Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on October 11, 2002, 02:35:37 PM
-
Typical conservative quote - "If you got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?"
WASHINGTON SNIPER HAS A FRIEND IN NRA
FORGET HANNIBAL LECTER, the embodiment of evil in its purest form is roaming the Washington, D.C., area right now, killing and wounding adults and children with cold dispatch.
We don't know his name, but we do know this: The mystery sniper who has all of Washington hiding under its covers has an identifiable partner in crime who should be held nearly as responsible for these reprehensible acts as the shooter - the National Rifle Association.
Because of the NRA, police are having a harder time catching this crazy than they should.
Other than a chilling tarot card depicting death and bearing this handwritten message "Dear Policeman: I am God," investigators have found only one other kind of clue to track this monster down: bullet fragments.
Ballistics have long allowed police to link a bullet to a particular gun. So if they ever find this killer and his weapon, they can clearly connect rifle and crime.
But what if you could reverse the process and link a gun to a particular bullet? The technology now exists for every gun's ballistic "fingerprint" to be kept on file. In this way, police could instantly know which specific gun was used in the commission of a crime and track down the owner.
But who has opposed this sensible idea? The NRA. The organization has bullied Congress into refusing to set up a national registry of guns.
A federal program is needed because a piecemeal effort won't be enough. Maryland, where many of these shootings have been committed, requires gun manufacturers to submit ballistic fingerprints of guns sold in the state. But that information is useless if the weapon was purchased in another state, or before the requirement went into effect.
Experts believe the weapon being used is either an assault rifle or a hunting rifle. A hunting rifle, in particular, will be difficult to trace because the NRA has been very effective in keeping any information about hunting rifles away from law enforcement officials.
We're all for privacy, but it's reckless to put privacy of gun ownership above human lives. If the government has a compelling reason to know what car you drive, what home you live in and how much you earn, shouldn't it also know what kind of gun you own?
Nothing will bring back the six lives - or possibly a seventh victim gunned down last night - that have been lost, or spare the pain and terror a 13-year-old felt when he was cut down by a .223 caliber bullet. But maybe this horror in the nation's capital will finally force Congress to ignore the dangerous rhetoric of the NRA.
-
Ohhhh JEEZ, thats reaching....times are desperate for Dems aren't they?
-
FYI< CRIMINALS DO NOT REGISTER THEIR WEAPONS. Clear?
-
They really meant to finish with "finally ignore the gobs of liquid cash the NRA throws at Congress, much like every other special interest group that lobbies the Legislature."
-
How about this: since the DC area has no CCW laws, or permits allowed, this makes that area MORE VULNERABLE to nut cases like this....in other words, if the public was armed, the chances are the sniper wouldn't take the risk of being shot by any Joe, Dick or Harry that happened to be walking by. Put that in your Kumbuya pipe and smoke it. :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How about this: since the DC area has no CCW laws, or permits allowed, this makes that area MORE VULNERABLE to nut cases like this....in other words, if the public was armed, the chances are the sniper wouldn't take the risk of being shot by any Joe, Dick or Harry that happened to be walking by. Put that in your Kumbuya pipe and smoke it. :D
If the public is armed it just increases their chances of being killed by police officers while hunting for the real sniper. Go ahead... take your gun into indian country. It won't protect you from the sniper and it'll make you a potential target for the police.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How about this: since the DC area has no CCW laws, or permits allowed, this makes that area MORE VULNERABLE to nut cases like this....in other words, if the public was armed, the chances are the sniper wouldn't take the risk of being shot by any Joe, Dick or Harry that happened to be walking by. Put that in your Kumbuya pipe and smoke it. :D
Kumbuya pipe...LOL I liked that one.
But Rip et-guntoting-al.
If this guy is using an M16 or M14 as reported, the gun and its ballistic signature could have been registered at the factory.
The Police would then have a place to start looking. Makes sense to me. Why would the NRA be opposed to this?
-
But what if you could reverse the process and link a gun to a particular bullet? The technology now exists for every gun's ballistic "fingerprint" to be kept on file. In this way, police could instantly know which specific gun was used in the commission of a crime and track down the owner.
I don't have a problem with this one bit
Problem is it would be a useless waste of time as past the initial owner/buyer, the database would be inaccurate more than not ...
-
Yeah... does anyone know why they are opposed to this? Is it out of some kind of principle... a privacy thing... or is there another issue? Cost involved?
What's their take on it?
-
Well, 1 in 5 people are FAT in the USA, I think we should start registering spoons, BECAUSE ITS NOT THEIR FAULT, ITS THE SPOONS FAULT! ;)
-
Rip... it's not about blame... it's about tracing a bullet to gun and possibly a shooter. Rather than wave our hands and say there is nothing that can be done, there is something we could do. Unfortunately the NRA opposes it.
Kinda funny... this is one of those instances that Eagler likes. You know... if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried.
If you're not planning on committing a crime, why should you care if the government identifies the ballistics characteristics of your weapon?
-
If everyone didnt have a spoon then there wouldnt be so much obesity tho eh? Or will you argue that they'ed just pick up a fork and forks are more deadly cause their easier to conceal ?
-
Sandman, hypothetical situation (which is 95% of what happens in real life with criminals that own guns...)
I steal a gun. How you gonna trace that to me?
Hmm? Huh? Hmmm? Huh? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
If you're not planning on committing a crime, why should you care if the government identifies the ballistics characteristics of your weapon?
Thats not what concerns me, its the beauracracy(sp), taxes collected. No wonder the Left supports this...tax and spend, tax and spend.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sandman, hypothetical situation (which is 95% of what happens in real life with criminals that own guns...)
I steal a gun. How you gonna trace that to me?
Hmm? Huh? Hmmm? Huh? ;)
Difficult, no doubt. But, at least it gives the police somewhere to start.
-
Fingerprints are also registered in the United States. It still takes weeks at times to get a match, provided the perpetrator has ever been arrested or inducted in the military and provided the analysis is correct. Perhaps you would prefer that all persons in the US be fingerprinted immediately so they could ALL be in the crinminal data base. That would make finding the criminal SO much easier wouldn't it. Of course we would have to ban gloves or take steps to see that only authorized people could get gloves so that unscrupulous people wouldn't be able to conceal their fingerprints.
Of course then we would need a much bigger data base to house the info in and a national person registration law to punish those who refuse to be registered. Of course we would also have to combine all state, county and local law enforcement data bases to make sure we have all the bases covered. A national ID card would be next, after all you'd need to prove your identity and that you were properly registered to be able to be here. Of course if you have never done anything wrong you don't have a thing to worry about do you. Lastly you'd NEVER have to worry about identity theft or the data base being wrong either. Multiple people with the same names??? That would NEVER happen.
I love this crap about protecting people by banning something misused by a few and punishing the many for it. Yep that would REALLY be protecting rights and liberties wouldn't it.:rolleyes:
Where does it stop mt and sandman???? How far are you going to go to make sure people are "protected"?
-
Another great myth, that a gun's fingerprint stays the same. Why don't you guys do some research on this, instead of just repeating, endlessly, this stuff.
A gun's fingerprint CAN change. Dirty cartridges can cause scratches in the bore, which changes it's fingerprint. So can dings in the crown of the muzzle. So can copper-coated bullets, which leave residue behind to coat the bore. So can firing a large number of rounds through it. So can rust. Any firearms expert working for the government who doesn't have a political point to make could tell you the same thing.
Besides, who will you blame if the killer turns out to be a terrorist? They can buy any arms they want in the Middle East and smuggle them into the U.S.
Puh-lease!:rolleyes:
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Where does it stop mt and sandman???? How far are you going to go to make sure people are "protected"?
