josh -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 2:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great Sorry folks, I'm up late and actually surprised to see this thread still not locked. Yeah me too, but so far this thread has been most interesting, and as long as folks can be polite and civilized, and not the ... ahum, usual mud slinging, bashing and personal attacks, even a topic like this can be open for quite a while. So far so good. Me, I stay outside this discussion, having no guns whatsoever, and living in a foreign country, my thoughts don't count. Oh, and when a ACW does occur.. please post an AAR? On this forum here would be nice, thank you. [;)] (sure don't hope so such a thing would ever occur again...)

Perturabo -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 2:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work. For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though. It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from. It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs. Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work. Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

Jim D Burns -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 3:50:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm. The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy. Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time. A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead. Some of the bigger prison gangs here are almost Para-military organizations, so disarming people here would leave them wide open to abuse from those gangs. Even with an already armed populace, crimes in the merchant districts of our big cities involving forced extortion and protection rackets run rampant, especially in Chinatowns where there is a cultural aversion to going to the police when trouble comes knocking. These same organized extortion gangs would gladly move their extortion rackets into dense population concentrations and rob people in their homes if they didn't have to fear a shotgun meeting them at the front door as they were trying to kick it down. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue. You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again. Prohibition turned millions of decent law abiding people into criminals overnight and turned those people into easy victims for organized crime to fleece because they could no longer avail themselves of the protection of law enforcement. Prohibition also enriched the gangs by making booze an expensive commodity. And let's not forget the explosion of violence from the gang wars involving attempted control of the booze. You'd see similar results if you outlawed guns here. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position. The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals. Jim

Titanwarrior89 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 5:00:28 PM)
You guys that are "Against Guns" read this. Jim is correct, this is way the world is right now. I my self don't want to harm/injure or kill anyone. But there are some people out there who just don't care. Ever watch the movie in Cold Blood based on a true story, one of the most depressing movies Ive ever watched. I owe it too my family to protect them. You non-gunners are YOU going protect them? I think not.....thats world we live in. quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm. The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy. Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time. A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead. Some of the bigger prison gangs here are almost Para-military organizations, so disarming people here would leave them wide open to abuse from those gangs. Even with an already armed populace, crimes in the merchant districts of our big cities involving forced extortion and protection rackets run rampant, especially in Chinatowns where there is a cultural aversion to going to the police when trouble comes knocking. These same organized extortion gangs would gladly move their extortion rackets into dense population concentrations and rob people in their homes if they didn't have to fear a shotgun meeting them at the front door as they were trying to kick it down. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue. You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again. Prohibition turned millions of decent law abiding people into criminals overnight and turned those people into easy victims for organized crime to fleece because they could no longer avail themselves of the protection of law enforcement. Prohibition also enriched the gangs by making booze an expensive commodity. And let's not forget the explosion of violence from the gang wars involving attempted control of the booze. You'd see similar results if you outlawed guns here. quote: ORIGINAL: mgarnett I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position. The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals. Jim

Wolfe1759 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 7:04:49 PM)
mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 7:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn And then when you have no police to protect you from criminals, you form vigilante squads to patrol and protect your homes from... criminals and... whatever... That sort of happened back in the early 1990's in Los Angeles. Only it was the crimial gangs which went to arms first, and individual and vigilante squads came along quickly in response. A matter of survival. Ultimately, it was the hope of a return to normalcy that underlied the chaos. People tried to hang on to their businesses, possessions and in many cases their lives. The criminal gangs, if left unchecked, would have taken over everything in a very short period of time. You may like to think that humanity isn't capable of oppression and brutality, but really we all live on a very thin veneer of civility, it can collapse quickly. If you live in areas with high concentrations of people, you will need to defend yourself, be subjegated, or leave. It's not a fantasy, it's fact.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 7:24:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR No such thing as an "assault weapon" wish people would quit using that name. I hit you with a base ball bat, the bat became an assault weapon. "Sniper Rifle" is another beauty term dreamed up by gun control advocates.

Chijohnaok2 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 7:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences. In response to your last comment: I suppose our skepticism of government in the US may be a carryover from when we were colonies of Britain. Our Founding Fathers distrusted Parliament and Britain because they felt they were not treated the same equally to British living in Britain. Many came from Britain to America (or their forefather did). They did not receive representation in Parliament. They had British troops quartered in their homes. Their right to trade with other countries was limited. They asked for the rights that other Englishmen enjoyed; but they felt that their concerns were ignored. They grew to distrust Parliament specificly and government in general. This is why when the Founders set up our government, they set up all sorts of protections from the government for the people. They set up three equal branches of federal government, each with the ability to check one another. They had a federal, and state governments, each with their own powers and responsibilities. And, most importantly, within our Constitution, the set up a Bill of Rights, which enumerated the rights of the people, on which government could not infringe. And one of these rights was the right to bear arms. That would provide another check on government should it unjustly infringe on the rights of the people. The likelihood that armed revolution would be necessary is remote, but you might call it a check of last resort. And while the Founding Fathers died several hundred years ago, their distrust in government, clearly demonstrated in the system of government and checks and balances they set up, has almost become ingrained into our political DNA I do not say this as a criticism of your or the UK, I say it as my personal understanding of American's distrust in government.

