assualt ban dead wrong. What should we ban though?

[Black Phoenix]

This use to be easy for me to answer. As a young child, all guns are bad! (Hey I was brainwashed, forgive it!) Preteen: all weapons can be used for protection and can be practicle in civlian society. Teenager: foolishness! Only lower garde guns should be allowed. Twenty: No! Higher grade guns have no ligitamite difference!

Now: I don't rightly know.

Assault weapons ban was stupid! There was barely any ligitamite differences between the weapons banned and not banned. It was just a move towards taking away our rights to bare arms.

Ban on all guns is dumb to. We cannot pretend we live in a pasifist world. To adopt pacifist lifestyles is to ignore reality. We live in a violent world. Pacifists are just t-bone steaks served on a platter as hostages for criminals or targets for terrorists.

Is it or is it not stupid to outlaw access to high class military weapons?

I'm in no way talking about WMDs, which have no practile use at all for self defence or defense inside the homeland .

I'm talking about full out machine guns, tanks and aircrafts. At first it sounds silly, what should we allow the possibility of some rich guy to cruise into New York with a fully loaded legally owned F-15 and start blowing things up? But is that even likely?... absolutely not. Fighter jets like that, inparticular, cost billions to purchase and maintian. May I be so bold as to say, not even Bill Gates has that kind of money. You can't ban something that can't happen. I may as well ban telekinesis.

More than likely, we're actually talking low armored, non-advanced and short ranged versions of tanks, old military air crafts and maybe, fully advanced machine guns.

Should we say no ban on any weapons save for WMDs?

[ronin9]

i'm all for the second amendment,but i don't know how cool it would be if i see some rich idiots at at stop light in an m1abrams?(and i'm sure bill gates could buy twenty stocked airports full of jets)

[Black Phoenix]

and i'm sure bill gates could buy twenty stocked airports full of jets
I think the Raptor (F-22) itself costs more than he makes in a year.

Thing is, what good is the current militia without real weapons. If we're attacked, we civilians have got what looks like pop guns and thats it.

In colonial days, civilians own cannons and used them in the war for independence. Back then, cannons were pretty much as powerful as weapons came. Don't know, you could probably still do more damage with one than a full magazine from an M-16, but then again, maybe I'm just showing ignorance of the capabilites of M-16s.

[ronin9]

doesn't he make millions a week?:question:

[Black Phoenix]

I think the number he is worth right now (himself, not his whole company) is about 7 billion, alot, but he's not the federal government. (Probably less since the break up of Microsoft.) I remember the F-22 costed a couple billion dollars to make during the Clinton administration. (I remember because so many reguarded it as a waste of time, money and effort. I can't say I really understand why though.)

[Black Phoenix]

I should emphaize that I do not believe criminals usually actually use the most powerful weapons available. They don't have to. Most crimes, from what I understand, are committed with hand guns, knives and blunt objects.

Also, we all know old military air crafts from world war one and two are just sitting in museums waiting to be used should some criminal have the deterimination... but that ain't happening any time soon.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Thing is, what good is the current militia without real weapons. If we're attacked, we civilians have got what looks like pop guns and thats it." --Black Phoenix

Let's ask the bad guys (UN Baby Blue soldiers) if they would rather get killed by a .22 caliber bullet or a blast from a Vulcan cannon?

[ronin9]

"Thing is, what good is the current militia without real weapons. If we're attacked, we civilians have got what looks like pop guns and thats it." --Black Phoenix

Let's ask the bad guys (UN Baby Blue soldiers) if they would rather get killed by a .22 caliber bullet or a blast from a Vulcan cannon?sshhh!that's top secret!

[Black Phoenix]

Honestly, with all the laws we have restricting our access to weapons, if Europe or any real terrorist country invades, we civilians will just be target practice. Look at Isreal. Even the young children are armed. They've been dealing with terrorism for years, so they may just have a few tips for us, ya know?

How many countries told us we had two options, arm the civilians, or give up freedom, and we ignored them? Isreal knows weapons, they know terrorism and they know how to conduct war on terrorism.

