Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on September 07, 2004, 08:00:00 PM
-
The assault weapons ban is scheduled to expire very soon and it looks like it will not be renewed. Serious question, is this a good thing?
With the War on Terror in high gear we are about to make it VERY easy for these weapons to be purchased. Why force them to smuggle weapons across the border when they can head to Cabella's or Bass Pro Shops? I am a gun owner and avid hunter, but I've never needed an AR-15 or a Bushmaster to kill a deer. It just seems to me that we may be lowering our defenses only because of the elections.
-
Can anyone define what is or is not an assault weapon?
-
I'll agree with you before the **** hits the fan.
-
The 2nd amendment isn't about killing deer.
The "assault weapon" ban was just for show, weapons just as deadly, or more so, were always legally available even with the ban. Terrorists don't give a damn what our laws are.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
The 2nd amendment isn't about killing deer.
The "assault weapon" ban was just for show, weapons just as deadly, or more so, were always legally available even with the ban. Terrorists don't give a damn what our laws are.
ra
ra, how many terrorists use a bolt action Winchester .270? I see a need for hunting rifles, but I really can't see a need for rifles that can drop 30 deer in 10 seconds.
-
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Can anyone define what is or is not an assault weapon?
According to the assault weapons ban, most of the traits that qualified a weapon as an assault weapon were cosmetic:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
* A grenade launcher.
-
^^^
Wasn't the ban the vehicle which did away with high capacity magazines too?
Like it matters whether I can shhot 10 or 25 shots without reloading my .22
h
-
How can you ban something that's been illegal for 50 years...!? The current ban is not about Assault Rifles. It's about weapons that 'look like' Assault Rifles'.
Also, according to the Druge Report Senator Kerry voted to ban the Shotgun he just received as a gift. To weird....
http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm
-
"Wasn't the ban the vehicle which did away with high capacity magazines too? "
Yup
-
I feel the assault weapons ban was a joke. It makes guns that LOOK like an assault rifle illegal.
So, I could take a semi-auto rifle, and with some help from a gunsmith, and make it fire automatically. Wouldnt that be more dangerous than a bolt action rifle that looks like an assault rifle?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Can anyone define what is or is not an assault weapon?
Anything that looks "scary" and has a nasty "banana magazine."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The definition is a political scam that allows politicians to ban any and all firearms if they wish. "Gun control" is another scam in the USA, "gun ban" is what they are doing.
There is no way you typed this.
No.
Way.
Mrs. GS, give him the computer back.
-
Rather then go over the same arguments, I'd like to suggest checking out this site:
http://www.a-human-right.com/
-
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040907/nytu290_1.html?printer=1
National Shooting Sports Foundation: Kerry Accepts Shotgun He Would Ban as 'Assault Weapon'
Tuesday September 7, 5:00 pm ET
RACINE, W.Va., Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a press release regarding the Remington model 11-87 shotgun that Sen. John Kerry recently accepted:
At a Labor Day campaign rally yesterday, Sen. John Kerry accepted an ironic gift from a labor union representative. The gift, a Remington model 11-87 shotgun commonly used in hunting and recreational shooting enjoyed by millions of Americans, would be banned as an "assault weapon" under a bill that Kerry is co-sponsoring.
"The semi-automatic shotgun that Kerry accepted is one that he'd like to ban under his bill known as 'The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (S. 1431).' Kerry tells union workers that he's a hunter, but the truth is he would ban their shotguns," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
Keane said several sportsmen's groups have pointed out that Kerry's effort to cast himself as an avid hunter do not square with his anti-gun votes as a U.S. senator. In various photos Kerry appears unaware of proper firearms handling. The Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund is advertising in national sportsmen magazines and on the Web site,
http://www.voteyoursport.com,
to illustrate these points.
Kerry was given the shotgun by Cecil Roberts of the United Mine Workers of America. The union represents workers at a Remington factory in Ilion, New York. Last year the union urged Kerry to support a bill to end frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers (S. 659). The suits threaten manufacturing jobs.
However, Kerry voted against the bill.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Kerry was given the shotgun by Cecil Roberts of the United Mine Workers of America. The union represents workers at a Remington factory in Ilion, New York. Last year the union urged Kerry to support a bill to end frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers (S. 659). The suits threaten manufacturing jobs.
However, Kerry voted against the bill.
Ok, while I disagree with the bill, my problem with the above statement is that it suggests that Kerry should have 're-paid' the union rep by voting against the bill, and that's just not right.
-
Ban never did any good any way, I know half a dozen places I could get one if I wanted to pay the price,
Of course I live in the West, and most folks out here have been scratching thier heads about the Silly stuff coming out of the East, for years.
I dont know if it is true, but the perception in the West is that Easterners pass a law to show they are "Doing Something" in stead of enforcing the laws allready in place. In OKC, OK in stead of passing a new law, they put up billboards advertising the fact that all crime commited with a firearm would recive the maximum sentence under Fed law. It seemed to work.........
So my take on it is provide the funding to enforce the laws in existance or pass yet another law mirroring one already on the books
My cynicisim meter pegggggs.....
Gunns
-
I think of assault weapons as military issued weapons such as the M16 and AK47/74 variants. If assault weapons are military now what were muskets back in the 1700's? Granted that is a rather hard way to define weapons. Muskets were the only type of long guns at that time. Now we have several classes of weapons. Civillian and military and the inbetween types that can pass for either.
I think of assault weapons as weapons with high capacity magazines firing centerfire catridges. Now the Ruger Mini14 and its variants fires these cartridges and can be had with high capacity magazines but it is not used as a military weapon. Lots of grey areas there.
I am a gun owner and I hunt mostly deer and waterfowl with a little bit of small game on the side. All of my weapons are civilian models. Although you could hunt with so called assault weapons I have not ran across anyone yet who does.
-
Hmmm lets think about this here.
Abdul Han Kasahn goes into Bob's Chicken feen and gun store (sorry made that part up ;) ) and attempts to buy one or two AR15s or variants there of.
He then goes to the next county to get 3 more a few months later as not to be suspicious.
Now asuming current gun laws are the same Mr. Kasahn has to go through an FBI backround check.
Now I'm assuming that this guy or associates is in an FBI computer some how some were and several red flags are being waved down at the said FBI.
Now why would Abdul go through the risk of his plans being unheaved when he could probably get them from a less than public dealer who doesnt care?
-
My handgun should be considered an assault weapon, I show up the cops that come in to the range. They told me they shoot once a month at the station. It is due to cutbacks, and it shows.
Karaya
-
Like many others, I think the assault weapons ban was nothing more than a political ploy to appease the anti-gun folks. Hey, if it'll satisfy 'em enough to leave the rest of us alone I'll gladly forgo the grenade launcher or bayonet mount.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, while I disagree with the bill, my problem with the above statement is that it suggests that Kerry should have 're-paid' the union rep by voting against the bill, and that's just not right.
Kerry shouldnt have accepted the gift if he really considers it a deadly assault weapon. But hey this the "enviorment candidate" who owns a huge SUV, oh no his family does.. And he is the "people's candidate" who orders the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in foont of his multi million mansion because it annoyed him and his wife.. Who cares if the neighborhood burns down, nope no matter, as long as \ Kerry gets his weekly allowance from the mi$$us..
-
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The definition is a political scam that allows politicians to ban any and all firearms if they wish. "Gun control" is another scam in the USA, "gun ban" is what they are doing.
DING DING DING! 50 Points!
Btw, it was never a ban on assault weapons. It was just a ban on weapons and things made after a certain date. Even then, you can still buy toned down versions for 20x less after that date.
The whole thing was a joke and a pain in the ass. There is no real point in it except for show and political gain.
-
this is a landmark thread... it is the first one that I have seen that shlotz was the defining correct answer..
rpm on the other hand is so desperate to save his sinking candidate and justify his anti gun stance that he has taken the far lefts ideology of banning all weapons that can't be used for anything but hunting... as if the founding fathers were so concerned about hunting that they made it the second most important thing in the constitution... I predict that rpm will publicly self destruct pretty soon. he painted himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit he was wrong about the former munster.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm371
ra, how many terrorists use a bolt action Winchester .270? I see a need for hunting rifles, but I really can't see a need for rifles that can drop 30 deer in 10 seconds.
They aint buying AR15s at Cabella's and Bass Pro Shops either.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
"Wasn't the ban the vehicle which did away with high capacity magazines too? "
Yup
Nope.
It made the millions of them already in existence much more expensive is all. It 'did away with" nothing at all.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Like many others, I think the assault weapons ban was nothing more than a political ploy to appease the anti-gun folks. Hey, if it'll satisfy 'em enough to leave the rest of us alone I'll gladly forgo the grenade launcher or bayonet mount.
I hear you, but giving them that concession will only encourage them further toward their stated goals. The USA already has passed more gun-control legislation than any other nation.
-
the magazine ban was to ban manufactruring of new magazines of more than 10 rounds.
lazs
-
What Edbert said. Nothing has been removed or siezed, the bill simply made buying a brand-new mag holding more than 10 rounds illegal. Of course, if you actually look at most manufacturers, you can still get them. Springfield still makes 10, 15, 20, and 30 round mags for their M1A rifle. If you're willing to shell out the cash, you can still buy 'em from the factory... legally. Even though the M1A can be had with a black fiberglass stock, flash suppressor, and bayonet lug, it hasn't been banned. The "Assault weapons ban" just banned a bunch of cosmetic garbage from replacing factory parts. "It's black, it looks evil, therefor we must make a law against them!" Idiots.
All in all the whole bill was a fraud cooked up by a fraud so that goober could "look good" to the public. The fact is automatic weapons require a Class III license (ATF will love you forever). Owning them without a license has been illegal since 1934. The last round of legislation on them was in 1986, which stated no newly-made automatic weapons could be bought by any civilian regardless of licensing. No person in the US can buy an automatic weapon made after 1986. Used ones made before '86 you can still buy, but parts for some of those relics are getting a bit scarce.
