On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:28:20 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 05/04/2019 02:35, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:14 -0700, % wrote:

On 2019-04-04 3:46 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our
murders, at least in the sense you are talking about.

But the murders that most with a clue care about.

The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3
or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street
corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single
thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef.

Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef.

The police are even reluctant to attribute as many
murders to the drug war as are happening because
it further points out their dismal failure in that war.

It was never going to be a winnable war.


the drugs war is over already , drugs won

Yeah it is like Vietnam, the war was clearly demonstrated to be a
loser by 1968 but we stayed there losing our people until 1975.

Drug wars will never be won until governments make all illegal drugs
legal and properly regulated, just like alcohol prohibition didn't work.
The problems began when we made cocaine illegal.

1920: Cocaine is banned as an illegal substance in the U.K. under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. This started an illegal importation trade. Some
enterprising traffickers used homing pigeons sent from France to bring
in a gram at a time.

1920s: Evidence of a €˜modern underground drug scene emerging in Soho,
London.

Before these drugs were made illegal there were very few addicts.

Governments never seem to learn from history.

Illicit drug use should not be a crime, says Royal College of Physicians:
The Royal College of Physicians of London has joined calls for an end
to criminal sanctions against people who take drugs such as heroin,
cocaine, and cannabis for non-medical reasons.

The college now endorses the stance of the Faculty of Public Health and
the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH). In a 2016 report1 the RSPH
concluded that the €œwar on drugs€� fails to deter drug misuse but instead
deters people with drug use disorders from seeking treatment and
inhibits harm reduction efforts.

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1832

In the US most drugs became "taxed" after prohibition. It was a way to
maintain that prohibition infrastructure and for the most part only
target minorities that nobody cared about. They really weren't
"illegal" just taxed, like Machine guns. Until Nixon there was a
marijuana tax stamp just like the machine gun tax stamp you need
today. It was a way to get around the constitution about the powers
granted to the federal government. Nixon decided he could simply make
these things illegal at the federal level and the drug war as we know
it started. That was when the tax stamp for pot law was overturned.
You couldn't actually buy that stamp now. (You can get the stamp for a
machine gun). Cocaine is a prescription drug that a doctor could
prescribe today. Again it was Nixon who proposed "schedules" of drugs.
The strange thing is, cocaine and the various opiates are schedule II
and can be prescribed. At the federal level Marijuana is a schedule I
and is simply illegal. OTOH 11 states say you can buy it for
recreational use and 29 say it is medicine. (those numbers may even be
higher now, the law is changing fast). This will someday result in a
showdown in court that might end up tossing all federal drug laws and
that is why the DoJ is ignoring it now.
What they could do is demand that everyone buy that tax stamp and be
totally constitutional. The reason the original tax stamp legislation
was overturned was that they would not sell Timothy Leary a stamp for
pot. If they had, the feds would be getting a taste of the billion
dollar pot market and it is just a simple law from congress that would
reinstate it.