Perturabo -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 8:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. You should check your privilege: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246182&key= http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246210&key=

MrRoadrunner -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 10:10:42 PM)
I'm glad they have not locked this thread. It's proof that civil discussion can occur? Maybe a look at the Federalist papers to understand the intent: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html Or, further explanation of the Second Amendment in more detail: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html And, an updated writing of the Federalist papers for those who want to read it in modern English: http://www.amazon.com/The-Original-Argument-ebook/dp/B004QWZ5R6 My only comment as and American is that I do not want my Liberty taken away piece by piece by those who do not believe in The Constitution or it's original intent. Plenty of countries around the world to move to instead of taking away rights? RR

jwilkerson -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 10:39:56 PM)
I�m impressed that a thread on this topic has maintained enough civility to last four 4 pages � congrats! (note the thread is not a perfect example of civility but around here � it is pretty darn clean) If the �government� tries to take our guns � it probably wouldn�t be like Ruby Ridge or Waco � even our government wouldn�t be able to �afford� that. But it might be like an offer of payment if you turn in your gun. This was tried in other �countries� like Afghanistan, not sure how it turned out. With an offer of market price (or higher) I image some or even many would partake and this would not require changing the constitution, because (presumably) a person would be surrendering their weapon voluntarily. Of course, there would be plenty of others who would NOT turn in their weapons. So that is one idea to reduce the number of weapons in circulation. Some say quote: But this is not an issue about knives, or schools, it's an issue about guns but maybe �this� is really about a few killers. If you have a killer and you take away the green weapon, the killer will use the red weapon. You will not convert a killer into a non-killer by outlawing a particular weapon. What weapon did Timothy McVeigh use? Fertilizer I think it was. Cost him $5k (IIRC) and killed over 100 people. More efficient than a gun in some ways � but took more planning. Point being a killer will find a weapon. So �this� might be an issue about guns for some people � but maybe it is really an issue about killers ... and unfortunately we have more of them now � and it is easier to hear about them. How can we have less killers? For those who want to see less killings, that would be the question.

Wolfe1759 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 10:52:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chijohnaok quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences. In response to your last comment: I suppose our skepticism of government in the US may be a carryover from when we were colonies of Britain. Our Founding Fathers distrusted Parliament and Britain because they felt they were not treated the same equally to British living in Britain. Many came from Britain to America (or their forefather did). They did not receive representation in Parliament. They had British troops quartered in their homes. Their right to trade with other countries was limited. They asked for the rights that other Englishmen enjoyed; but they felt that their concerns were ignored. They grew to distrust Parliament specificly and government in general. This is why when the Founders set up our government, they set up all sorts of protections from the government for the people. They set up three equal branches of federal government, each with the ability to check one another. They had a federal, and state governments, each with their own powers and responsibilities. And, most importantly, within our Constitution, the set up a Bill of Rights, which enumerated the rights of the people, on which government could not infringe. And one of these rights was the right to bear arms. That would provide another check on government should it unjustly infringe on the rights of the people. The likelihood that armed revolution would be necessary is remote, but you might call it a check of last resort. And while the Founding Fathers died several hundred years ago, their distrust in government, clearly demonstrated in the system of government and checks and balances they set up, has almost become ingrained into our political DNA I do not say this as a criticism of your or the UK, I say it as my personal understanding of American's distrust in government. No criticism perceived and I will admit that the British State / Empire may have made more than a few mistakes (to say the least)in the past when dealing with its dominions and colonies. The need for protection from the government and the "mistrust" of government now make more sense to me with the above context. Also want to say that I'm glad this thread wasn't locked as I very much expected it would be and to echo others comments on the civility of the discussion.

Wolfe1759 -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 10:55:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. You should check your privilege: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246182&key= http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246210&key= Not disagreeing that there is still gun violence in the UK just that my perception is that I am more free from the threat of violence than I think I would be in the US. Maybe I've just been watching too much of Sons of Anarchy recently [:)]