Is the ban on "AR" rifles a good thing? Depends on your perspective. Stuffing a 30-round mag at a range is a chore, but you can spend more time trying to kill that offending soda can than with a 10 round mag. Do I agree with the 10-round limit on pistols? Yes and no. Yes, because it gives a perp less ammo to fire at you or an officer. No, because I'd like 15 rounds of Silvertip .40 S&W to fire at the guy trying to steal my jeep. If given a choice, I'd have to say no. 10 shots is plenty for pistols. And before anyone else says it, nobody goes hunting with a 30 round mag. I know two people who hunt with semi-auto rifles. One will only give up his BAR (30-06, 5 shot clip, NOT the WW2 weapon) when he dies, and the other absolutely loves his M1A (5 shot clip). The M1A owner has two pre-ban 30-round mags, and two pre-ban 20-round mags. He leaves them all at home when he goes hunting. His logic is, if he can't hit that deer with five shots he's got no business being out there. Any hunter will tell you it's best to hit the game with one, maybe two, shots. Not fifty shots, as this ruins any meat you can get from the animal.
Edit: As for the cosmetic junk, well that's more personal taste. Fulton Armory has conversion kits for M1A-style rifles that turn 'em into a rather wicked looking piece of hardware. Other than changing the looks, it's just tack-on junk. Some of the Ar-15 mods out there can, in effect, give you a rifle that is hands-down a dead ringer for an M4. Complete with Mil-Spec accsssory rails. Does that make a modded Ar-15 illegal? No, it lets you tack on a flash light and a lot of sighting options. Whoopde-freakin-do.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/lie.gif)
-
HHmmmm to my knowledge the most deadliest terrorist weapons in the U.S. have been these.
potasium nitrate
diesel fuel
Jet fuel
jet airliners
box cutters
ryder trucks
We must start a ban on these weapons of terrorism. These weapons have been used to cause more death and destruction by terrorists than have any firearm used by terrorists in the US. :rolleyes:
-
You can still buy all the banned asault weapons, just without bayonet lugs and flash supressors.
Or you can go down to mexico and buy real assualt weapons and sneak them over the border.
The ban changed nothing other then to prevent law abiding Americans from buying mean looking guns.
Anyone who supports the stupid ban is an idiot. "I don't need a 30 shot rifle for hunting so no one should have one"... What a tool.
I have owned a post ban AR-15, it had no flash hider or bayonet lug, other then that it was a semi auto M-16A2. I would still own it if Cali had not passed even more draconian laws.
Had I kept it I would not be able to resell it in Cali and it would have to be destroyed when I died. I owned it cause it was a fun, cheap(ammo, not the rifle cost me 1000$, yeah a terrorist is really going to buy legal weapons here in the states for stupidly high prices when he could get real ones in Mexico and sneak them in with his bomb.......Yeah he is going to want the background check.... sure.... ) and accurate rifle to plink with at the local range.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So I take it you value your jeep more than a human life?
A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.
-
I have no problem with the laws that say you have to be in danger, or someone has to be in danger to take a life. Shooting someone over you car, is going to far. That is what insurance is for.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.
AMEN.
Karaya
-
I have no problem with the laws that say you have to be in danger, or someone has to be in danger to take a life. Shooting someone over you car, is going to far. That is what insurance is for.
If the person is stealing a car, he isn't the prodigy of civilization. It's not like society will be out one mozart or einstein.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So I take it you value your jeep more than a human life?
I value a nickel more than a thief's life.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
They used to hang you for stealin a man's horse, I see no reason why it has to be any different now. try to steal my car, dodge the bullets!!
I value a nickel more than a thief's life.
If the person is stealing a car, he isn't the prodigy of civilization. It's not like society will be out one mozart or einstein.
A criminal life? Oh yes, by all means.
I love to see some people still have some common sense.
-
You jokers who think shooting someone over your car is a good idea better check your state laws.
You shoot someone stealing your car in Cali and he better be trying to run you down or your going to jail.
You are the type of people liberals love to point to when they want to make gun owners look like fools. You will also be the example they will use when they want to make the case that law abiding citizens should not have guns.
It's justs a car, it should be insured. Yes the Criminal is scum, but he is still a human being.
-
but he is still a human being.
Life is a priviledge, not a right.
-
That law, as has been pointed out, was nothing more than another "feel good" move with no affect on anything at all, let alone crime.
But Thank Cod we got bayonet lugs out of the hands of the lawful public.
Oh wait, we didn't do that. We just prohibited more bayonet lugs frmo getting into the hands of the lawful public. Because most people that wanted them already had them.
What a joke.
-
I'm at a loss of what to do. There is a post early in the thread by none other than Gscholz that I agree with. I'm completely confounded that this (what I thought was) mathmatically impossible event has occurred. Stunned.
-
They used to hang you for stealin a man's horse, I see no reason why it has to be any different now. try to steal my car, dodge the bullets!!
wow, that makes about as much sense as the so called "reasoning" behind jack the ripper, "these women are potatos, therefore not only is it okay to kill them, but im doing society a favour by killing them"
-
and if i dont have the RIGHT to live, i fail to see how i could possibly have the RIGHT to anything else.
-
You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges? A right is something written down that you have. I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.
A priviledge is something you have to earn. You earn a priviledge through good actions and deeds. Last time I checked, stealing a car deserves quick removal of the priviledge of life.
Jack the ripper went out actively seeking potatos. The difference is that we don't go actively seeking criminals. We are just ready for when they come to us.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Can anyone define what is or is not an assault weapon?