I do belive this is the same crowd that is jumping all over the Atorney General and others for violating their rights :)
-
The ballistics on a gun change with how much its shot.
A bullet shot at the factory, on a gun with 5 rounds through it will not match the same gun after it has a few thousand rounds through it.
This would mean that for a gun that gets shot the records would be useless.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The ballistics on a gun change with how much its shot.
A bullet shot at the factory, on a gun with 5 rounds through it will not match the same gun after it has a few thousand rounds through it.
This would mean that for a gun that gets shot the records would be useless.
Please don't list facts. Facts just give them headaches. It's much simpler to live in the clouds and not address reality.
-
human fingerprints are almost permanent,so called gun "fingerprints' are just machine marks left when the barrel is broached and will change over time depending on what goes down the barrel, cleaning brush, hard jacketed bullets , rust , even lead bullets will wear it some and change the markings , you could also polish the bore or even change it.
to take a "fingerprint " at the factory and creat a huge data base would only be marginely effective.
way it is now , if the police find the gun right after the crime and have enough of the bullet left to read any markings they some times can make a match.
to take "fingerprints " of guns at the factory is not a magic bullet to stop crime , it's just one more "feel good" law that wont work, BUT it will create a data base of guns and gun owners, some thing that liberals and dictators love to have.
44MAG
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
This would mean that for a gun that gets shot the records would be useless.
Unless you submit to fresh fingerprinting once in a while.
miko
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Fingerprints are also registered in the United States. It still takes weeks at times to get a match, provided the perpetrator has ever been arrested or inducted in the military and provided the analysis is correct. Perhaps you would prefer that all persons in the US be fingerprinted immediately so they could ALL be in the crinminal data base. That would make finding the criminal SO much easier wouldn't it. Of course we would have to ban gloves or take steps to see that only authorized people could get gloves so that unscrupulous people wouldn't be able to conceal their fingerprints.
Of course then we would need a much bigger data base to house the info in and a national person registration law to punish those who refuse to be registered. Of course we would also have to combine all state, county and local law enforcement data bases to make sure we have all the bases covered. A national ID card would be next, after all you'd need to prove your identity and that you were properly registered to be able to be here. Of course if you have never done anything wrong you don't have a thing to worry about do you. Lastly you'd NEVER have to worry about identity theft or the data base being wrong either. Multiple people with the same names??? That would NEVER happen.
I love this crap about protecting people by banning something misused by a few and punishing the many for it. Yep that would REALLY be protecting rights and liberties wouldn't it.:rolleyes:
Where does it stop mt and sandman???? How far are you going to go to make sure people are "protected"?
You should visit germany, you'd like it :)
-
:eek:
Next you will be saying it's Bushs fault!
Yeah he hired someone to shoot all those poor Blacks, Gays, Woman because he is a Republican and the only thing he cares about is drilling for oil in Alaska and starting a war with Iraq!
No NO I see it now he is trying to cover up the Election he stole!
Yeah! All those people that were shot are linked to the Florida election. They were all down in Florida making all those poor innocent Black, Gay, Old people stupid!! Yeah they did something to the water and now he is trying to cover it up!
PUH-LEEZE!!:rolleyes:
The only person to blame for the shootings are the ones pulling the trigger!
-
The problem with "fingerprinting" the gun is that you have to find the gun first, then compare it to a round from the scene. That is the way it is being done now and only in that manner can you confirm that that was the ACTUAL gun used in the act. Any "fingerprint cartridge" from the factory depends on how it was collected, filed and ultimately stored. As has been pointed out in other posts it is patently bogus as a reliable method of identification. With 10 seconds and a pocket knife I could render any "fingerprint bullet" ID impossible.
-
Originally posted by devious
You should visit germany, you'd like it :)
Perhaps you would like to explain your criptic remark. I am not into the madam cleo bit.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How about this: since the DC area has no CCW laws...
thats very misleading. DC has very strict no guns laws, but DC is the smallest part of the DC metro area. VA and MD is the majority of the area and even the majority of the densely populated (double meaning intentional. very high fraction of in-duh-viduals in that population) urban area. only one of the shootings have been in DC. most have been in MD. the 1st and the last 2 have been in VA. VA has easliy obtainable concealed carry permits and amongst the most easy going gun laws in the nation.
that being said, forcing gun owners to register is a presumption of guilt and the same logic could be used to allow gov't to force you to register practicaly anything you own, as it may be used in a crime.
anyway law enforcement doesnt prevent crime. they sometimes catch the prepetrator after the damage has been done. only rarely do the police actually stop an in-progress crime.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
FYI< CRIMINALS DO NOT REGISTER THEIR WEAPONS. Clear?
yeah, but at least they would know who "didn't" do it, (if all guns were registered).... LOL
-
Any truth to the statement that registration records were used to confiscate guns in UK? I don't quite care enough to look it up, but it would be a very strong case against registration in my eyes.
-
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
"those with something to hide are the first to scream about such measures"
Can you match the above quotes to the AH conservative who posted them?
-
you can't confiscate guns until you know who has what, so first you pass a registration law to help "stop crime " (hey, we register cars , don't we?) ,and all law abiding people will reg their guns,
once you have the lists then you pass laws to confiscate the guns , "to help control crime" but not all at once , first it's "assualt rifles' then "hand guns , then hunting rifles , then shot guns , then paint ball and bb guns.
44MAG
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kumbuya pipe...LOL I liked that one.
But Rip et-guntoting-al.
If this guy is using an M16 or M14 as reported, the gun and its ballistic signature could have been registered at the factory.
The Police would then have a place to start looking. Makes sense to me. Why would the NRA be opposed to this?
MT,
What's your stance on putting a tracking bracelet on every person who has been convicted of a violent crime and is released, through serving sentence, paroled, etc....
After all, they have shown a pre-disposition to committing a violent criminal act, and therefore should be registered and have there whereabouts immediately obtained and tracked whenever a crime has been committed.
Now, the ACLU would fight this, and should the organization be demonized? (btw, my answer is no).
After all, it is known that repeat offenders do exist.
Hell, forget known offenders....put a chip in everyone..afterall, people commit crimes, not guns!!
This should make sense to you to MT, following your tracking analogy. And it would be more affective...at the time of each shooting they can call up the stored records of all persons in the vicinity by their chip signal and match the times and places.
No, and neither should the NRA. It is not the great satan. Hell, to me, the great satan is the DNC and the RNC.
Cobra
-
I was about to ask about the firearm-print thing, but those who responded answered it. It didn't make sense to me that you could put a fingerprint to a gun b/c there are so many things that can be done to alter it, ands a lot of it is unintentional/coincidental. The last time I shot was 10 years ago in my high school rifle team (uses .22LR match rifles), so I don't have firsthand knowledge of anything else. But wouldn't shooting jacketed ammo leave copper deposits in the rifling? That would mess up a fingerprint a little. If you run a rod down your bore and gorilla it and scratch the inside of your bore that would definitely change things. Not to mention having work done on your barrel and chamber.
I wouldn't mind registering a firearm, I'm pretty law abiding anyways. However, if it gets stolen and used in a crime, the first person they would check would be me unless I found out it was stolen and reported it in time. But after that lead has dried up (i.e. if I report it in time or they correctly find out it wasn't me), then what?
I think the media should just report what's happening and leave the police and FBI to the theory part. It seems the police would be better trained than most of the journalists out there in profiling, crime scene investigation, figuring out motives. Some journalists seem to want to pass their opinions off as news...let the public think on their own.
mauser
-
Well Cobra, not so sure how you feel, but while some people may give their guns names and treat them like a best buddy, a gun still ain't a person.
So your analogy just won't hunt... get it?
-
LOL...i get the hunt thing....which I do hunt.
And I fear anyone who gives inanimate objects (and some animate ones) names.
My analogy is closer to hunting than you think.
And again, the gun is the instrument, the person is the real threat.
If your goal is to curb crime and catch those who commit crimes quicker and easier, than tracking the populace through chip implants is the answer to that goal.
I would never support this, btw.
It gets stickier when we decide to pick and choose.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How about this: since the DC area has no CCW laws, or permits allowed, this makes that area MORE VULNERABLE to nut cases like this....in other words, if the public was armed, the chances are the sniper wouldn't take the risk of being shot by any Joe, Dick or Harry that happened to be walking by. Put that in your Kumbuya pipe and smoke it. :D
thats so stupid its indescribable
-
i know what we could do....
lets just over react to this whole DC sniper thing and make the .223 round illegal..
i bet that would make all you bleeding heart liberals happy.
or better yet...lets blame Charleton Heston.
i would far rather take my chances getting sniped than have peace loving americans lose their rights because some smacked out whacko wants to ice people at the gas stations.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Any truth to the statement that registration records were used to confiscate guns in UK? I don't quite care enough to look it up, but it would be a very strong case against registration in my eyes.
I believe it was one of the scandanavian countries.
-
Originally posted by john9001 ... and bb guns.
Already illegal in New york City.
Cobra: Now, the ACLU would fight this, and should the organization be demonized? (btw, my answer is no).
They insist of adherence to the Law. If the law is modified accordingly they would not object. In several states criminals already forefeit certain rights permanently, including voting.
miko
-
My take on it. I think the Criminal is using a bolt-action rifle. He probably bought it under the table (without registration) or stole it. He truly believes that he won't be caught (as do practically all criminals committing criminal acts). I feel he probably has collected .223 brass casings from a semi-auto (prob an AR15 type as that is the most popular type of its kind) at a gun range from an unsuspecting fellow shooter. He is probably planting a single casing at the scene before he shoots (to throw off investigations so that they target semi-auto owners). Since he is shooting only once per incident, he is not cycling his bolt to eject/reload. The actual casing is still with the rifle. The bolt action (dollar for dollar) is more accurate and reliable than the semi-auto. The bolt-action rifle is also not as bulky as your typical "assault" type rifle. This coward of a killer is probably a loner, a social retard. He needs to 'prove' himself (by far most likely male, not female.) in his distorted mind that he is not weak. Because he has led a sheltered life he has not known any real joy or happiness. I'd wager he never even actually had a meaningful relationship. Probably has been rejected his whole life by his 'peers', parents, and the women that he has tried to get to know better. Only now is he getting a 'rush' out of his pathetic existance of a life.
He won't stop as he's addicted to killing. Only hope that he gets stopped before he kills or wounds again.
-
What if the weapon was stolen? Time for the police and witnesses to get on the ball.
-
NEWS FLASH!
I had a thread a month ago about a pal who worked in a gunshop in Ontario named John Fullerton who got blown away by some robbers.
I just posted a thread about a guy I do buisness with every week, an x cop who owns a gunshop, who was JUST shot in a robbery.
Canada has spent 1 BILLION dollars on a "gun registry" much like the one being kicked around here. BTW, we haven't even BEGUN the process of registering the actual "firearms" really yet, other than restricted access stuff, this is the price for JUST the firearms possesion/aquisition licenses.
USA = 3x more guns per capita, and Canada has probably 15 million or more firearms by best estimates. Think of the costs for the USA, especially since none of it has diddlyING WORKED HERE.
-
IIRC in States you also have register-plates in your cars so Police can check out who's car was that which just run over a child.
Why are you having problems to put up a register for guns ?
-
Because it is far less likely for vehicles to be outlawed and then those registration records be used to confiscate them.
-
WASHINGTON SNIPER HAS A FRIEND IN NRA
As an NRA member that lie really pisses me off.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Because it is far less likely for vehicles to be outlawed and then those registration records be used to confiscate them.
Yep there is a global record of registration leading to confiscation. The only thing protecting us from confiscation is the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. And the Bubbacrats just spent 8 years trying to erode and evade and annihilate that Amendment.
With Ashcroft (who has been outspoken in his support of the 2nd Amendment) as attorney general, I would feel fairly safe with registration. But once the Dumbocrats get back in office, there is ample evidence that they would try to parlay registration into nationwide confiscation.
If there were an abundance of world-wide precedents for auto registration leading to auto confiscation, I would be against auto registration as well. Who knows, if we get some envirowhackos in office again they might try it. I know the California Air Resources Board nutjobs would love it.
-
California is trying to ban jet skis, personal water craft , guess who has the registration lists of owners????
-
Because it is far less likely for vehicles to be outlawed and then those registration records be used to confiscate them.
In otherwords, it's far more likely for *guns* to be outlawed and then those registration records be used to confiscate them.
Shouldn't "outlawed" things be confiscated? I would think that your issue would be with the actual outlawing, and not the confiscation of outlawed things. So you need to go somewhere else for recourse in that matter, because nobody is outlawing your guns. The registering is an attempt to help solve another matter.... and that is the tracking down of nutjobs who use these guns to randomly blow people away.
If guns get outlawed, yes, there's a bit of a paper trail involved. But I would think you would want to take that up with the people involved in outlawing them.
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by Staga
IIRC in States you also have register-plates in your cars so Police can check out who's car was that which just run over a child.
Why are you having problems to put up a register for guns ?
[/QUOTE]
Staga,
Driving and owning a car is not a right in the Unites States.
The license is outside and visible for all to see, providing the perpetrator has not
a. obscured the plate
b stolen the car
c. stolen the plate.
d. made their own plate up. (yes people try to make a fake license plate, some are quite good)
All of which doesn't stop; the deaths of about 40,000 a year in the US alone. Now that registration thing worked there didn't it? :rolleyes:
BTW driving on a suspended license, expired or fictitious license plate is very common. Another success story for licensing huh.
I ended up arresting the same guy 3 times in 2 weeks for DUI. He didn't have the right to drive, his PRIVELEDGES were REVOKED but he was still driving. Yepo it really stopped him didn't it. I supose we should have just taken the vehicles away from everyone to see that no one else gets hurt or killed in a traffic collision. That is the same damn thing that has been proposed and it will have the same damn results.
It isn't the tool that is the problem it's the prettythang using it. What's next? Just lock every one up?
It is neither right nor proper to punish many for the errors of the few or even the one. When this sinks in you MIGHT have a handle on what freedom means. Freedom does NOT equate to safety.
-
Difference being you're talking about outlawing something that whether you agree or not is consitutionally protected you must at least aknowledge it is arguable. Given the steps that have followed registration in previous cases it is not reaching to be concerned that this will follow the same path.
So yes, the issue would be with outlawing them. Starting with the question of registration.
-
Several decades ago the United States tried an experiment in legislating morality and "protecting" society. It was called prohibition. It took a constitutional ammendment to implement it and it resulted in the single largest lawless period in our history. We created instant felons out of the majority population in every state who openly flaunted the law. It was short sighted and simply stupid.
-
wait...why are licenses bad for cars? Or am I missing a big part of this analogy?
-
This freak could be using a civilian version of the M16 or a sporting rifle like the Ruger Mini-14. Hell....he could be using a military rifle purchased on the black market. He might be using a "varmint" rifle in .223 made by Remington or Winchester just as easily and probably a hell of a lot more effectively than some battlefield job. I cant see the difference between any of em. Just remember one thing. He is taking one shot at a time. There is nothing the Clinton assault weapon ban could have done to prevent this.
You can try and outlaw all guns. It will no stop this.
You can try and finger print all guns, it will not stop this.
Point is you cant stop this sort of cruel and human sickness by law. There will always be a workaround for the insane mind.