goodwoodrw -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 11:13:26 PM)
Hey as Mgarnett said and Mr Wolfe highlights, its culture not laws that need to be changed. Regardless to what it is, if there is less of it, then less of it will used, whether that item is grog, dope, cigarettes, motorcars or guns. A simple fact reduce these items and there would less deaths through crime social illnesses and road trauma, however to instantly blanket banned these items, would be crazy and unworkable and you would finish up with a situation like the roaring twenties in the US. I don't know a lot about the Prohibition era in the US, but I would suggest the error the legislators made was to change the laws before they changed the culture. Now some might say you can't change the culture of the people, well you can. Australians are an odd bunch and have made some serious changes to our embedded culture over the years. There were a few very successful ads in the seventies and eighties that personified our culture. Ads about cars, football, meat pies and grog. Grog and motorcars in particular were a strong combo causing many deaths on our roads in the seventies. Here in Australia until the 1970s we had a law that pubs had to close at 6pm every night, so workers would knock off at 5pm rushed to the pub and tank up with as much grog as possible then DRIVE HOME Fing crazy. In Victoria our road toll peaked at around 1100 deaths in the late 1970s and thousands of serious maimed motor users. Our Traffic Accident Commission embark of one the most successful advertising programs ever, to reduce the Victorian road toll. Several slogans have been used over the years, but the most successful without question would be "if you drink and drive you're a a bloody idiot." this year our road toll was the lowest since roads statistics have been maintained, 279 deaths, why? government has changed the culture. We have done it with guns as well, by gradual change, we're doing the same with cigarettes, and grog, especially trying to change the culture of underage drinking, it won't happen instantly it will change,and finally cigarette packaging has been changed to plain packaging this year, the government has stood up the tobacco multinationals who threatening to sue. Ahh. I guess what all my waffle is about is moderation, and gradual culture change. I'm not suggesting for one moment to ban firearms or hunting or target shooting etc etc, but for the life of me I can't see the need for every citizen have 5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 3 sub machine guns,2 semi automatic pistols and a cocked revolver in the pear tree. Over the past 40 years the US has changed its attitude when it comes to racism, perhaps in the next 40 years your country can do the same and change the gun culture, I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

Perturabo -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 11:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo quote: ORIGINAL: Wolfe mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument. Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. You should check your privilege: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246182&key= http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246210&key= Not disagreeing that there is still gun violence in the UK just that my perception is that I am more free from the threat of violence than I think I would be in the US. Maybe I've just been watching too much of Sons of Anarchy recently [:)] That's why you should check your privilege. You're privileged to live a safer area and you're denying people who don't have that privilege the right to protect themselves. Also, it's not just gun violence - there's also other kinds of violence that are as deadly. quote: ORIGINAL: BASB I guess what all my waffle is about is moderation, and gradual culture change. I'm not suggesting for one moment to ban firearms or hunting or target shooting etc etc, but for the life of me I can't see the need for every citizen have 5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 3 sub machine guns,2 semi automatic pistols and a cocked revolver in the pear tree. Over the past 40 years the US has changed its attitude when it comes to racism, perhaps in the next 40 years your country can do the same and change the gun culture, I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today! But why? If people can afford having many arms, then why shouldn't they have them? I'm pretty sure that having a few or several guns to go to shooting range with is much more fun than having only one gun.

Missouri_Rebel -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/9/2013 11:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo quote: ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work. For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though. It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from. It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs. Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work. Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary. I guarantee he has a 100% of not being hired when he won't even go look. Nothing quite like the 'why bother attitude'. The rest of us flipping the bill for people working our butts off are starting to get the 'why bother' attitude. I understand that the market is bad, but I am talking about people who refuse to work while I pay for them. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner I rather go down free and in poverty than allow my government to take one more freedom. I so feel this way. And people of the U.K.. You are not free. There are laws forbidding you to say certain things. That is not freedom, that is suppression of thought. Edited to also add the people of Australia have similar speech codes. Actually it is every country in the EU. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1 more edit: That really came out wrong. I'm sorry if I offended my cousins across the pond. Instead of saying you weren't free, I should have merely stated that your speech codes are odd to me. Again, maybe a cultural thing, and I don't intend to influence your laws, it's just something very foreign to me(pun intended).

wodin -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/10/2013 12:16:33 AM)
In the UK if people where posting the things about revolution and taking up arms against the government on Facebook like some Americans I know are doing you'd be arrested. Any spontaneous protest organise don FB your likely to be arrested esp if you talk about revolution ad taking down the government. Our government praised the arab uprisings which were organised through FB. However as soon as we had riots they clamped down immediately on anyone organising things on FB, two young lads got four years each and no one even turned up to the "riot" they tried to organise, infact really thye wher eprobably only messing around yet they got four years!! The riots where perfect for our government it meant they could crack down on anyone trying to organise protests etc so now it would be damn near impossible to try and overthrow or kick out our government through social media..you be arrested within hours.

junk2drive -> RE: A new ACW.. (1/10/2013 12:49:31 AM)
Here in the land of Timothy McVeigh, you don't need a permit to carry a weapon unconcealed, and now concealed too. When I first moved here it was a shock to see people with side arms at banks, stores and restaurants. I've gotten comfortable with it and haven't seen anyone waving around a weapon of any sort. In general, crooks avoid occupied homes and autos because they don't know who will have the upper hand.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625