The people who choose to want to ban firearms don't really want to know what "an assault weapon" is. They've been influenced too much by hollywood. They will continually want to ban weapons as they go down the list. Maybe someday they will understand that it is a social issue, not a "weapons" issue.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The definition is a political scam that allows politicians to ban any and all firearms if they wish. "Gun control" is another scam in the USA, "gun ban" is what they are doing.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
There is no way you typed this.
No.
Way.
Mrs. GS, give him the computer back.
LOL!!! :rofl
That is by far the funniest thing that I've seen typed here in quite awhile!!!
Thanks Saurdaukar!!
-
I'm another one waiting for the AWB to die. And stay dead. It's just plain horsepuckey - a law based on appearances. There are firearms that are semi-auto, fire rifle caliber ammunition from magazines and are just as deadly as the average AR-15. Difference is a wooden stock - look at the Mini-14. Take a look at the M1 and M1a for that matter. Semi-auto, even bigger caliber than the AR-15 - yet legal because it doesn't have a pistol grip, folding or extending stock. Seems like Feinstein has made it her life goal to try and take away everyone's firearms, but instead of all at once (which wouldn't work because it would alarm everyone) she and her ilk do it a little at a time so no one notices. Just like a pushy sales person who tries to sell you one thing and then after you agree, tries to sell you the accessories, then the protection plan, ad-nauseum until you're broke. In this case, take away evil black rifles because they're so evil looking and the average hunter doesn't "need" it, then when they're gone conveniently notice that sniper rifles look just like hunting rifles (you don't "need" a scope and bipod - everyone can hunt with iron sights offhand). Then what? "Hey, entry teams use shotguns to blow door locks - you don't 'need' to blow locks either. And shotguns are so deadly - just point in the general direction and shoot - they'll get knocked off their feet." Sounds stupid, and shows a lack of understanding of the firearm involved - but that's just part of what got us the AWB in the first place. The AWB doesn't make it any harder for terrorists - they got away with glorified razor blades the last time. What makes it easier for them is for US to have the wrong mindset.
mauser
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Life is a priviledge, not a right.
Some fairly important Americans did not agree.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges? A right is something written down that you have. I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.
A priviledge is something you have to earn. You earn a priviledge through good actions and deeds. Last time I checked, stealing a car deserves quick removal of the priviledge of life.
first, writing down the rights simply makes sure that there "set in stone" the people of the country have to assume to have that right in the first place.
second, last i checked, stealing a car merely results in you leaving the company of society at large for a few years and spending some time with bubba.
third, the right to live is so basic and universal, that it doesnt need to be written down, and all countries have laws to destroy the scum who would idly waste it (murder laws, rape laws etc.)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
The people who choose to want to ban firearms don't really want to know what "an assault weapon" is. They've been influenced too much by hollywood. They will continually want to ban weapons as they go down the list. Maybe someday they will understand that it is a social issue, not a "weapons" issue.
I'm sorry... my question was rhetorical. While I tend to think that some gun control is a good thing, I think the AWB is a silly law written by politicians that want to appear as if they're affecting change without actually doing it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't know the difference between rights and priviledges? A right is something written down that you have. I.E. Free Speech and right to own weapons.
Life is the most basic of all rights, that's why there is no amendment to the constitution stating so. Driving is a previlege.
ra
-
Laser
You may want to read up on your state laws. The use of deadly force to protect your car would prolly end up with you in the jail. Having just read them.
Have a link to help you out. (http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA507.html)
(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.--
The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
such request would be useless;
it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor's dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in dwelling.
So from that page, deadly force in protection of propertie only applies to dwellings not cars.
-
Right, My car was in my garage, which is attached to my house and he had this big knife, and was coming at me...............
-
Originally posted by tce2506
Right, My car was in my garage, which is attached to my house and he had this big knife, and was coming at me...............
at just the right moment you slammed the door in his face and held him down with duct tape until the cops arrived.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Let's just say that while you would kill the thief for stealing your property, I would kill you to save the thief's life.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Not that I advocate killing without being in fear of life, The above statement would certainly go a long way to show intent to commit murder. It also indicates a willingness to conspire to commit other felonies. Facilitation in the commission of a crime is in itself, a crime.
-
Then quite frankly you would be committing murder.
Your premise is at best premature and at worst an indication of premeditation. You simply would not have sufficient time or knowledge to make the decision you have suggested. You would have a severe lack of data to act as an outsider to the situation.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If I see a person trying to kill someone or inflict grievous bodily harm for whatever reason but self-defence or defence of another person, I will try and stop that person with any means necessary, including lethal force. This is not a crime (at least in my country), in fact it is a civil duty.
So if I see you trying to fire your firearm at a person stealing your car, barring if this thief is a threat to your life, I will try and stop you with any means necessary. Including killing you.
I'm sure you mean this as purely hypothetical right? You wouldn't actually shoot someone that was shooting at someone stealing their car, right?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm sure you mean this as purely hypothetical right? You wouldn't actually shoot someone that was shooting at someone stealing their car, right?
using lethal force to stop someone from killing someone...i dont see anything wrong with that picture.
using lethal force to stop someone from stealing your insured car...i do see something wrong with that picture. not that you'd realisticly have a chance to try, it takes less than 20 seconds to steal a car.