(We don't need to help them with their terrorists, we just need to back off, let them defend themselves and then help them create this little Palistinian state. So long as the radicals are there, it doesn't matter if there's a Palistinian state or not. They're dealing with people who think killing their kids gets them a mantion in heaven. We are learning what they go through almost every day over there. Bush, either help the Isrealies end this war, or back off. It's wrong to try to cut deals with terrorists. The Palistinians want land, the radicals want blood.)

Our founding fathers went as far as to say no standing army. BTW, we need to amend the constitution before ignoring it. We need the army, but we need to amend this "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"-US Constitution, powers of Congress, Article 1, section 8, clause 12.... or perhaps we should better explore the possiblities of this "To provide and maintain a Navy"-Article 1, section 8, clause 13- in conjuction with militia. The navy attacks our enemies abroad and is needed for it. But what does the military do inside the borders? They couldn't get there fast enough to stop any terrorists attacks in progress, but everyday people right there watching it happen could.

If we are threatened, which we are, our populace needs to be trained to defend itself. Isreal knows this, our founding fathers knew this, and we were warned about this. From what I understand, the militias grew during world war two, but are continuing to shrink now because of lack of support, or access to realistic weapons.

Like I said, private owner ship of cannons use to be legal. You can do a lot more damage with one of those than a minigun. But the fact is, crime is up now, it was not up in colonial days. Can we indeed draw a parallel for the disregard of the second amendment, and the rise of criminals?:question:
We could put our military genius generals to the task and create a citizen force the world could fear. A militia would need disipline... akkk! The problem is, how do we make people see the need for it so they enlist?

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0126.html

[Black Phoenix]

The consitutionalists don't seem to understand our need to defend and make allies abroad, or help create less hostile world, but some of this stand seems reasonable. (Take it with a grain of salt, but read.)



It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies.

We oppose unilateral disarmament and dismemberment of America's defense infrastructure. That which is hastily torn down will not be easily rebuilt.

We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Under no circumstances would we commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. We are opposed to any New World Order, and we reject U.S. participation in or a relinquishing of command to any foreign authority.

The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of the United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state national guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.

We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.

We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.

We believe that all defense expenditures should be directly related to the protection of our nation, and that every item of expenditure must be carefully reviewed to eliminate foreign aid, waste, fraud, theft, inefficiency, and excess profits from all defense contracts and military expenditures.

We reject the policies and practices that permit women to train for or participate in combat. Because of the radical feminization of the military over the past two decades, it must be recognized that these "advances" undermine the integrity and morale of our military organizations by dual qualification standards and forced integration.

We support the restoration of "well regulated militia[s]" at the state and/or community levels.


http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Defense

[BEST45CAL]

The cost of the weapons doesn't matter if they're stolen.

[Timberwolf]

I truly believe that any weapon that is routinely used by the regular infantry (M-16, M-4, LAW, RPG, grenades, hi-cap clips, etc) should be available to the law-abiding citizens.

Not too long ago, one of our resident libs (sean, I think) challenged me on that PoV. I think he said something to the effect that I was one of those that thought we should have access to machine guns and RPGs. I said something to the effect of "why not? A machine gun in my hands would be as much of a threat to you as if I had an orange. I won't attack YOU, but those trying to do you, or me, harm." I don't think he ever replied....

[Black Phoenix]

The cost of the weapons doesn't matter if they're stolen.I don't know that I undstand your point. Are you meaning to say criminals can get these weapons anyway... I must agree... are you agreeing with me or not though?

I truly believe that any weapon that is routinely used by the regular infantry (M-16, M-4, LAW, RPG, grenades, hi-cap clips, etc) should be available to the law-abiding citizens.What I'm saying! Right on! Hey, explosives experts handle C-4 charges, right? Can't those be weapons? Ya know, slap a tommy gun on a small passenger plane, rig it so you can fire from the cock pit, and you got a primitive version of a world war one fighter. Citizens own planes. Drop an explosive out the window of a plane, and it becomes a primitive bomber. But we don't go nuts and do crazy things like that just because it's possible, I don't know that we would if we had even more power. Especially if the militia was trained, as requested in the constitution.

[BEST45CAL]

I don't know that I undstand your point. Are you meaning to say criminals can get these weapons anyway... I must agree... are you agreeing with me or not though?
Technically, and according to the 2nd Amendment, we should be able to own those weapons.

[Black Phoenix]

Technically, and according to the 2nd Amendment, we should be able to own those weapons.

Right on, I would think so.

US Constitution, 2nd amendment
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.



Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States — reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither — this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of.

Patrick Henry, Anti-federalist
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm#henry-01



The clause which says that Congress shall "provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers," seemed to put the states in the power of Congress. I wished to be informed, if Congress neglected to discipline them, whether the states were not precluded from doing it. Not being favored with a particular answer, I am confirmed in my opinion, that the states have not the power of disciplining them, without recurring to the doctrine of constructive implied powers. If, by implication, the states may discipline them, by implication, also, Congress may officer them; because, in a partition of power, each has a right to come in for part; and because implication is to operate in favor of Congress on all occasions, where their object is the extension of power, as well as in favor of the states. We have not one fourth of the arms that would be sufficient to defend ourselves. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress. If Congress will not arm them, they will not be armed at all.

There have been no instances shown of a voluntary cession of power, sufficient to induce me to grant the most dangerous power; a possibility of their future relinquishment will not persuade me to yield such powers.

Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both: they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and purse. Can you prove, by any argumentative deduction, that it is possible to be safe without retaining one of these? If you give them up, you are gone. Give us at least a plausible apology why {170} Congress should keep their proceedings in secret. They have the power of keeping them secret as long as they please, for the provision for a periodical publication is too inexplicit and ambiguous to avail any thing. The expression from time to time, as I have more than once observed, admits of any extension. They may carry on the most wicked and pernicious of schemes under the dark veil of secrecy. The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. The most iniquitous plots may be carried on against their liberty and happiness. I am not an advocate for divulging indiscriminately all the operations of government, though the practice of our ancestors, in some degree, justifies it. Such transactions as relate to military operations or affairs of great consequence, the immediate promulgation of which might defeat the interests of the community, I would not wish to be published, till the end which required their secrecy should have been effected. But to cover with the veil of secrecy the common routine of business, is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man, and every friend to his country.

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_07.htm#henry-03
Patric Henry and other anti-federalists helped make the bill of rights we hold so dear. Militia was intended to oppose government, not simply be run by it as some liberals suggest. The second amendment was meant to secure our liberty to have arms, whether congress provided them or not.

[uncommon1]

Ban democrats. They are the root cause of all of our social ills anyway. All of the social experimentation has been devastating to our society.

[davemustaine]

I truly believe that any weapon that is routinely used by the regular infantry (M-16, M-4, LAW, RPG, grenades, hi-cap clips, etc) should be available to the law-abiding citizens.


Sorry but I have to disagree here. Handguns are fine, but if you think everyone should be able to keep a rocket propelled grenade in their garage you are wrong. Its bad enough knowing that a corner store can be robebd by some drug crazed kid with a magnum, but the thought of a bunch of local teenagers having access to heavy artillery is just insane.
Lets not lump in the legitmate right for an american citizen to bear arms with some obsession with us all having heavy weapons kept by the bed. That just ruins the legitimate case for having guns.
nobody needs an RPG to defend themselves against a burglar.

[Wolfcounsel]

"nobody needs an RPG to defend themselves against a burglar." --davemustaine


Except the criminals, to defend their turf, of course.<!-- / message -->

[davemustaine]

So you are saying we SHOULD be able to keep an RPG in the kitchen? or you agree thats a step too far?

[Wolfcounsel]

"So you are saying we SHOULD be able to keep an RPG in the kitchen? or you agree thats a step too far?" --davemustaine


Yes.:whip:

[Ptarmigan]

"So you are saying we SHOULD be able to keep an RPG in the kitchen? or you agree thats a step too far?" --davemustaine


Yes.:whip:

I agree.

[Timberwolf]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf
I truly believe that any weapon that is routinely used by the regular infantry (M-16, M-4, LAW, RPG, grenades, hi-cap clips, etc) should be available to the law-abiding citizens.


Sorry but I have to disagree here. Handguns are fine, but if you think everyone should be able to keep a rocket propelled grenade in their garage you are wrong. Its bad enough knowing that a corner store can be robebd by some drug crazed kid with a magnum, but the thought of a bunch of local teenagers having access to heavy artillery is just insane.Until you realize that they already HAVE access to them. It is only those of us who obey the law that are, effectively, disarmed. What good is a 9mm against an Uzi or a Mac-10?

Lets not lump in the legitmate right for an american citizen to bear arms with some obsession with us all having heavy weapons kept by the bed.What obsession? Colonials had CANNONS!! They were armed to the point that the serving infantry were. Why are you so afraid of any weapon in the hands of those that OBEY the law? Furthermore, why does it NOT concern you that the criminal element in this country has no limitations placed upon it as far as what weapon(s) they shall use in their commission of criminal activity?

Get a clue, chuckles.

That just ruins the legitimate case for having guns.
nobody needs an RPG to defend themselves against a burglar.It does nothing of the sort...the legitimate case for gun ownership has been ruined by the gun-grabbers. btw - who said anything about a burglar? I was thinking more along the lines of islamofascist extremists...

[davemustaine]

btw - who said anything
about a burglar? I was thinking more along the lines of islamofascist
extremists...

You have a big problem with grenade-amred islamofacists in your street? because I'm quite sure I havent seen any.

Saddam Hussein had balistic missiles. He was a criminal, do you think that an ordinary American citizen (law abiding, passing polcie checks etc) should be able to have a missile launcher in his back garden?
What if your neighbour gets drunk/high on drugs and suddenly runs amok in the mall with an RPG? don't you see this as slightly dodgy?

I'm all for the right for every american to defend his home and his family with handguns, but claiming we should all have heavy artillery in our houses is just wrong.

[Wolfcounsel]

"What if your neighbour gets drunk/high on drugs and suddenly runs amok in the mall with an RPG? don't you see this as slightly dodgy?" --davemustaine


Pretty scary if I do say so myself. I understand one does not get killed as bad with a .25 caliber bullet as with an RPG.:cavalry: :flushlib. :boxer:

Watch out for monkeys also. They have fingers.

[davemustaine]

wow, an intellectual debate. oh no hold on, it was just abusive crap. Is this how you try to persuade people you are right?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Is this how you try to persuade people you are right?" --davemustaine


It's how I get monkeys to juggle their turds.<!-- / message -->

[Peachdiane]

Has anyone seen all the bloodshed and carnage in the streets since the ban was lifted? I keep on waiting for the reports of hundreds or thousands being slaughtered...nothing yet.

How about a couple years ago when Michigan approved CCW? I have yet to hear of one permit holder committing ANY acts of violence like the gun grabbers said there would be.

The AW ban was unconsitutional to begin with. I bet if you resurrected any one of the Founding Fathers and told him that the gov't had passed legislation restricting the right of common citizens to possess military issue arms, you'd find him the next day starting a revolution to overthrow the gov't. ;)

[uncommon1]

The assault weapons ban was nothing more, and will be remembered in history as nothing less, than a further restriction of the right of free, law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. Those who voted to deprive us of our constitutional rights are nothing more than the same people who keep wanting to do social experimentation at our expense. It's time for it to stop.

[Rocketman]

Bans on weapons don't frighten me, taxes on ammunition do.
Seems a while back some whackos wanted to put a 10,000 percent tax on ammunition so that a $20 box would cost $20,000. Thank God it didn't pass.

[Wolfcounsel]

"Seems a while back some whackos wanted to put a 10,000 percent tax on ammunition so that a $20 box would cost $20,000." --Rocketman

It appears to me the reason those clowns would want to put that type of tax on ammunition is so that they could partake of the black market profits, which would result because of their con game. Time to expose those imbeciles and unseat them permanently, I think. Farking con artists!