Printable View
http://slowfacts.files.wordpress.com...un-control.jpg
Just wanted to share this since i found that it was an interesting point of view. I rarely agree with what this guy has to say though. He's one of those libertarian "the free market will regulate itself" type of people.
If you're for the elimination of gun ownership, then was Stefan says may be applicable. But if you favor common sense regulation of firearms and gun ownership, you are will not favor the elimination of ownership and Stefan becomes irrelevant.
Sweetheart, you are VERY confused. The M4 and the M16A2 are different rifles. I have carried, fired, and field stripped both. If you reference current DoD procurement policy, you will find that the U.S. military is in the process of phasing out the M16 in favor of the M4 for all service branches.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Both the M4 and the M16 derive from Stover’s original AR-15 design. But they are certainly distinct rifles. One is not “commonly known” as the other. They are different things. The AR-15 is not specific rifle, it is a class of rifle. There are MANY AR-15 variants. Most, but not all, are manufactured by Colt (i.e., see Bushmaster).
I have no idea what any of that might have to do with Ford trucks.
You are correct that firearm manufacturers innovated ways to skirt the AWB. It is also true that the AWB reduced firearm ownership nationwide and made it more difficult to obtain these weapons, which is the whole point of gun control. Moreover, with determined political leadership, it is possible to design legislation to plug loopholes and continue to reduce the presence of these weapons in our society (see below).Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Assault weapon bans typically define features that make a specific rifle an “assault weapon.” Legally, under these statutes, assault weapons are specific things, and not “any weapon used in an assault.”Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
It is also possible to ban specific weapons. California’s Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banns AR-15 and a laundry list of other assault weapons by name. It was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2000 (Kasler v. Lockyer).
See you’ve been drinking the NRA’s Kool-Aid, which leads you to assume that gun control means gun eradication. But as the courts have made clear, there are Constitutionally acceptable ways to limit civilian gun ownership and the proliferation of firearms in our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
There’s Shew v. Malloy, which I linked to earlier, upholding Connecticut’s assault weapons ban. NYSRPA v. Cuomo recently upheld New York’s SAFE Act. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008 upheld Washington D.C.’s assault weapons ban.
So again, the courts have made clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unlimited right for civilians to own any firearm they choose. Under the U.S. Constitution, local, state, and federal lawmakers can design common sense gun control regulations to limit civilian ownership of firearms.
You’re right that there is currently a lack of political will to do so at the federal level, but that’s because of the gun lobby’s deep pockets, not because of any Constitutional restrictions. That will change someday soon, and we will see federal legislation to limit civilian ownership of assault weapons.
Stalin and Hitler killed millions of their own citizens, it's refreshing that in a Land ruled for, by, and of the people, we kill ourselves.
The US Govt has played a large part in Civil Rights since 1964, and to be honest I am amazed how well they've gone towards eliminated smoking, but you stomp out one fire, Americans weigh like twice as much as they did in 1964. And Americans in the 1950s would have had a good laugh if Bush and Cheney ran for office. We need Education across the board.
The AK-47 is based on the Nazi assault rifle of 1944, frankly, after 70 years I'm surprised they don't have ray guns or chemical warfare guns, maybe the US Govt HAS been doing stuff we never hear about!!
A few random thoughts -
1) In political theory, legitimate government is usually defined as having, amongst other things, a monopoly on the use of force. This is taken to mean that the state can impose its authority on a rebellious individual or group of individuals who are not assumed to have any popular support, although this might be challenged in some cases; organised crime would be another group attempting to live beyond the law which the state cannot tolerate. Civil wars are obvious examples of a breakdown of legitimate government in which actual state power is contested between one or more groups.
In the USA, there have been, presumably still are armed militia -they used to be in Montana for some reason- and in the past the KKK would be an example of a quasi-autonomous group who challenged the authority of the state which the state had a legitimate right to tackle using the law as well as force. Force was used in Philadelphia in 1985 by the Mayor, Wilson Goode owing to the chronic violations of the law by an Africanist sect ('MOVE') and is an example of the legitimate use of force, even if Goode's reputation subsequently sank like a stone.
Again, it might be the case that in Ohio in 1970 the suppression of the 'riot' on Kent State Campus by the Ohio National Guard was the legitimate use of force, or, what it exposes is the risk that state or federal governments take when they do use their right to use force. Were there alternatives to force that could have resolved the situations in Ohio and Philadelphia?
The oddity in the USA is that while nobody doubts the superior fire-power of the Federal and state governments, the Constitutional right to bear arms might appear to undermine the legitimacy of Congress and the Executive -except that the Constitutional right was intended to protect the USA and its Constitution from those who would seek to overthrow it (ie the British). Perhaps this means that those Americans who think their government has been 'stolen' by a Muslim from Kenya believe they have a legitimate right to overthrow the government by the use of arms. An interesting problem, election results notwithstanding.
It would seem the Federal government has a right to take away your weapons, and it does not have that right. Surely the two positions cannot both be right-? Or is it the case that if it became illegal to own anything more powerful than a revolver, agents of the state would search all homes where licensed weapons are owned, to forcibly take away those guns not surrendered by the owner, and no longer deemed legal to own?
2) Bobvela has not dealt with a clear example of where the legal purchase of weapons becomes the agency of death: for example, a sane, middle aged mother buys firearms which her son, tormented by demons, hearing voices, on medication, stops taking the pills and, convinced that only he can fulfill God's command, slaughters as many children as he can in the local school. At what point, and with what means can the licensing authority prevent arms from reaching people with mental illness? Presumably the person buying a weapon would need to provide proof that nobody in the home or likely to visit the home is on medication, has a history of behavioural malfunctions?
One thing improved gun safety laws can do is have a downstream effect on the gun culture in this country. When you regulate a commercial item you are telling people it is an item to be dealt with cautiously. Gun control laws cannot deal with every instance of gun violence because people will still be able to obtain them and there will always be a black market. But someone looking at the history of the south may have been tempted to say: are you going to legislate morality? Do you think racism ends the minute you integrate schools? No, but there is an interplay between that which the government takes a stand against and decides to regulate and public perception.
There will only be a correlation between gun availability and murder rates. And legislation will not have a 1:1 effect on gun availability, but it will chip away at people's impunity in stockpiling guns and behaving recklessly.
Anybody who doesn't believe that governmental registration of firearms is part of a plan to confiscate our guns need only look at the handgun registration laws of 1968 which led to the registration of handguns and eventually led to the confiscation of all the handguns in America.
This right here...
But Randy, who was responsible for confiscating your brain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randydude7
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-jurors-n31231
That the jury is even contemplating a self-defense instruction on the murder charge is a terrible sign. You cannot have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger requiring the use of gunfire against someone who does not have a weapon.
Edit: perhaps there's a scenario where you could, but it's extremely unlikely. That this shmoe is pulling a gun at a gas station against a group of teens because their music is loud and some people are defending him just shows how far from reality these gun cultists have gone.