-
So, you would shoot me for trying to stop someone from kidnapping my family you don't see that is forced to lie down in the back seat? Or the child in the car seat below eye level? Wow, you guys are a little too quick on the trigger for me, hope you aren't allowed to carry.
-
So if I see you trying to fire your firearm at a person stealing your car, barring if this thief is a threat to your life, I will try and stop you with any means necessary. Including killing you.
And this is how GScholz will get shot himself. If a person just shot someone attacking him and trying to steal his car, what do you think that person will do if you come after him immediately following the initial attempt by the bad guy.
You might as well just kiss your bellybutton good bye.
Plus I was half awake / drunk when I wrote that thing earlier, so it didn't quite come out as I wanted it to.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I am talking hypothetically of course with the benefit of framing the premises of the incident myself. In real life things are not that simple. I would however open fire on a person who is trying to kill someone without being in danger himself or trying to protect others. That is a decision I would have to take there and then with the information I have. The courts would later have to decide if I was justified in my actions or not.
You left out something here, The victim and family of your self appointed vigilante action would also be paying for your choice. Sad you don't see the irony of what you have proposed.
-
Maverick, there will never be a perfect answer that makes everyone happy. Think of the Nazi guards that were executed after the Nuremberg trials, they had family too.
Don't redirect blame to the victim, it should lay squarely on the head of the criminal.
As an adult, I know that I alone am responsible for my actions, including any consequences to my family. The choice is made well before an armed citizen protects himself.
At what point does force become justified? If not when they're taking your car, is it justified when someone burns down your house?
-
(About to really step in it here...)
You said it GScholtz.
These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.
This line of thought is definitely a detriment to gun advocates. Do me a favor and don't try to save my guns for me - I can do it without that kind of help.
-
You have now entered....... The Off-Topic Zone
do do do do
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How can anyone who believes in Christian values have such a repugnant lack of respect for life? I am quite frankly stunned.
THOU SHALL NOT STEAL!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Samiam
(About to really step in it here...)
You said it GScholtz.
These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.
This line of thought is definitely a detriment to gun advocates. Do me a favor and don't try to save my guns for me - I can do it without that kind of help.
"Sanctity of Human Life"?! For crying out loud. A criminal is just that a Criminal. If he is a Felon - he GAVE up his "rights" when he did the deed. Holier than thou rhetoric, makes me wanna puke.
Funny thing is Liberals want Law Enforcement, but due to Democrat budget cutting in Michigan, they are the first ones to b^&( when their homes are broken into. Makes you wonder who the morons in society are, eh? You only care when it happens TO YOU, but "It happened to someone else so why should we care?". If you choose not to own a firearm, fine. Leave me alone. Don't "infringe" on my right to bear arms, you made your choice, now sit down, you have nothing to say.
I'd rather have a Gun and NOT NEED it, than NEED IT, and NOT HAVE IT.
Karaya
-
Scholtz,
Your position is that you would shoot the car theft victim to protect the car thief. Now tell me how is killing a victim to save a thief justified, after all you are taking a life as well here. Who is going to shoot you to protect the guy you were going to shoot? You STILL don't see the irony in your position do you?
You decry the "injustice" of the theft victim killing another person and you intend to stop a killing by killing another yourself.
Just a reminder, in none of my posts in this thread have I advocated shooting the car thief.
-
Talk about getting ahead of yourself, Scholtz. First and foremost, that crack was intended as a bad example to convey my feelings about the 10-round magazine limit. As usual, someone read far too much into things and blew the entire subject out of proportion. Next time I'll use a more plausable example to convey a point. That being said, if I see someone stealing my jeep, I will most definitely retrieve my weapon and confront the goober. 9 times out of 10 that perp won't keep trying to swipe a car, he'll run. Should I be in my jeep at the time, that escalates the crime from GTA (grand theft: auto) to carjacking, and I will use lethal force against the person if necessary. If Necessary, read carefully now. Yes, I do value a nickel more than the life of a thief. Thieves are felons, who gave up their rights to vote, defend the country, own firearms legally, and a multitude of other ones. No, I don't have any "good Christian values" for two reasons: I'm an Agnostic, and I was raised Roman Catholic.
Yes, in Cali it is a felony to defend your's or any other person's property with lethal force, unless another person's life is at risk.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/veggie.gif)
-
I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.
These are the same guys who believe so much in the sanctity of human life that they value the life and rights of an unborn fetus more than those of the mother. But they're sure going to kill the SOB that stole their Jeep.
I don't recall ever giving my opinion on this subject.
While I do feel that I should have the right to Shoot anyone stealing my property, the truth is, I'm probably not going to shoot anyone unless they are inside my house(and then only if the dogs don't get them first). I didn't realize everything was taken literally here!
GScholz, you are simply amazing.
-
hmm.. two subjects here... first..
horse theives were hung for a very good reason since.. if you lost your horse you would probly be more vulnerable to the elements and could die. If I were out in the dessert with no means but my car to get out and someone was trying to steal it... I would do anything up to putting a bullet into him to get him to sesist... otherwise... no. I have pointed a gun at someone stealing from me but they dessited. if they had decided to attack me instead... I would have shot em.
assault weapons... again...shlots is on the right track... all gun control in the U.S. is a concerted and consious effort towards an ultimate goal of total gun bans. While I have little interest in the so called assault weapons or cheap plastic 30 round pistols... It is a matter of drawing a line in the sand. If they can't take away the so called assault weapons then they can't go after me or my guns.
Once they get an assault weapon ban they go after.... magazines... then semi autos then pump and lever guns... then ... whatever... it is a matter of drawing a line in the sand.
lazs
-
There will always be compromise lazs, it's unavoidable. Where to "draw the line" is the tough question. The biggest threat I see concerning our 2nd Amendment right is this:
Kerry has called himself a hunter from age 12 and a gun owner who supports the Second Amendment. But he has voted in favor of gun control. Kerry supports extending the soon-to-expire ban on assault-style weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131856,00.html
-
My local paper this morning has an interesting blurb about this whole subject (the AW ban, not Scholtz's rants). Seems there was a last-minute campaign by Brady and a bunch of other cooks to get Congress to re-inact this bill. It was shot down in flames. One said that the bill was enacted more for "good looks" than for function, and the American people just wanted it dead. DeLay had an interesting quote, saying "even if the president asked me to, I'd still say no." Most people in Congress apparently feel the same way, and are going to let it croak.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131813,00.html
For Scholtz,
Don't take everything so literally. I said it above, and I'll say it again: that single line was typed to make a point about the 10-round limit on magazine capacity in the Assault Weapons Ban. Not to imply I'd rush out of my front door at 4am, sky-clad, with an M-60, to mow down the hapless hordes of car thieves rampaging through the neighborhood. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not shoot anybody.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/end_net.gif)
-
Schultz,
Last time to try and explain this to you. Please read slowly.
Your situation is a vigilante action and is in fact making you an accessory to a crime. You are killing to facilitate a car theft. You are now dropping the value of your victims life to the level of protecting a thief's interest in stealing. In short you have devalued the lifre of the theft victim to below that of the value of the car.
You'd be acting with insufficient information to even determine the facts of the situation yet would use deadly force as your first response. Nice job there, and you call others reactionary.
I have had the misfortune to have to determine use of lethal force in a situation in a very short time, you lack that perspective. Quite frankly in my experiance and IMO you are flat out wrong here in what you propose.
-
Scholz,
Yes, if it was legal I would not hesitate to shoot someone who was stealing my property. Not only would it decrease the amount of theft in this country, but would also lower insurance premiums. Obviously, we're not going to agree on this subject, but what fun would that be?!
-
Kewl!
In the Old West, as the bank robbers shot their way out of the bank, the Sheriff and alert townsmen would rush out and trade shots with the bank robbers.
Mild mannered storekeeper Scholtz would grab his double barrel, step out on to the boardwalk and unload one barrel into the Sheriff's back and then nail any other citizen still shooting at the robbers with the other barrel.
The townsfolk would then honor him for his unusual respect for the sanctity of life.
-
Ok, the bank robbers have successfully robbed the bank without killing anyone and are just riding out of town shooting into the air.
Same result; storekeeper Scholz shoots the Sheriff and the Townsman.
Happy now?
;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Then quite frankly you would be committing murder.
Your
No he would not.
-
That works. Of course, they'd throw a necktie party and you'd be the guest of honor.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Kewl!
In the Old West, as the bank robbers shot their way out of the bank, the Sheriff and alert townsmen would rush out and trade shots with the bank robbers.
Mild mannered storekeeper Scholtz would grab his double barrel, step out on to the boardwalk and unload one barrel into the Sheriff's back and then nail any other citizen still shooting at the robbers with the other barrel.
The townsfolk would then honor him for his unusual respect for the sanctity of life.
I don't believe anybody has argued againt using lethal force against armed robbers shooting their way out of a bank.
We're responding to tce2506, lasersailor184, flakbait and others asserting that a car thief should be gunned down just on the principle that car thieves don't deserve to live.
Relating back to the gun rights argument, these are the whacko poster children for the anti-gun lobbey and we can all do without them in our crusade to retain our gun ownership (and lawfull use) rights.
-
I hope the dumbacrats concoct another law like this a year down the line. Because this one made me a boat load of money when I sold all my "Pre-ban" stuff for top dollar (100% over cost), now all I have to do is re buy the same stuff after the ban goes away in 5 days for pennies on the dollar...
Thanks dumbacrats. You made me money for once as opposed to taking it away!
:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nonono, read the last sentence again.
I did. I'm just suggesting the "honor" you'd receive would be made of strong manila rope and be generically known as the Hangman's Noose.
-
What you propose there is vigilantism. I enjoy seeing you defend the concept. How typically......... hypocritical? :)
Would I shoot you? I don't know. More likely, I'd step between you and him while telling you that I'll help the cops track him down and replace your car in any event.
When caught, I'd let him go to prison too. Then I'd have to ask myself if I was part of the problem that led him to crime instead of asking me for a loan.
-
Toad, go back and read the original posts of tce2506, lasersailor184, flakbait.
Vigilantism is exactly what they advocated and they used their need to be vigilantes to justify their right to own and use a gun.
In my book that's a pretty big step backward for us who believe in the second amendment and the spirit in which it was written.
-
I read it.
I'm just enjoying Scholz advocate vigilantism himself. I love it when he does that kind of stuff.
