rimpainter.com

I like the car analogy. I think I will use that one some time. Keep em' coming...

Scottiac

At the risk of being more than a bit facetious, then why can't I have my own personal nuke? It's just an "Arm" that I should have the right to bear. Or biological weapons, or a garage full of C4, or...

I realize this isn't germaine to those weapons that just re-entered the public domain, as it were, but why can't I have my fully automatic?

By the same quoting of the 2nd made above, I should be able to have any of those things, should I not? They'd be very useful in protecting myself and my family from an oppressive government.

Where is the line?

(For the record, I don't really give a darn whether people have guns or not.)

Joe

Haaa, Assault Weapon - now there's another term the left doesn't understand and won't bother to "learn" or to obtain the facts. Here's a little history of the term "assault rifle". Back in the early 1940's the Germans called the MP 43 "Sturmgewehr", which translates roughly to assault rifle. Modern day armies call any firearm that can be fired in a three shot mode (3 rounds fully automatic - one squeeze of the trigger) or fully automatic, an assault rifle. Almost all assault rifles have a selector switch giving them the ability to fire either semi-automatic (one squeeze of the trigger results in only one round fired) or fully automatic. A few have three choices, semi-auto, 3-round burst and full-auto. Now, what rifles were banned by the dear left? They were simply semi-automatic weapons that either looked like a military rifle or had a bad reputation (AK47). Now as far as semi-automatic rifles is concerned that technology is well over one-hundred years old and a lot of rifles have been configured in this manner for a long time, so it really appears that this was a planned first step to be followed by many more steps banning other firearms. I say this because the banned guns' function identically to a lot of other firearms, which, the ban never applied to. Now, the past lefty government of clinton & clinton might have tried to redefine the term assault-rifle for the purposes of scaring soccer moms to get their support for the banning of look alikes and then later on "other types", but the functionality of the rifles "banned" didn't have any of the options that their namesakes had, so I'm glad this bogus bill/law has seen its last sunset.

4x4Lamm

Many areas do allow you to get a full auto weapon. Its just cost an arm and a leg and is a huge PITA.

I was at a gun shoot once where an older guy with tons of money had twin .50 caliber M2s mounted in the back of an old 4x4 Blazer (top off). His buddy drove through a course while he shop the hell out of some old cars and appliances. He must have shop over $1000 worth of ammo in 5 minutes. The point is, with enough money, a clean record and some patience, you too can have some seriously deadly firepower, legaly.

You can buy dynamite too, my uncle Jim still buys some for forestry work, and not to go into detail but some readily avalible substances can make a heck of a bomb (Oklahoma City). I know this not because I'm a redneck creep, but because I have HazMat and terrorist training.

It may sound like a cop out but an explosion is a far less discriminite killer than a single projectile. Thats why the government gets nervus when people have bombs, they are made to kill large ammounts of people without specific targeting.

Rest assured though, If the people did wage war on the government, there would be some people with garages full of C4 that would become very popular with the resistance.

In short, without getting too technical, the line is drawn for the good of the public.

Lamm

Scottiac

Uh huh. I agree totally, and I think everyone who is out for gun control would say that they agree totally as well. It's just what that agreement means that is different for every faction you might name.

Where is the line of what is good for the public? What is the definition of "good for the public"? shrug

My thought is that at some point you have to accept that the 2nd amendment can't really give you the right to bear any arm you want. You can't say it means you can (easily) have a fully automatic without saying I can have my pocket nuke. No offense to the founding fathers foresight, but they can't possibly have imagined how creative we might eventually be on blowing ourselves away. Using this (and I admit it is) sophistry, you would have to admit the 2nd amendment is already toast 'cause I can't have my nuke .

As you say, it all comes down to common sense and the public definition of what's good for the public.

I just think gun advocates should find a more effective stream of reasoning than "the 2nd amendment says so" for justification. Logic, rather than history. (As many of the posts here have done nicely, btw).

ldivinag

the funniest and probably ironic story from that incident, was most people WANTED to buy guns to protect their businesses...

until they found out that they needed to wait 10 days...

of course by then, it was all over...

Bob_98SR5

...and im sure many of them were the rosie o'donnell/katie couric rabid anti-gun soccer moms too.

bob

Joe

I don't agree - without the second amendment, the liberals would have had our guns long ago - you've probably forgot the democrats had both houses for the most part of 40 years. Gun owners can not afford to give one little inch - because once it starts - it'll just keep going, because fewer and fewer people care about gun ownership with each passing generation. This is due partly because of cost, both the firearm, ammo and range fees, cost of hunting as most landowners charge an arm and a leg for a days hunt so a family of three or four can't afford it and public lands are heavily used and most males seem to be raised mainly by their mothers these days, which means most have never fired a gun nor been in a good fist fight, thereby, not supporting those of us that don't want to see the second amendment "amended" in any fashion. We, gun owners, for the most part always use good common sense - and those few who don't, deserve whatever punishment the law calls for as that person committed the crime - not the gun.