Crazy insane behavior has but one consequence in my mind, swift justice at the hands of law abiding people.
You can pass all the laws you want. This sort of thing cannot be regulated by law or man. This is a sick human mind, very very sick. It must be caught and dealt with swiftly....fat chance.
Just a side note: I own a 30 year old scoped Wichester model 722 in 308 caliber. This is your standard run-o-the mill deer gun and any man so inclined can easily kill another man with a single well timed shot out to 300 yards. I heard one of the killing shots was made at a distance of over 600 yards. A single killing shot at that distance with as small a round as the .223 deserves some recognition for marksmanship. Point is, any decent rifle with a scope is far more lethal to society than any pistol. Why? Because at the distances involved, the shooter can be highly concealed and quickly depart the neighborhood with little notice.
It has always been this way. The concealed shooter is simply more lethal. Find this person and kill him quickly, for everyones sake.
-
i hope the sniper wasnt inspired by the movie "Little Murders". i'd hate to see that flick vilified.
it was obviously satire
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You can try and outlaw all guns. It will no stop this.
You can try and finger print all guns, it will not stop this.
Point is you cant stop this sort of cruel and human sickness by law. There will always be a workaround for the insane mind.
Crazy insane behavior has but one consequence in my mind, swift justice at the hands of law abiding people.
You can pass all the laws you want. This sort of thing cannot be regulated by law or man. This is a sick human mind, very very sick. It must be caught and dealt with swiftly....fat chance.
You're probably right about the assault guns ban, but everything else is the same gun-advocating BS that is so common with all the owners on this board and in general for that matter.
Maybe outlawing guns wouldn't have prevented this coward from doing all this, but it would have prevented thousands of other shootings. Don't come up with the retarded 'a car can kill too, so revoke all licenses' BS or 'a gun doesn't kill, it's the owner' stupidity. Every rational person acknowledges that when you are in the legal posession of firearms the treshold for using them is much lower, otherwise you'll have to go out on the black-market and purchase one, a relatively difficult and costly task for the average citizen in countries with proper gun laws.
I know this won't persuade you gun-morons, never has, never will probably, but I'll illustrate it with a factual example which can't be denied (the conclusion can, of course).
In the Netherlands firearms are not allowed in public, only on ranges with stringent screening and licensing. Generally you can say we've got the situation being referred to endlessly by the gun-advocates, generally only the criminals have guns. While at first it seems a bad situation in practice it's very acceptable, because virtually all shootings are between organized criminals in remote locations settling accounts etc. This means that domestic, traffic and all other sorts fights are all but solved without firearms, saving thousands of lives. Conclusion:
In a normal society firearms have no place except for game wardens and law enforcement etc.
And in such a society the self-protection argument is BS, as are all other arguments to have the public own guns.
Finally I would like to undermine my relatively coherent argument above by stating: F*ck the NRA, it's sick that a bunch of (semi)-criminal lobbyists have any kind of, let alone this kind of influence in a democratic society.
-
Guns are dangerous, they just get people killed.
-
How do you outlaw knowledge. I read a news report about terrorist a wile back. I was suprised to see a detailed explanation of how to build a bomb, using household items, contained in the report.
Convicts, under the strictest supervision, manage to build all kinds of things, that will kill a man. Including guns.
At the age of 14, I made a serviceable four ten shotgun. I used nothing but a toy airplane launcher and some pipe I found in the trash. It might not sound like much. But, a four ten, at close range, is more powerful than a .44 Magnum.
If this dips hit wants to kill people, he will find a way. The Internet is full of "how to" stuff of that kind.
-
F*ck the NRA, it's sick that a bunch of (semi)-criminal lobbyists have any kind of, let alone this kind of influence in a democratic society.
F*ck you right back.
I AM the NRA, b10tch.
In a normal society firearms have no place except for game wardens and law enforcement etc.
Wow, nice brainwashing they've done on you.
(http://www.thewaitegroup.com/dads/nraaffiliation/images/nrabanner.gif)
-
The NRA goes WAY overboard.
Personally, I believe any citizen without a criminal record should be able to purchase and own just about any firearm they please. But why the hell do people argue about waiting periods and registration? The government shouldn't tack on dozens of extra fees, but I don't see whats wrong with waiting for a background check, and registering the gun.
Let the law abiding citizens own guns if they please, provided they're registered, and have had background checks.
No matter what you do, the criminals will have guns. Outlawing them will only stop non-criminals from having them.
And ANYTHING with the potential for accidents will cause them. Cars, bicycles, kids toys, staircases, etc. Banning something based on accidental, or irresponsible usage is just stupid, unless you're also trying to outlaw cars.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Any truth to the statement that registration records were used to confiscate guns in UK? I don't quite care enough to look it up, but it would be a very strong case against registration in my eyes.
Thats what I was thinkin Fatter....
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I do belive this is the same crowd that is jumping all over the Atorney General and others for violating their rights :)
And the riposte of the day goes to... ... Krusher.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
"those with something to hide are the first to scream about such measures"
Can you match the above quotes to the AH conservative who posted them?
yeah, it was me .. so?
As stated earlier, no problem with the gun "fingerprint" if it worked, but as stated throughtout the thread, it'd be just a another waste of tax dollars.
As Cobra suggested, I say chip everyone & let Big Brother and the GPS satellites sort em out :)
The problem ain't the guns, it's the ppl. Just as the BigMac ain't the fat problem, it's the fatties piehole, just as it ain't the cigs but the smoker, etc, etc, etc .. see the connection here ... it be da ppl not the object
:rolleyes:
-
Every rational person acknowledges that when you are in the legal posession of firearms the treshold for using them is much lower, otherwise you'll have to go out on the black-market and purchase one, a relatively difficult and costly task for the average citizen in countries with proper gun laws
Never been to Canada I take it.
Or England.
We here have a boatload of gunlaws, ones that would make even moderates in the USA quake. The UK has an outright virtual firearm ban, but for small bore and specific side by side shotguns, with incredible hoops to jump through to own them.
Give me ten minutes here in Canada, I could call a person who could call another person, and you could have ANY type of gun you wanted. This is within the "otherwise law abiding" firearm cummunity here, where people are obeying every law except the firearms act. MG42 belt fed machine guns, full auto whatevers, surpressors - they are all over the place here in the Canadian shooting scene, let alone what all the drug runners and other mafia types bring in here.
I do business with Saber arms in the UK. Since the gun ban, they told me that gun crime is up 400%, and that getting any modern handgun/subgun from the street is so exceedingly simple that virtually every criminal who wants to be armed IS.
So much for your theory. We can all agree to disagree in regards to the "rights" surrounding firearms ownership and use, but please don't make sweeping statements that are 100% not true, or based on facts and statistics.
BTW, in terms of cost, the street cost for new handguns in Canada is about 10% less than what full retail is in the USA, and pretty much on par with legitimate counter prices here in Canada, mainly because the amount of handguns being smuggled or stolen within the country is in large bulk shipments. If you wanted a Glock 9mm, you could have one for about 900$ Canadian or 600$ USD, off the street, in any major city in the country. I don't have any UK stats, but I'd imagine it isn't a whole lot different.
-
Ok so... they find out that the gun and it's rifling was regestered to an owner who reported it stolen 6 years ago. Or... they finally catch the guy and find out the gun has been rebarelled.
Anti gun wussies making up gun laws.... gotta laugh. none of em know the first thing about guns. I could make a gun in my garage.. lots easier than swapping engines in cars. I can make a silenced weapon if I care to.
the neatherlands... LOL!!! I love it when some white as a sheet netherlander get's on here and talks about what we ought to do in our country. Every single person in his country looks just like him and was raised just like him and works under the same government blanket.. he wouldn't last 10 minutes in a couple of places I could drop him off in over here. Not a good thing but... a fact of life.
yeah... guns can kill people. they are a good tool for that (although not as good as fertilizer or even semi trucks) but... we are not the netherland for better or worse. I like it here. So do millions upon millions of other folk. With that much diversity you get some risk. I am willing to take/live the risk but I need the tools to defend myself and others. With this much divirsity you get a high risk of an oppressive government spawning... i want to be armed when they ask me to step into the oven.
more tho.... I want the govenment to know I (and millions of my countrymen) are armed so that they don't even think about asking anyone to step into the oven.
one thing all the anti gun nuts have in common is that their knowledge of firearms is laughable.... if they got into any other arguement with such a puny knowledge of the subject they would be ashamed...
but here's the catch.... when they actually learn, do the research.... they are no longer anti gun... at least the honest ones who aren't simply phobic... ask John Lott.
lazs
-
Damn lazs. You and I are on the same brilliant page.
Press on!
-
Fingerprinting is crap.
Run a stainless steel brushcleaner through the barrel a few times,then spend an entire minute changing the firing pin.
Guess what.The ballistics on the previous bullet are now worthless.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
QUOTE]Originally posted by Staga
Why are you having problems to put up a register for guns ?
Staga,
Driving and owning a car is not a right in the Unites States.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Voting is a right. We register for that also.
-
and here's the kicker.... I work with the water you drink. If I wanted to kill a toejamload of you I sure as hell wouldn't take my six shot 44 out to do it... or even my "assualt rifle"
you trust me with your water but not with a handgun?
oh... and I don't have anything to hide. Not yet I don't. Look at the poor aussies bastards tho if you want to know why I fear that I may have something to hide in the future. the people who ask me if I have anything to hide are not just short sighted.... they are myopic.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
yeah, it was me .. so?
As stated earlier, no problem with the gun "fingerprint" if it worked, but as stated throughtout the thread, it'd be just a another waste of tax dollars.
As Cobra suggested, I say chip everyone & let Big Brother and the GPS satellites sort em out :)
The problem ain't the guns, it's the ppl. Just as the BigMac ain't the fat problem, it's the fatties piehole, just as it ain't the cigs but the smoker, etc, etc, etc .. see the connection here ... it be da ppl not the object
:rolleyes:
Only one of those was you Eagler, and I was hesitant to post your quote because you have not been hypocritical in your views.
My point was to show that the right wing may be all for giving up some rights for "security" but against giving up others. You can't have it both ways. Either you keep your rights or you give them up.
And BTW, I had a S&W .38 with a short barrel. Sold it when the kids were getting older because it was single action and I worry too much.
-
Just to set the record straight in case any had any doubts. I am the NRA as well and am offended by the lie that is the title of this thread. As a retired Police Officer I dare say I have faced many more hostile armed situations than the vast majority of those that post about how bad guns are. I have "been there, have the T-shirt" and still believe that there is a right to bear arms.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look at the poor aussies bastards tho if you want to know why I fear that I may have something to hide in the future.
lazs
huh?
-
Here's a couple links. Hope they work.
"Ballistic Fingerprinting" -- The Maryland Example (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=97)
To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look to England (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=35)
Les
-
Christ Thud, I know Europe is an overpopulated mess, but you cannot be so ignorant as to think there is nothing more to the United States than sidewalks and parks.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Just to set the record straight in case any had any doubts. I am the NRA as well and am offended by the lie that is the title of this thread. As a retired Police Officer I dare say I have faced many more hostile armed situations than the vast majority of those that post about how bad guns are. I have "been there, have the T-shirt" and still believe that there is a right to bear arms.
Here in Finland all guns are registered and buyer needs a licence to buy a gun and ammunition.
If you need more info I could ask from my friend, last time I heard he was having 37 different handguns from .22 to .45, few shotguns and rifles and licence to buy/store 2000 rounds with maximum caliber of 75mm (about 3 inches).
His friend has two 20mm Lahti AT-rifles, one is deactivated and another isn't.
Registration of guns doesn't mean that law-abiding citizen couldn't have as many guns as he would like.
Just FYI.
-
Been wondering when this one would show up again.. been hashed out a few times in the O'club.
Hey Toad!! Where are ya man?!? Whatever happened with those programs you linked in the last debate over gun/anti-gun?
I'm pro-gun. I'm also pro-gun education. Some of the worst arguements of my life have with anti-gun idealists, and been more than once that an anti-gun nut has thrown a punch at me because I shot down every arguement he made using nothing but logic (and yes, I stayed calm while they got aggitated).
Gun fingerprinting and registration. They're both worthless and I'm against both. And here's why: THE COST!
Many folks have already said how easy it is to alter the finger print a gun leaves on a projectile. It's rediculously easy. So you've got some buearacracy created to manage all these finger prints. That's alotta fingerprints to keep up with. Then ya add registration to what they have to keep up with. What kind of animal is the DMV where you live? Whatever agency was created to keep up with all this info would prolly make your DMV look like a sunday bridge club meeting. And WE have to pay for that worthless mess, and yes it's worthless for all the reasons mentioned above.
And registration... well.. what was one of the things old Adolf did when he came to power back in the '30s? Wasn't it registration of firearms? Then confiscation? A person with a gun is a citizen, a person w/o a gun is a subject.
Let me give a prime example of why I'm against fingerprinting, and this is a true story. A good number of years ago I was roommates with a real good friend of mine. He'd been wanting to get a handgun for home defense and casual sport shooting for awhile, but life kept getting in his way every time he tried to save up some money. So, to skip alot of details, I have a nice chunk of change dropped in my lap, and my friend went with me to the gun shop/range one day, and I bought a Colt Delta Elite in 10mm for him. He paid me little by little every week on payday til it was paid for. So we have a gun with my name on the yellow sheet, but it was never my gun.
Ok, a few months after he has finished paying me for the weapon it was stolen by a crack head we knew. We got it back and the crackhead went to jail. I got married and moved away. A few months later my friend is robbed again, and you guessed it, they took the delta elite. Police report is filed, etc etc etc, and he told me how the cops commented he got lucky last time it was stolen, but don't expect the same luck this time. 6 months later the gun turns up one state over. It had been used to committ a murder, and the cops have the gun.
(begin hypothetical here)
The cops run the fingerprint and come up with my info on the yellowsheet, so I've got cops coming round looking at me as thier prime suspect until they find out where the gun is, do I still have it, who did I sell it to, etc etc. Then my friend becomes the prime suspect until they talk to him and get the police report etc.
(begin worst case scenario)
Then ya get an overzealous Asst DA who desperately needs a win on a capital crime. I'm halfway across the country, so even though the chain starts with me I'm safe from the nutcase prosecutor. My friend gets hauled in because that's where the chain stops. He was close enough to have committed the crime, and unless he's got an iron clad, airtight, God himself couldna dispute it alibi he's in a world of hurt. Reported the gun stolen, killed the guy a few months later, tossed the gun, etc etc. They've got the gun, they've got me saying I sold it to my friend, and my friend saying he bought it from me. It's reported stolen and turns up a few months later being used to kill.
Allowing, of course, that the fingerprint hadna changed significantly.
And the same thing could be said about registration. They've got the gun, so they run the registration. Me, my friend, reported stolen, and they wonder if it was really stolen or just a report made to cover the crime it would committ.
-
And to say the sniper has a friend in the NRA is just ludicrous. Whoever started trying to make that connection needs some more education.
-
Has anyone really read the Second Ammendment? No where does it state we as a public have the right to bear arms. It states that we are allowed to create and maintain a local militia for defense of the country, and the right to bear arms for that purpose shall not be infringed.
As for outlawing guns...that would go over like a lead balloon. You know how many people in America own guns? Try getting those people to give up their guns just cause some wacko in Maryland starts shooting people. They wouldn't...they would hold on to their rifles and shotguns and pistol with their lives, citing the 2nd Ammendment like no other.
All you gun owners, are you regulating your own militia? Are you setting up an army for defense of the country? We as Americans have slightly misinterpreted the 2nd Ammendment to the point where we find it unconstitutional to take away our guns. However, the Supreme Court has stated that the gov't CAN regulate firearms if they see fit. CCW permits make it harder too, as they give you the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, giving you another way of taking the life of fellow humans.
Think about it...if you got mad at someone to the point where you pull your weapon out. That's all it takes to become like this guy in Maryland. The ease at which someone can get any kind of weapon in this country means that this guy culd be using any kind of weapon. They've identified the bullet as .223...what is that, 7.62mm? I'd think this guy could buy a hunting rifle or a civilian M-16 or M-14 (the non auto ones) and have a perfectly "legal" firearms to use in his spree.
To those of you living in the sniper's hot zone...please be careful. Tell your loved ones you love them...cause as bad as it seems, you never know.
-
Originally posted by texace
CCW permits make it harder too, as they give you the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, giving you another way of taking the life of fellow humans.
Ya know.. I remember way back when FL was considering concealed carry permits all the nay-sayers and anti-gun nuts were predicting the end of life as it was then known in FL. Vigilante posses, murder rates sky rocketing, etc etc etc.
The posses never showed up, and capital/violent crime went down. Gonna have to go dig through my collection and see if I can find it so I can give ya the issue/date, but I recall reading an interview with a gang member in FL who was in jail, and the gang member said thier preferred targets were tourists, because the gang knew the tourists didna have guns.
/shrug
.223 is 5.56mm, amongst others. M16/AR15 is .223/5.56mm
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the neatherlands... LOL!!! I love it when some white as a sheet netherlander get's on here and talks about what we ought to do in our country. Every single person in his country looks just like him and was raised just like him and works under the same government blanket.. he wouldn't last 10 minutes in a couple of places I could drop him off in over here. Not a good thing but... a fact of life.
Why do you assume I am white as a sheet, I'm a not even caucasian, you moron. And well, you've clearly proven that you're all but an undeducated moron who does not bother to find anything out about things, cultures, countries or people that are more than 100 miles away from his trailerpark. And finally there are a lot more places which would kill you in 10 seconds, i.e. all situations in which some form of coherent thought is necessary to get out. Making tough statements on the IN, LOL
-
thud... the Unites States is not the neatherlands. You are the one who is taking your local situation and projecting it on us. That is fine but... I certainly don't need your input on what our laws should be based on an entirely different situation.
Hmm uneducated? Moron? trailer park? doesnt bother to find out about other cultures more than 100miles etc ...? who is making all the assumptions here?
I'm sorry but the thought of huge street gangs led by the likes of "sven" and doing drive-bys in the netherland ghettos is just too precious.
lazs
-
Has anyone really read the Second Ammendment? No where does it state we as a public have the right to bear arms. It states that we are allowed to create and maintain a local militia for defense of the country, and the right to bear arms for that purpose shall not be infringed.
............................. .........
There is too much information available to refute the above statement here. However, our Constitution consistently associates "rights" with individuals, and "powers" and "authority" with governments/states, i.e., governments don't have rights, people do.
For more information, here is a link:
A Primer On The Constitutional Right To Keep And Bear Arms (http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php)
Here is a link on our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective
Our 2nd Amendment: The Original Perspective (http://www.nraila.org/Articles.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=21)
Les
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Christ Thud, I know Europe is an overpopulated mess, but you cannot be so ignorant as to think there is nothing more to the United States than sidewalks and parks.
Thud's viewpoint is one of pre- 1689 British Bill of Rights, before James II was deposed. You must remember, European society at that time was heavily weighed in favor of the aristocracy... not the common man, thus his reference to game wardens and law enforcement having sole rights to possess firearms. This, in effect, disarmed the common populace until 1689, where the right of self defense was acknowledged by the British Bill of Rights.
His "normal society", as described in his post, would have been an early 17th Century aristocracy.
Not sidewalks and parks Fatty, though you're on the right track...more like castle estates and heavily guarded hunting lands.
Les
-
you liberal anti-gun nuts are a joke, show me in the 1st amendment where it's says i can burn the flag or display obscene "art" in a public place, read me the words, you interpet the 1st admendent with a very broad brush.
but
where the 2nd amendent says , quote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " you say well no it don't realy mean that, it mean that the army can have guns, do you really think they wrote the 2nd amendent just to say the army could have guns??
""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."" what word don't you understand? it don't say 'the right of the milita to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
44MAG
-
My point was to show that the right wing may be all for giving up some rights for "security" but against giving up others. You can't have it both ways. Either you keep your rights or you give them up.
And I thought you could see shades of gray.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm sorry but the thought of huge street gangs led by the likes of "sven" and doing drive-bys in the netherland ghettos is just too precious.
lazs
ROFL
I'm picturing the kidnappers from the Big Lebowski.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
And I thought you could see shades of gray.
Sure I can Kieran.
However, in this case, giving up "some" rights is kinda like being "sorta" pregnant, or "almost" a virgin.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you liberal anti-gun nuts are a joke, show me in the 1st amendment where it's says i can burn the flag or display obscene "art" in a public place, read me the words, you interpet the 1st admendent with a very broad brush.
but
where the 2nd amendent says , quote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " you say well no it don't realy mean that, it mean that the army can have guns, do you really think they wrote the 2nd amendent just to say the army could have guns??
""the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."" what word don't you understand? it don't say 'the right of the milita to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'
44MAG
You're paraphrasing. It states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That is the cause of the debate, IMHO... that well regulated militia part. Had the framers of the Constitution worded it as you say above, there would be absolutely no room for argument, nor would there be any room for gun control laws.
As for flag burning, the Supreme court pretty much nailed that one... The proper method of disposing of a flag is to burn it. If you burn it outside on the steps while yelling and screaming, the only difference between this and the the "proper" way is attitude and emotion. Displays of attitude and emotion fall squarely in the 1st Amendment. It's not a "broad brush" at all.
Then there's the obscenity thing... the best the courts can come up with are arguments such as, "I'll know it when I see it." Pretty hard to legislate that. What's obscene to you, may not be obscene to me and vice versa.
-
Originally posted by texace
Think about it...if you got mad at someone to the point where you pull your weapon out. That's all it takes to become like this guy in Maryland. The ease at which someone can get any kind of weapon in this country means that this guy culd be using any kind of weapon. They've identified the bullet as .223...what is that, 7.62mm? I'd think this guy could buy a hunting rifle or a civilian M-16 or M-14 (the non auto ones) and have a perfectly "legal" firearms to use in his spree.
Had a guy here in town a few years ago... Was really REALLY pissed off at his mother in law. He bought a pistol. Waited the standard amount of time before receiving the weapon. Upon receipt, drove over to her house and shot her. So much for "cooling off.":)
-
his mom must be pretty tough if the only way to kill her was with a legal handgun.
leslie... the 2nd does not say "for the purpose of" anywhere... it is you who cannot read. it says that a well regulated militia is needed. It says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are of course breaking that amendment.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Had a guy here in town a few years ago... Was really REALLY pissed off at his mother in law. He bought a pistol. Waited the standard amount of time before receiving the weapon. Upon receipt, drove over to her house and shot her. So much for "cooling off.":)
and if he couldn't get a gun, ya dont think he'd figured out another way to murder his ma-in-law??
:rolleyes:
yep, it was the damn guns fault, not the crack pot son-in-law
-
Violent crime rates have little to do with the availability, or lack thereof, of firearms.
Japan is often cited by anti-gun zealots as a prime example of why U.S. citizens should not be allowed to possesse guns.
Switzerland is cited by gun-owners as an example of a society where almost every home possesses a firearm.
Both have extremely low rates of violent crime. There are many differences between the cultures of these two countries. The one thing they have in common are citizens with a tremendous sense of self-discipline.
So more stringent gun laws, or even gun confiscation, would not guarantee lower violent crime rates in the United States. Gun confiscation in Britain and Australia have not had the desired effect. Gun-related crimes have skyrocketed...by as much as 30 to 40 percent. It seems the criminals didn't turn theirs in. Because of confiscation, in Australia especially, they have a safer environment in which to carry out their nefarious operations. The real tragedy of Australia is that, prior to a well-publicized one-of-a-kind event, there was very little gun crime in the land down under. But liberals in that country seized on that event as justification for fashioning and imposing a series of draconian gun laws. As a result, it appears that the Aussies are a good deal less secure now than they were before.
Oh...and PLEASE do not cite Europe as an example of an area with sensible gun laws to control violence. Most west-European nations had strict gun-laws imposed upon them during the late 1930's and early 1940's. The result was tens of millions of murdered civilians, whose governments turned over lists of gun-owners to the Nazis. Any citizen in the occupied countries who did not turn in their firearms were arrested and shot. The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps only AFTER they were disarmed. The Nazis hid their true purpose with lies and deceit. These victims didn't know the danger they were in until too late.
For our liberal friends who would assure me that "It couldn't happen here!" let me state that I do not believe it. Perhaps it couldn't happen under present circumstances, but what guarantees can you make for the future?
I do not want to have to live in a fortified "old-folks community" when I'm 65 because that is the only way the government can guarantee my safety. That's the type of situation you would have in the U.S. with an unarmed citizenry. I don't want to live that way. I live in a rural environment, away from large centers of population. It takes the police a good while to respond to a 911 call. Leave me the ability to provide for my own security. It's my responsibility anyway, not that of the police. Their main job is to provide collective security, not individual security. You cannot even hold them responsible for their inability to protect you. They cannot be sued in court, at least successfully, for failing to protect us from violent crime.
If you want to be sheep, so be it. Just do not require me to live the same way.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Oh...and PLEASE do not cite Europe as an example of an area with sensible gun laws to control violence. Most west-European nations had strict gun-laws imposed upon them during the late 1930's and early 1940's. The result was tens of millions of murdered civilians, whose governments turned over lists of gun-owners to the Nazis. Any citizen in the occupied countries who did not turn in their firearms were arrested and shot. The Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps only AFTER they were disarmed. The Nazis hid their true purpose with lies and deceit. These victims didn't know the danger they were in until too late.
You really believe that ?
Don't you live in lalaland ?
-
Here's the prob, MT...
Can anyone give me a reason why someone needs to possess a 20mm cannon? It would make squirrel hunting easier in some ways, but there wouldn't be much left to eat afterward. OTOH, if someone wants to keep a handgun in the house for protection, it would seem perfectly reasonable. In a black-and-white world that 20mm would have to be allowed if the handguns are allowed- and that is nuts.
-
Straffo,
Are you saying it DIDN'T happen? Or don't they teach 20th Centry European History in the Netherlands? The governments of many west European countries knuckled under to the Nazis and helped round up their own Jewish citizens. These same governments turned in lists of their gun owners to the Nazis.
Do you seriously believe that it didn't happen? Almost the only country that didn't actively help the Germans round up Jews was Denmark, led by it's heroic King Christian X.
Do you deny that millions were murdered? Do you deny that the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, with a measly handful of weapons, embarassed the German military machine? Do you deny that a much larger armed uprising by the Jewish citizens of Europe might have made Hitler's Holocause policy unworkable?
Read the history of your continent. Your body count is a lot higher than ours.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Here's the prob, MT...
Can anyone give me a reason why someone needs to possess a 20mm cannon? It would make squirrel hunting easier in some ways, but there wouldn't be much left to eat afterward. OTOH, if someone wants to keep a handgun in the house for protection, it would seem perfectly reasonable. In a black-and-white world that 20mm would have to be allowed if the handguns are allowed- and that is nuts.
Funny how you and I seem to end up arguing the same point from different directions. Maybe I was unclear, my fault.
What I was trying to point out was - Why argue against registration of handguns, or any other controls placed on the ownership of firearms, when you argue for the reduction of rights to assembly and privacy. You can't give up 'part of a right', and you can't (ok, its really hard to) get it back.
Unlike some of the Conservatives on this BBS, I feel that what really needs protecting is the American dream of individual freedom. I am not for banning handguns, nor does this 'gun fingerprinting' make a whole lot of sense. I think all of our rights are in danger of erosion at this critical time.
-
Kieran: Can anyone give me a reason why someone needs to possess a 20mm cannon?
Prospective despots would more likely be discouraged or detered by 20mm cannon than a waterpistol.
miko
-
But you are giving up part of a right if you concede there needs to be laws controlling the manufacture and distribution of certain types of weapons. I am not against handguns or rifles for sport, but I don't see any need or desirability for cannons and assault weapons being freely available to the public.
-
You are correct that authority of lawfull government consists of rights voluntarily conceded by people.
There apparently was never a case when people conceded their rights to bear arms or accepted limitation of those rights in favor of the federal government.
That is the whole point that people decide which rights to concede after a deliberate process of constitutional amendment, not when someone "sees no need or desirability...".
I mean, you see no need of desirability for some people to have certain types of arms, I see no need for some people to procreate.
I could even make a case that if you allow to restore sterilisation laws under which tens of thousands of people with low-IQ were sterilised in US in 1920s-30s, we will have sharp drop in gun violence and other crime and have no need to ban weapons.
As for types of weapons, it is very clear from the wording of a Constitution and writings of the Founding Fathers that the right to bear arms referred to military weapons (assault-type in modern double-speak), not just sport or hunting pieces.
After all, the second amendment refers to "militia", not "hunting clubs". They explicitly ment weapons that would be equal to ones of government troops - if a tyrant were to attempt a power grab using military.
miko
-
Did Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) or the Hillside Strangler have NRA friends?
Serial Murder is among the most difficult crimes to investigate, because of lack of motive: the tools the killer uses do not matter, the twisted thoughts of the murderer matters.
edit> by the way did they ever catch the Tylenol poisoner? Killed several... How's that Anthrax investigation going? Isn't Anthrax registered?
-
Yes, they caught the Tylenol killer years ago. Guy trying to kill his wife, or something to that effect.
-
Seems the underlying premise is that being a gun owner makes you more likely to commit murder, therefor you should be watched.
Let's be fair about it. Everyone should be fingerprinted, have DNA samples taken and be psychologically profiled so that its easier for the police to solve crimes.
AKDejaVu
-
I think that there was a copycat that was found, but I as I remember, it didn't explain them all.
Anyway, point is that a sicko can kill in too many ways to prohibit by legislation.
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Straffo,
Are you saying it DIDN'T happen? Or don't they teach 20th Centry European History in the Netherlands? The governments of many west European countries knuckled under to the Nazis and helped round up their own Jewish citizens. These same governments turned in lists of their gun owners to the Nazis.
Do you seriously believe that it didn't happen? Almost the only country that didn't actively help the Germans round up Jews was Denmark, led by it's heroic King Christian X.
Do you deny that millions were murdered? Do you deny that the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, with a measly handful of weapons, embarassed the German military machine? Do you deny that a much larger armed uprising by the Jewish citizens of Europe might have made Hitler's Holocause policy unworkable?
Read the history of your continent. Your body count is a lot higher than ours.
Regards, Shuckins
obviously you compleltly missed my point :
I just wanted to point that even if the Jew were having access to weapon during WWII it won't have preserved them from the organized mass murder which did happen.
Even organized they won't have survived 1 minute in front of an army.
And your interpretation of what I may think about the shoa or the nazism is DISGUSTING and I'll give you the benefice of doubt otherwise I won't refrain my anger.
I'm OVERLLY sensitive on this subject and the amount of hate I can have versus nazism or other form of dictature (communism included) as NO limit.
Just a little hint to help you I'm part jew from a dutch polish decent ... so thinking I may support any form negationism is for me hightly offensive.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
But you are giving up part of a right if you concede there needs to be laws controlling the manufacture and distribution of certain types of weapons. I am not against handguns or rifles for sport, but I don't see any need or desirability for cannons and assault weapons being freely available to the public.
Interesting point. My take on that would be that it is similar to the limits we have on our freedom of speech.
Can't yell theater in a crowded firehouse... ;)
Of course all this would be based on the assumption that we have the individual right to bear arms. (jiggle jiggle)
-
Straffo,
Read my new post entitled "Registration: The Nazi Paradigm."
Regards, Shuckins
-
Kieren the Tylenol killer was a woman who killed the others to cover up her killing her husband. She in fact had killed her previous husband but had gotten away with it till she was caught killing her second husband.
-
NO!! I AM THE NRA!
With thanks to Hang.:D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
NO!! I AM THE NRA!
With thanks to Hang.:D
I don't believe you. Please demonstrate the secret handshake.
*offers hand*
-
*promptly shoots funked's hand*
-
Couldn't be NRA, you forgot to safety the weapon afterwards and scream "2ND THIS AMENDMENT" while firing.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
*promptly shoots funked's hand*
Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh
You said NRA not IRA!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
and if he couldn't get a gun, ya dont think he'd figured out another way to murder his ma-in-law??
:rolleyes:
yep, it was the damn guns fault, not the crack pot son-in-law
Anything is possible. If anything, this anecdote makes your point for you, Eagler. Cooling off periods don't always work.
Of course... you probably missed that since you would rather define my position for me.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
his mom must be pretty tough if the only way to kill her was with a legal handgun.
leslie... the 2nd does not say "for the purpose of" anywhere... it is you who cannot read. it says that a well regulated militia is needed. It says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are of course breaking that amendment.
lazs
You're absolutely right Lazs. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The first part of my post was a quote Texace made. My follow up included a link on the 2nd Amendment, which explains in detail how constitutional scholars arrive at the conclusion that we, as citizens, do have the individual right to keep and bear arms.
It seems the militia preface is a prefactory clause to the 2nd Amendment's main, or operative clause. The prefactory clause does not modify or limit the operative clause in any way, and could have been left out alltogether without changing the meaning. It was included to simply emphasize that for a militia to be well regulated, citizens would need to be armed and ready for combat when needed.
It does not say or imply that only militias have the right to keep and bear arms. Militias and the army are state entities, and as such, are treated separately from individual citizens in the Constitution. As I pointed out before, powers are granted to the states, while rights are applied to individual citizens. The Constitution is consistent in its wording concerning rights, and there is no reason to construe the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be different from the other amendments. In fact, only in recent history, has the meaning ever been questioned at all.
Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing on citizens' rights to possess and use firearms. The gun-control people realise this, and are attempting round about schemes to accomplish their goals, i.e. suing gun manufacturers. Many states are now enacting legislation to curb bogus lawsuits.
One of the new tactics, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it in here yet, has to do with the Campaign Finance Reform issue. One of the reforms proposed by Charles Schumer and company, has to do with making it illegal for an organization to run ads endorsing, or even mentioning positive attributes of a candidate for office, during an 8 week period prior to election time. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the press, not being an organization, is allowed to endorse their candidates.
Just goes to show how far anti-freedom polititians are willing to go to achieve their goals.
Les
-
from what ive heard in the UK each time the police say something about him , ie he only works in one area (he moves) or hes not targeting children (he shoots a kid) the answer would seem to be get the police to go on TV and say 'the sniper obviously isnt targeting drug dealers and pimps' and you'll solve 2 crimes in one hit :D
simple eh? :D
-
hazed is on to something... I would have a "profiler" get on and explain how the sniper is obviously gay and a betwetter... explain how his insecurities and ignorance make him so cowardly... talk about how he was molested by men, probly family members as a child. Tell people to be on the lookout for anyone who excessivly oicks his nose.
I think the same should be done with all the kids that do school shootings... put em up to ridicule instead of making em out to be what they want to be.... big bad boogymen. The press created this guy.... they can kill off the next one before he starts.
lazs
-
who excessivly oicks his nose
OK.. I know this is just a typo... but I think "oicks" works here better than "picks" would have.
BTW lazs... what has gotten into you? I've agreed with at least 3 of your posts this month. ;)
AKDejaVu
-
I haven't changed but I eventually wear people down,.
I never learned how to type.
lazs
-
I still maintain that the sniper is a terrorist, or a two man team of terrorists. A driver/spotter and the shooter. As evidence I submit the following:
1. One shot kills, from long distance.
2. A low report, high-velocity weapon.
3. The ability to kill in a heavily populated area without bystanders being able to offer any positive leads.
4. The attacks appear to be well planned.
Guys, please don't bore me with statements about the .223 having a loud report. Military M-16s can be fitted with a flash suppressor that disperses the flash and the report, making location of the shooter extremely difficult. The killer is obviously firing from some type of rest, because making these types of shots off-hand at long distance with such consistency are beyond the skill of the average marksman.
The authorities may be erring in looking for the stereotypical white male gun nut.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
I still maintain that the sniper is a terrorist, or a two man team of terrorists. A driver/spotter and the shooter. As evidence I submit the following:
1. One shot kills, from long distance.
2. A low report, high-velocity weapon.
3. The ability to kill in a heavily populated area without bystanders being able to offer any positive leads.
4. The attacks appear to be well planned.
Guys, please don't bore me with statements about the .223 having a loud report. Military M-16s can be fitted with a flash suppressor that disperses the flash and the report, making location of the shooter extremely difficult. The killer is obviously firing from some type of rest, because making these types of shots off-hand at long distance with such consistency are beyond the skill of the average marksman.
The authorities may be erring in looking for the stereotypical white male gun nut.
Regards, Shuckins
thought about that this morning ...
this type crime seems like a real nut to crack, what if teams of these nutbags popped up at every major city in the US within a week and started terrorizing the public. Seems to me it'd have the desire effect. As this drags on, shows just how hard it is to catch such kooks in our free society. Duplication of such acts could really slow down our major cities.. Wouldn't take a bomb, local gunshow could get them what they need..
-
Thrawn,
They don't NEED a gunshow if they are a terrorist team. If they have been in the U.S. long enough to establish citizenship, a terrorist cell can purchase them legally anywhere. The gun-show loophole is largely myth. Illegal purchases of firearms will always be made, but most gun-show dealers are law-abiding citizens.
Besides, even if gun-shows were banned and all legal sources dried up, they could SMUGGLE them in from outside the country. They would be a good deal easier to bring in illegally than drugs, because they have no distinctive aroma for trained dogs to identify, and no way is the government going to try to x-ray every box and package that comes into the U.S.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
I still maintain that the sniper is a terrorist, or a two man team of terrorists. A driver/spotter and the shooter. As evidence I submit the following:
What is a terrorist? Your definition please....
-
I don't recall posting anything about gunshows. :confused:
-
Sorry Thrawn,
That was Eagler who made the statement about gunshows? :D :o
How embarassing!
Regards, Shuckins