Mav laid it all out for anyone who has an ounce of common sense.
-
As Mav pointed out to you, what you espouse in this thread would be highly illegal vigilantism.
-
(http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_racist.jpg)
-
Really? I find that very hard to believe.
You can shoot at anyone shooting at anyone else?
Should make a lovely daisy chain down the street.
-
Um, shooting a car thief has nothing to do with the second amendment. It has to do with the right to protect your personal property from low lifes who are commiting a FELONY. It's called Grand Theft Auto. Yes, I have insurance to replace my car. It's also going to cost me my deductable(whatever that may be set at), plus MY insurance rates as well as my neighbors' insurance rates will increase because we NOW live in a high crime area. Sure we can complain to the cops who will send an extra patrol car to our area once a week. Gee thanks. Yep, Id much rather just sit on my porch and kindly ask the punk to please not take my car. If i didn't have a gun nearby, I'd grab my ball bat, tire iron, kitchen knife, wooden spoon, lawn chair or whatever else was nearby and I wouldn't stop shooting or swinging untill he/she stopped moving, or was no longer in my reach. And Samiam and GToRA2, you sirs, are the ones who are a detriment to our 2nd ammendment rights. Saying its OK for them to restrict our rights a little bit at a time is just what they want. Just keep giving them that inch, they won't want anything else. The spirit of the 2nd amendment is to keep our government from taking away our rights. The 2nd is the only one that guarantees the rest. OK, I think I'm done now......
-
Originally posted by tce2506
And Samiam and GToRA2, you sirs, are the ones who are a detriment to our 2nd ammendment rights. Saying its OK for them to restrict our rights a little bit at a time is just what they want. Just keep giving them that inch, they won't want anything else. The spirit of the 2nd amendment is to keep our government from taking away our rights. The 2nd is the only one that guarantees the rest. OK, I think I'm done now......
Let me be clear. I believe in very few restrictions and the AWB isn't one of them. I believe strongly that an armed population is a vital deterent to an oppressive government.
I also believe that you asserting that it's OK to shoot a car thief as an act vigilantism because if you don't your insurance rates will go up is NOT in the spirit of the 2nd amedment and rhetoric like it will only result in more restrictive gun laws.
I hope you are done now.
-
Well, let's look at your example.
Young perp is stealing car.
Olaf hauls out his FN and starts whacking away at the perp. Scholz sees this and hauls out his HK and strats tripping the trigger on Olaf to "protect the life of another citizen", the perp.
Hans down the block can see Olaf shooting but can't see the perp; he doesn't know if Olaf is shooting a red deer or a car thief. Hans also sees Scholz whacking away at Olaf. Hans pulls out the Husqvarna and lays a few at Scholz to "protect the life of another citizen", Olaf.
Meanwhile, Bjorn sees Hans ...........
So, technically the only illegal vigilantism here is Olaf. Hans and Bjorn are blameless. Lovely system you have there.
-
Let me be clear. I believe in very few restrictions and the AWB isn't one of them.
Care to elaborate on which restictions you are for? Just curious. Anything more restrictive than felons being denied the right?
-
Or metally disabled, had to get that one in too.
-
tce2506
Like I said above I am for things like background checks, and wait periods, or any control to make sure nutt jobs do not get guns.
I am agaist anything, that would keep normal law abiding citizens from getting any gun they want including machine guns in a reasonable time.
You better check you state laws cowboy before you go capping people over you car. You very well could end up in jail.
I do not support any of the current crop of gun laws Cali has tried, like making gun makers do exspensive tests to sell their guns in the state or force gun makers to install internal locks or the guns can't be sold(only for new designs).
Taking un un armed criminals life over your car will do more harm then background checks will.
Defending your right to bare arms now is more then about dogedly stating "you cant restrict it at all, no checks etc" it just makes you look like a gun not to the "normal" middle of the road people.
Gun owners need to start making sure they do not come off as idiots and give the other side more ammo to ultimatly ban guns.
Saying you would kill someone, another human being over a car when you life was not threatend makes you sound like an animal, or person who should not be trusted with a firearm.
-
It's not vigilantism if you are preventing a crime against yourself.
Gscholtz, the more and more you post, the dumber it seems you get. I don't know if I just thought you were smart to begin with, but now...
-
You better check you state laws cowboy.........
Cowboy....... I'll take that as a compliment.
As far as the rest of your Kalifornia, liberal, criminals have rights too rhetoric, It's been entertaining and educational chatting with you, but I will not waste any more of your (or my) time. I will say that with your strong will and tenacity I am glad you are on the Pro-Gun side. and good luck.
-
You don't get it. It's not vigilantism if you are protecting yourself!
Vigilantes go out looking for crime to stop, much like you yourself said you would.
-
Originally posted by Toad
That law, as has been pointed out, was nothing more than another "feel good" move with no affect on anything at all, let alone crime.
But Thank Cod we got bayonet lugs out of the hands of the lawful public.
Oh wait, we didn't do that. We just prohibited more bayonet lugs frmo getting into the hands of the lawful public. Because most people that wanted them already had them.
What a joke.
Bayonet lugs are nothing, look at the pure chaos caused by...
CARRYING HANDLES! My god, the horror! :)
I really need to get out of the People's Republik of NJ
-
Originally posted by Rino
Bayonet lugs are nothing, look at the pure chaos caused by...
CARRYING HANDLES! My god, the horror! :)
I really need to get out of the People's Republik of NJ
I don't know, you might poke your eye out with that carry handle :)
Dan/Slack
-
Schultz, read Mav's post about facilitation and my original post again. This time try not to troll for sound-bytes or take a specific sentence so far out of context.
Originally posted by flakbait
Do I agree with the 10-round limit on pistols? Yes and no. Yes, because it gives a perp less ammo to fire at you or an officer. No, because I'd like 15 rounds of Silvertip .40 S&W to fire at the guy trying to steal my jeep. If given a choice, I'd have to say no. 10 shots is plenty for pistols.
This is a normal form of presenting a "both sides of the coin" example. On the one hand, you have option A. On the other, you have option B. If given the choice, I'd take A over B. Instead, you whipped up a furor by taking a single line from that quote so far out of context it isn't funny. Hindsight being what it is, I admit I could've chosen a better method of presenting the other side of the argument. Then again, you could've asked me if I meant that in a literal sense. You didn't, you chose to run all over the place with one sentence that didn't mean what you thought it meant. Politicians do this on a very regular basis, I just never had you pegged as one. As for valuing a thief's life less than a nickel, that's an easy one. The thief is more interested in his 15 minutes of kicks than anything else. Unlike a Marine grunt, a doctor, a cop, a paramedic, an Air Force pilot, the local flight instructor, or a family man/woman, the thief is doing it all for himself. Unlike all those folks, a thief is not dedicating his time and effort in making a positive difference in another's life. He's dedicated to doing what he wants when he wants, regardless of what impact that has on another person's life or how much damage it causes. I can't hold a person like that in anything but a negative light.
And yes, in the United States, facilitation is a crime. If Toad spots someone stealing his car and threatens that criminal with a gun, he is stopping a crime in progress. If you shoot Toad, you're effectively defending the criminal with lethal force. So in addition to being charged with excessive use of lethal force, reckless discharge of a firearm, and attempted murder, you'd also be charged with facilitation of grand theft auto. Because you didn't stop the thief, you stopped the man trying to stop the thief. In the law's eyes, you'd be guilty of aiding the thief even if that wasn't your intention. I'd trust Mav on this point, as he was in law enforcement for an awful long time.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/stupid_ppl.gif)
-
RPM...why...
Why would you want me to protect myself,family or anyone else ,with a bolt action winchester 30-06 scoped rifle against someone /someones with ak 47s.....why does someone always want us to be sucking the hind tit?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I hope the dumbacrats concoct another law like this a year down the line. Because this one made me a boat load of money when I sold all my "Pre-ban" stuff for top dollar (100% over cost), now all I have to do is re buy the same stuff after the ban goes away in 5 days for pennies on the dollar...
Thanks dumbacrats. You made me money for once as opposed to taking it away!
:aok
Have you also noted how the soon to be banned weapons sales skyrocket right before a ban? The Democrats and Republicans voting for the "assault Weapons" ban really have no clue.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If I see a person trying to kill someone or inflict grievous bodily harm for whatever reason but self-defence or defence of another person, I will try and stop that person with any means necessary, including lethal force. This is not a crime (at least in my country), in fact it is a civil duty.
So if I see you trying to fire your firearm at a person stealing your car, barring if this thief is a threat to your life, I will try and stop you with any means necessary. Including killing you.
Sooo...following this logic, I see you about to shoot the guy about to shoot the car thief, so it's my CIVIL duty to shoot you??
hmmm..... how incredibly stupid is that?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Just shooting someone because they're holding or firing a gun isn't enough. The courts will later decide if you were justified in your actions. If I see a man about to kill an unarmed and obviously non-threatening man, I will try and stop it. If I am armed I might even kill the assailant to save the other man. If I killed a man just because he held a gun, or if I didn't see what he was shooting at, I would most likely be charged with second-degree murder.
If you were armed and at 101 California St., you'd be considered a hero if you took out that crazy killer right as he tried to start his massacre.
-
what does any of this have to do with the so called "assault weapons"?
myabe I should show a picture of all my firearms and you guys can decide which ones I should and shouldn't own? Be glad to send the pics to someone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Just shooting someone because they're holding or firing a gun isn't enough. The courts will later decide if you were justified in your actions. If I see a man about to kill an unarmed and obviously non-threatening man, I will try and stop it. If I am armed I might even kill the assailant to save the other man. If I killed a man just because he held a gun, or if I didn't see what he was shooting at, I would most likely be charged with second-degree murder.
I guess you still don't see the huge gapin' flaw in that. So I am walking down the street, and I see you about to fire a gun upon a guy about to fire a gun. Under you logic, and I do recall you saying this was 100% legal where you are from AND ones civic duty (you seem to be backpedaling a bit), I should shoot you to keep you from shooting them. That's what you said, I would be defending the guy you are about to kill, and under your premise it would be perfectly ok to kill you.
Mull that one over a bit please and see just how silly it really is. The whole premise of taking a life, to prevent the taking of a life is not only nuts, but is horribly flawed logic. I trust you see the hypocrisy in your analogy.