not my words, but i must agree

[Thinker]

and even further:

 

Who cares if Saddam Hussein is killing and torturing innocent civilians?

 

*************

edit:

Oh Yeah! 6:30 am pagetop:

Edited November 16, 2004 by Thinker

[Matt_E]

Personal responsibility, and existing laws, folks.

[iain]

There needs to be an assault weapons ban, just not the one that was put into action in 1994.

 

Should we abolish the speed limit in school areas too? Personal responsibility is bullshit.

[Matt_E]

Why? In your estimation, what did the AWB accomplish?

 

Maybe personal responsibility is bullshit to you, but that sounds like a personal character problem of YOURS, not mine.

About the speed limit: You aren't outlawing fast cars in school zones, instead, you're relying on people to follow the law with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. And a healthy fear of the law, I suppose.

[Dru]

What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms?

[catbirdseat]

For some reason the 1994 Assault Weapons ban included specific weapons instead of describing the characteristics that would cause a weapon to be included in the ban. So the gun lobby's solution is to eliminate the ban when the best solution is to amend the law to redefine included weapons, not by name but by their capabilities. Maximum rounds held per clip, maximum rate of firing, velocity of round, etc.

 

So under the law a particular gun might be legal with one clip design but illegal with a different one. Possession of the illegal clip would be a crime.

[Dru]

Anyways fuel oil and fertilizer are still legal.

[iain]

Why? In your estimation, what did the AWB accomplish?

 

I didn't say it accomplished anything. That's why it needs to change. For instance, I don't see why you need anything with a 10 round or greater magazine for hunting. I don't see you or anyone else needing a Uzi for any reason but for mass killing. If you are dumb enough to buy a rifle with a pistol grip and bayonet mount for hunting, I don't care. Guns shouldn't be banned for how they look. The decision for banning a gun should be how effective it is as a people killer.

 

Maybe personal responsibility is bullshit to you, but that sounds like a personal character problem of YOURS, not mine. About the speed limit: You aren't outlawing fast cars in school zones, instead, you're relying on people to follow the law with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. And a healthy fear of the law, I suppose.

 

A law restricting speeds in a school zone by definition creates outlaws of those who speed in a school zone. That's what the law is for, to punish those who are not responsible enough to say, "oh look, there are some kids, I'd better slow down to be safe." This is a fairly basic concept. I understand what you are saying about fast cars, but this isn't really a good metaphor. And a lack of personal responsibility is both our problems when someone decides to go on a killing spree in D.C. with a weapon that should be banned.

[Dru]

Can you kill someone with MILF?

[scott_harpell]

Whatever; Lets just mire this in semantics!

[iain]

Well I'm sure you wouldn't mind, you love playing that game.

[Matt_E]

What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms?

 

It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment.

[scott_harpell]

I am never giving up my firearms.

[Matt_E]

I didn't say it accomplished anything. That's why it needs to change. For instance, I don't see why you need anything with a 10 round or greater magazine for hunting.

 

You probably don't. In fact, most states limit the amount of rounds in the gun at a time for hunting.

 

But, what most of you folks fail to realize, is that the second amendment is NOT about hunting, mkay?

The founders didn't think hunting was so important as to make it second in significance only to freedom of speech. Sheesh..think about it.

 

If I want to have a 17 round mag in my pistol I keep in my bedroom, what do you care?

 

 

I don't see you or anyone else needing a Uzi for any reason but for mass killing.

 

I'd prefer *you* didn't determine what *I* need, mkay? People own them for recreational shooting, target shooting, collections, etc. What's it to you?

Word to the wise: People that use them in "mass killings" very very likely didn't acquire the firearm legally.

On a sidenote, mayhaps you can tell me of the most recent "Mass killing" committed with an evil assault weapon, or UZI, or whatever?

 

 

If you are dumb enough to buy a rifle with a pistol grip and bayonet mount for hunting, I don't care.

 

Good. Then leave me alone about it.

And please try to understand that the second amendment has zilch to do with hunting.

 

 

Guns shouldn't be banned for how they look. The decision for banning a gun should be how effective it is as a people killer.

 

Nonsense. Who determines that? Who draws the line, and how? There are plenty of laws in place to prevent "ineligible" folk from owning guns.

On yet another side note, one of the defining characteristics of a good personal defense sidearm is just how good it is at putting someone down. Personal defense necessitates that, by definition.

 

 

A law restricting speeds in a school zone by definition creates outlaws of those who speed in a school zone. That's what the law is for, to punish those who are not responsible enough to say, "oh look, there are some kids, I'd better slow down to be safe." This is a fairly basic concept. I understand what you are saying about fast cars, but this isn't really a good metaphor. And a lack of personal responsibility is both our problems when someone decides to go on a killing spree in D.C. with a weapon that should be banned.

 

Did that person acquire the gun in question legally? The answer is most likely, NO. In fact, if you are referring to the DC snipers, the answer is indeed no. So what would a ban have accomplished?

Absolutely nothing. Why is it so hard to understand that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by the lawless, that pay no respect to any ban you or I could come up with?

Edited November 16, 2004 by Matt_E

[iain]

The very fact that they are legal means there will be more of them available, whether they are stolen from lawful gun-owner's residences or wherever.

 

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be laughing their asses off seeing people clutching their 200 year old laws, interpreting them as yes you can have guns, any guns, and lots of them for recreation. That's simply not what the amendment was written for.

 

I'd be interested to know if you think an M16A2 should be a legal weapon to own under standard gun law (not special dealer use).

 

We are no longer on the wild frontier, where we might be able to overthrow our government with arms, where we rally everyone to bring out their guns to form a militia, and where we have to defend the homestead. This is the year 2004. Welcome.

 

You seem to have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this issue, and I'm pretty sure it's pointless to use common sense when that happens, so I'm done here.

[Dru]

What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms?

 

It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment.

 

Its funny to see arguement against the context of "well-regulated militia" but when it comes to "arms" all of a sudden context is important

[scott_harpell]

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ? Edward R. Murrow

[sexual_chocolate]

Didn't Hitler disarm the populace right after gaining power?

[Matt_E]

The very fact that they are legal means there will be more of them available, whether they are stolen from lawful gun-owner's residences or wherever.

 

In other words, punish the legal owners so that criminals cannot steal their stuff, right?

I disagree, and I am sure most would see the failing logic of your argument.

 

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be laughing their asses off seeing people clutching their 200 year old laws, interpreting them as yes you can have guns, any guns, and lots of them for recreation. That's simply not what the amendment was written for.

 

Tell me what it was written for.

 

 

I'd be interested to know if you think an M16A2 should be a legal weapon to own under standard gun law (not special dealer use).

 

It isn't legal, unless you have an FFL Class III license. Been that way since 1934.

 

 

We are no longer on the wild frontier, where we might be able to overthrow our government with arms, where we rally everyone to bring out their guns to form a militia, and where we have to defend the homestead. This is the year 2004. Welcome.

 

I agree to some extent. What harm is a legal gun owner doing to you?

 

 

You seem to have a lot of emotion wrapped up in this issue, and I'm pretty sure it's pointless to use common sense when that happens, so I'm done here.

 

Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out, I suppose. Strangely, I felt that it was *you*, not me, getting all upset over this issue.

And speaking of common sense, I haven't seen you adequately a single point I have brought up.

Is that why "you are done"?

 

Buh bye.

[Matt_E]

What part of NUCLEAR ARMS isn't Arms?

 

It would behoove you to find out what "Arms" means in the context of the second amendment.

 

Its funny to see arguement against the context of "well-regulated militia" but when it comes to "arms" all of a sudden context is important

 

What's so funny? Did you bother to look up what "Arms" actually means?

[Dru]

What part of "well-regulated" did you sleep through?

[Matt_E]

Look folks: I guess I have trouble understanding why you (figuratively) want to take away my right to (responsibly) own firearms, or defend myself with firearms, should, God forbid, the need ever arise.

 

I mean, what's it to you? I am not doing you any harm.

[Matt_E]

What part of "well-regulated" did you sleep through?

I am not arguing that point right now (Though I could, if you'd like me to).

 

What part of "Look up what "arms" means" did you sleep through?

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey, didn't this Hitler feller disarm the populace right after gaining power?

[Dru]

You don't want to get into "well-regulated" because you'd have to somehow blather your way through a spurious justification of how a restriction on assault weapons is not regulation. So instead you pretend there is something deficient in my definition of arms because you can't find anything specific. You brought up context and now it's biting you in the .