TheScout Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Which argument specifically is the straw dog one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 BrentAllen, Nice list but none are even close to the same as owning an assault rifle! Hey why not let the entire population own rocket launchers! Imagine the fun you can have with those! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Ed, None are even close?? How many people are killed in DUI accidents (alcohol) every year? Thousands more than are killed by "assault weapons." How many more people are killed in non-DUI accidents every year? Thousands more than are killed by "assault weapons." How about the really evil weapons, the full-auto machine guns? How many people have been killed by someone with a legally owned full-auto maching gun? Since 1934, there have been 2 homicides. One, ironically, was by a police officer using his MAC-11 to kill a police informant. Rocket launchers are explosives. I don't read the Second Amendment to include explosives, but I do read it to include firearms. So, why restrict something with a track record like that? BTW, criminals prefer concealable large caliber handguns, which are not assault weapons. Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber revolvers are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides - again, these are not assault weapons. No need to let the facts get in the way of feel-good legislation, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 One of my colleagues sat on a jury recently in DC. The accused was convicted of a murder he committed using a semi-automatic version of an Ak47. Guess he didn't get the memo about preferring more concealable handguns. The DC snipers in 2002 used a variation of the AR15, legally purchased, to kill a number of peoplein our area, one of the murders close to where I live. I realize that these are anecdotal incidents and may not compare to the level of handgun crime. In fact I do not particularly support the assault weapons ban. I do support tighter regulation on the sale and ownership of hand guns which are, as Brent points out, more likely to be used to commit crimes. I'm sure Brent joins me in in support of tightening up the gun show loop holes to keep hand guns from reaching the illegal market. Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 None of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 We should never infringe on your ability to bear arms, the ones in place when the amendment was written. There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the evolution of weaponry. If their intention was to equip the citizenry with the tools to resist an oppressive government, they would have stated it in a way to assure your right to whatever arms the military had access to. Otherwise, its meaningless from the standpoint of allowing the public to violently overthrow the government. SAMs, RPGs, land mines would all me necessary to be effective. Brent standing in his street with his AK47 and Colt45 will suffer the same fate as many Iraqi have resisting our soldiers. But wait, maybe the founding father's did foresee it. They reference a well regulated militia. We have militia, but we now call them the National Guard. Each state has them, and they are under state control. And they have SAMs, RPGs and land mines. And they are made up of guess what? Citizens. So what's the fuss? Seems like we have it covered. Why the need for private ownership of military hardware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 BrentAllen writes: How about the really evil weapons, the full-auto machine guns? How many people have been killed by someone with a legally owned full-auto maching gun? Since 1934, there have been 2 homicides. Kind of undercuts your argument, doesn't it? 1934 is when the National Firearms Act was passed, which regulated sale of machine guns. Before 1934, lots of people were killed by legally purchased Thompson submachine guns, including all seven gangsters killed in the St. Valentine's Day massacre. The NFA made them harder to purchase, so the decline in 1934 would seem to be in favor of government regulation of firearms, at least from a "results" point of view. Rocket launchers are explosives. I don't read the Second Amendment to include explosives, but I do read it to include firearms. Well, if you read the 2nd amendment, which talks about "arms" to exclude explosives, what propels your bullets? You using a railgun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Thank you Merlyn. Never thought I'd say that! Since you answer my question with a bunch of irrelevant analogies, I'll ask again - Why does the average citizen need an assault rifle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 They would be critical in a revolt against a potentially tyranical government. Or what if the US was invaded and occupied? The people could wage a successful resistance. If the British had banned the most effective weapons of the day and confiscated them, the colonists would have been less successful. "Americans have a right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison Are we afraid to trust Americans now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Why isn't the NRA up in arms (pun intended) about the 1934 automatic firearm act? If they were consistent, they would be lobbying for unrestricted access to all military hardware. They are all arms, and supposedly protected by the constitution, and necessary to repel an invasion or overthrow our existing government. Why can't I have an RPG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Merlyn, You are venturing into waters over your head - be careful. Gun powder is a propellant. A rifle fires a projectile, a bullet, with that propellant. A rifle does not fire an object which contains an explosive element. A rocket launcher is not a rifle. Full auto firearms were available for purchase until 1986 - not 1934. Care to guess how many full auto weapons have been in the hands of law abiding citizens all these years? Over 240,000. Over 240,000 full auto weapons in the hands of citizens, and only 2 homicides, with one by a police officer. Yep, this is case where we need some government control! NOT! Thanks for playing. Ed, how about a nice gift for our departing contestant. Ed, The government either trusts its citizens, or it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 So why can't Gern get his grenade launcher? And I still don't think the 1934 firearms act helps your case; since that time, the government has decided who can and who can't own particular weapons, so the murder rate by those weapons has gone down tremendously. So why not do the same for rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Uh Brent, full auto weapons are still available for purchase to licensed dealers. Where do you think those guys who gave the Uzi to that 10 year old kid in Mass to shoot his own head off got it? Before 1986? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Since 1934 automatic weapons have been subject to pretty tight regulation and only two murders have been committed using those weapons. Sounds like a triumph for gun control. Am I correct that private citizens can still buy fully automatic weapons, just not ones manufactured since 1986? If I'm wrong then tell the NRA as this comes from their website (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=130). BTW, the NRA speaks of the underhanded way in which Representatives Hughes and Rangel got the Hughes amendment passed but they don't mention how it managed to get through the Senate or how it came to pass that President Reagan signed it. Brent: How's the snow in Dunwoody? I was living in Atlanta in 82 when 4-6" of snow completely shut down the city. The Downtown Connector became a parking lot as commuters abandoned their cars and walked to hotels. Of course "Snowjam 82" hit in the middle of a work day and this storm hit on a weekend but I still wondered how the snow has impacted life in Hot'lana? Does the city own a snowplow yet? Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I'm not going anywhere, Brent, so those must be your parting gifts! And ya still haven't answered the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now