COYOTA $x$

No affiliation to the site or sales there of, FYI Only:

Here's a link to an AR15.com thread about a commemorative shirt for the demise of the 94 Assault Weapons Ban.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=91&t=222389

In the first post, there's a link to buy them.

WolfpackTLC

I can give you a LEO's standpoint on this issue. I've talked at length with many of my good friends that are law enforcement. What it boils down to is this...

During the time of that particular ban, LOTS of agencies were getting creamed by criminals with automatic weapons... It was more of a diplomatic move than an effective move. I refer you to my favorite quote...

" If you ban guns, then only the criminals will have them! "

Short, simple, and true...

Lot's of criminals have, and always will have access to nukes, automatic weapons, and varios WOMD. (weapons of mass destruction)

What's important is that the average Joe doesn't have a nuclear device that he can use to off himself and a couple million people if he decides he wants to end it all.

Checks and balances, like someone else said.

I personally own a Barret 82A1 . 50 caliber semi-automatic rifle. I've been properly trained with it, and with the right spotter and conditions, could take out WHOEVER and WHATEVER (within reason) I wanted from 1-2miles... easily... I also own a NFA H&K MP5.... Class III weapon. FULLY AUTOMATIC. Capable of clearing a 50 round clip in less than 6 seconds... I've also got a supressor for both my Mark23 .45 and my carry gun, mu USP Tactical.

Anti-gun nuts would argue that no one really needs this kind of stuff...

But that's like NO ONE REALLY needs a car that will do 200 mph, a bike that will do 240mph, or a truck that can drive up a tree... But people DO have them. Call them hobbies, call them eccentric, or call them nut jobs. It's our consitutional right. I for one would rather know that the guy next to me has a handgun in his car and can protect himself and his family.... and possible assist in a terrorist action when local LEO and military are unavailable. Imagine if the people on the planes of 9-11 had access to handguns... Just imagine!

wifesaysimadumbass

in canada there is less gun crime? of course there is..... Have you ever been to Toronto in the WINTER? IT'S FRIGGIN FREEZING!!!!!!!!!!! Now take L.A., in lets say february, 70 degrees, people on the streets, shall i go on. You can't shoot someone when your ammo is frozen solid!!!!!!

COYOTA $x$

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rnia_rifles_dc

OK Girlie Men in Kalifornia.... No .50 BMGs for you ! Your rights are being Terminated in favor of feel-good politics.

Breaking with Republican lawmakers who oppose gun control and a Hollywood film career filled with gun play, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill banning .50-caliber BMG rifles, an aide said on Tuesday



Its the "Bill of Rights", not a Bill of Needs.

amusement

Banning .50's ... crap. Where would a guy shoot his 12mm WWI German anti-tank gun. There's something wrong here.

COYOTA $x$

Certainly not in the "Land of Fruits and Nuts" anymore.

Ever heard of a crime being committed with a item like that ? (hint they weigh around 30lbs) nope.

If they were really concerned with society, they would be banning alchohol.

amusement

WORD!

Arnies priorities are like being down wind from a fart. Somethings smells but, by the time you find out .... it's too late.

01Mossy Oak edition

That is why we are Citizens of the USA and not subjects of the usa

When only police have guns then you have a police state

Fear the government that fears your guns

AUJWE

I know you are joking but weather and things related does have some affect on crime and when it's committed. My brother is a police officer and they have less trouble in certain areas of town when it's the middle of the summer and 100 or so degrees outside. Even criminals enjoy the a/c.

TDiddy

Just curious as to what the local laws were that caused them to confiscate your gun, and what they said they could have charged you with, especially since you had a permit? If you don't mind going in to the story that is.

wifesaysimadumbass

joking, im not joking! tell me how many people you see hanging out on the street corner or at the local liquor store in toronto in february..... no one maybe, there are a good 4 months out of the year in canada where people are mostly in doors. to try and compare our crime rate to theirs is like trying to compare apples and oranges....

Joe

Canada? They have a lot of crime. It doesn't matter if it's -30 degrees F or -50 C, crimes are being committed every minute of every day. Of course, the Canadian Justice System is really a mess compared to our Justice System believe it or not, so not many of the "blokes" up there go to jail, until they've been through the System a dozen times. LE has an easier job catching the criminals as they use a lot of wiretaps and the bad guys don't have very many roads to choose from, when trying to flee an area. Most are fairly liberal so "we" shouldn't try to hard to convince them to become our 51st State. :pat: