Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
In article , Gunner says...
Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. ... Depends on yer definition of 'deer.' Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Adam Smith wrote: I just read the entire text of this post, and I personally find the proposed law a little too restrictive for some areas of the country, but otherwise quite reasonable and a step in the right direction at least. The 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to protect themselves and their family in the event of a hostile attack on their person or B&E of their home. It's a law to allow a family home or a person at risk of attack to have a conventional non-combat firearm, primarily for self defense. At the time, people also hunted for food, which can also be accomplished with civilian weaponry. I do not believe the writers of the second amendment ever dreamed of men gunning down deer with AK-47s for sport, 12 year olds peppering each other in city streets with Mac-10s or men wishing to defend their home with semi-auto shotguns loaded with flechette rounds or incendiaries, or whatever other perverse **** is out there. I personally feel that a serious assement of some sort is needed, because the right to bear arms is being grossly abused. -Adam I agree. But first we need to look at the 1st amendment. I'm really tired of people driving down the street pumping out filth from their sound systems. I'm tired of films like F911, I'm tired of Gunners post to this newsgroup, I'm tired of the Dixie Chicks and Rush. It's clear to me that the right of free speech is being grossly abused. Ray Spinhirne [rest cut] |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
In article , Ray Spinhrne says...
I agree. But first we need to look at the 1st amendment. I'm really tired of people driving down the street pumping out filth from their sound systems. Fair enough. The first amendment does not grant the the right to annoy others with impunity. I'm tired of films like F911, I'm tired of Gunners post to this newsgroup, Hmm. Oddly enough F911 comes under the single most protected form of speech - that of political speech. Oddly enough so does gunner's posting. Err, most of it anyway. I think they tend to nulify each other in some peculiar way. I'm tired of the Dixie Chicks and Rush. Hmm. See 'nulify' above.... Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government. Need the cites? I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines. Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the **** up. Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the **** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost. -Adam G Gunner Do you own firearms? Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger rimfire 10.22. The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria. Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment. ------------------------------------------------- Here's the full text of HR 2038: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate) "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Adam Smith wrote:
Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government. Need the cites? I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..." What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. There are lots and lots of these laws already. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines. You may have misinterpreted this also. michael Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the **** up. Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the **** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost. -Adam G Gunner Do you own firearms? Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger rimfire 10.22. The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria. Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment. ------------------------------------------------- Here's the full text of HR 2038: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate) "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..." It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning of "the People" is. What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. There are lots and lots of these laws already. Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's proposal. -Adam |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Adam Smith wrote:
I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..." It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning of "the People" is. 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. Ambiguous? Hardly. What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. Today's collectible, yesterday's battlefield. I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. There are lots and lots of these laws already. Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's proposal. -Adam Kerry. I see him as the greater of the evils. But then, it's just like a tennis match, watch the ball go over the net, dear citizens. There's a lob from the left, and a return from the right. In case you miss any, tune in at 11 for the final report on today's action. Stay where you are and keep watching.... michael |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL**** DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE IS PAST. Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er Adam....chuckle.... Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus, riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less. The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for old dead white guys. Ill bet that sooner or later your freedom of speech will be ultimately used to scream FIRE in a crowded theater in order to cause massive deaths and maimings. Your penis will ultimately be used to rape and humiliate both females and alter boys. So we should simply cut your throat and wack off your peepee. And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns? What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as "Assault weapons"? Im rather eagerly awaiting your opinion and doubts on this particular subject. Ill take time out from trimming my toenails to read your essay. Gunner Asch "personal weapons are the ultimate decentralization of political power." |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 03:23:26 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government. Need the cites? I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that it pertains to organized militia. Incorrect. It appears you DO need the cites. Your ignorance of the Militia is a bit..ah..sad, considering you base your entire argument on flawed assumptions. TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. Next Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia Ah..Adam..you are a member of the Militia, if you are a citizen of the United States. Like it or not. Deal with it. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. Oh oh..that word pops up.. FEEL..not think, not reasoned, not based on facts..but Feel. Liberal Alert!!!!!!!!!!! Feelings at 6 Oclock low and coming in fast. Prepare to repell boarders! I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines. Just out of curiosity Sar..er Adam..why do you think that "entirely new laws are needed yada yada yada" ? What laws not currently on the books dont cover whatever problem you see in your fantas..er view of reality. Please elucidate in detail. Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the **** up. Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the **** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost. You are harming my self esteem by your evil talk. Ive got the right to not be offended. So shut the **** up. Btw..**** is a valid word. Its in Oxford and every thing. So you are now not only wishing to violate my 2nd amendment rights, but to violate my 1st amendment right of free speech and freedom of expression by your attempts at censorship. The next thing Ill bet you go after are the Girl Scouts and their right to peaceably assemble. Or the Hare Krishna and their rights to practice whatever hairbrained (err..hairless) religion that turns their cranks because you Feel they are unsightly and annoying (which is true..but..) Are you sure you are not French? No matter. I of course used your arguments against you. And its rather surprising that you failed to see it. Im a bit disappointed as I had given you a bit more intelligence than you are displaying. So in a nutshell..Sarg..er Adam..your opinion and Feelings, overrules 200 odd years of American tradition, the goals and aims of the Founders, the Constitution and current case law. Correct? Would you care to do the water walking routine for us , Oh Lord? And perhaps lay hands on a few wretches and heal them..maybe turn a couple penny stocks into a million dollar portfolio..the usual stuff Dieties do for the wretched..you know the stuff. And Lord? Please do it with Feeling. Gunner Krishna, Harrie Harrie Krishna Harrie Krishna, yaba daba doo! Ohmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud , "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis" -Adam G Gunner Do you own firearms? Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger rimfire 10.22. The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria. Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment. ------------------------------------------------- Here's the full text of HR 2038: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate) "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:29:10 -0700, michael
wrote: I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. There are lots and lots of these laws already. A bit over 20,000 state and federal laws as a matter of fact. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines. You may have misinterpreted this also. Id have to say run through a Mixmaster...... michael "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons" |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote: Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! ....................... Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. ................. ................................................. ................ The big issue Adam.............................. Gunner The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't foot it in the appropriate forum? Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having read all the books... |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:47:33 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment "Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he supports the Second Amendment" implies. You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..." It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning of "the People" is. So the People in the Second, 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. is different than the People in not only the Preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " but in the 1st, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances the 4th The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures the 9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. the 10th The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So Sar..er Adam..which unique People are they refering to in the 2nd Amendment? Please point them out, Id like to shake their hands after a swift strip and body cavity search. They may be armed..gasp..... What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle " a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an intermediate cartridge" Machine gun of course refers to any firearm capable of discharging two or more rounds with a single pull of the trigger. An M2 50 Caliber Browning machine gun is not an assult rifle. Nor is a BAR as it fires a round that is more powerful than an intermediate cartridge. Redefining a zebra as a duck, still doesnt give the poor zebra webbed feet and feathers. I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for combat. There are lots and lots of these laws already. Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's proposal. Why do they so need any updating? And why do those laws even need to exist? -Adam Im waiting with bated breath. Yawn. Gunner "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons" |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:47:33 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. So what is the difference? Millions of Lee Enfields (4million no 4 models alone) were made - and most ended up in civilian hands. Or a Saiga rifle - basically the AK47 with a PC thumbhole stock and nice woodwork vs a semi auto AK47 clone (mechanically identical but looks evil) vs Ruger Mini 30 (different functionally, same cartridge). The Ruger makes no claims to being a military weapon - but fires the same bullets. It is a specious argument. geoff |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
Gunner wrote:
snip the 4th The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures snip It makes me wonder what your agenda really is when you completely ignore the so-called Patriot Act, which completely nullifies the 2nd amendment by doing away with the 4th. Where's your righteous indignation and your call for overthrow of the government in the face of this travesty?? Bob |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
"Helmut" wrote in message ... Gunner wrote: SNIP Gunner The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't foot it in the appropriate forum? Well, that was certainly not something I thought of, thank you for pointing it out. Joel. phx rec.crafts.metalworking Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having read all the books... |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:31:40 +1200, Helmut wrote:
Gunner wrote: On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote: Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! ...................... Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. ................. ................................................ ................. The big issue Adam.............................. Gunner The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't foot it in the appropriate forum? As I recall..Herbert was not much on decorum or the Proper way to do things. Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having read all the books... Yawn. Gunner "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons" |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:01:02 -0500, Bob Robinson
wrote: Gunner wrote: snip the 4th The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures snip It makes me wonder what your agenda really is when you completely ignore the so-called Patriot Act, which completely nullifies the 2nd amendment by doing away with the 4th. Where's your righteous indignation and your call for overthrow of the government in the face of this travesty?? Bob When the Patriot Act is used against innocent American citizens and really guts the Constitution (the courts are still out on this), Ill join you at the barricades. Please bring your own rifle and sufficient ammo. Oh..and don't forget the rope we will use to hang the *******s. Gunner "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons" |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
I'm sorry but there is an obvious lack of knowledge about assault
weapons below. The "assault weapons ban is on semi-automatic weapons, typically in .223 caliber. The muzzle energy of that cartridge is about 1200 ft lbs. The energy from a 12 gauge rifled slug in a shotgun is 2745 ft lb, or 2.3 times that of the assault weapon. Do you feel that shotguns should be banned as well? They are also semi-automatic weapons. Kerry's Bill (1431) would do that. Full automatic weapons were banned in 1934, and that ban is not affected by the end of the current ban. I agree with Bush. He defends the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. I disagree with Kerry, who has indicated that he wants to distroy the 2nd Amendment. For example, he was one of only 15 Senators to oppose final passage of the Firearms Owners` Protection Act. His votes on that act indicated that if Kerry had his way, gun owners would have to register to purchase .22 rimfire ammunition, and would be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for selling a gun to a friend or family member. Kerry voted to eliminate the Department of Civilian Marksmanship. Kerry voted to hold gun owners responsible if their firearms were stolen and misused. Kerry voted repeatedly to ban gun shows. Kerry voted to strip federal bankruptcy protections away from the gun industry. Kerry voted to "commend" the so-called Million Mom March-- the crowd that was demanding gun registration. Kerry voted to charge an unlimited gun tax on firearm purchasers. On the votes that the anti-gun groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. I hope I didn't disrup the thought process below, but I felt that the record needed to be set straight. Gunner wrote in message . .. On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:31:40 +1200, Helmut wrote: Gunner wrote: On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote: Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! ...................... Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. ................. ................................................ ................. The big issue Adam.............................. Gunner The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't foot it in the appropriate forum? As I recall..Herbert was not much on decorum or the Proper way to do things. Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having read all the books... Yawn. Gunner "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." - Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons" |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
I usually stay away from the political posts, but I thought this might
cause some chatter. I always wondered how someone could get 3 Purple Hearts and not do any hospital time. Four and a half months in country?? http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm Jake in Escondido |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle " a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an intermediate cartridge" Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively. Also, when I expressed my concern about the definition of "assault weapon" needing constant updating, I was not thinking only of projectile weapons, but of any future handheld device designed for military with lethal capability at distance. I'm just imagining that in 100 years we may have rifle-like devices that do not necessarily shoot bits of metal, yet I can imagine the debate over ownership of these weapons will change far less than the weapons themselves. -Adam |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
In article ,
Gunner wrote: On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote: Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL**** DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE IS PAST. Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent in choosing your alias, for which I apologize. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er Adam....chuckle.... In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so. Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus, riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less. The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for old dead white guys. I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able to predict the future of weaponry. And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns? What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as "Assault weapons"? Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor in unfortunate accidents. I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_ owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. -Adam |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as "Assault weapons"? Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor in unfortunate accidents. I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_ owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. Having just re-read this proposed ban, and seeing the types of weaponry listed, I think I have a good understanding of what my real concern is with these weapons, and I'd like your view on it. My real concern is not with the law-abiding owners of these weapons, but with the relative ease with which they seem to find their way into illegal ownership and ultimately to crime scenes. Have a look at the chart on this page for example: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...570665,00.html Law enforcement officers in particular seem quite vocal about "renewing and strengthening" the production ban on these weapons as a means to making their jobs (and the the US as a whole) safer. What I'm asking is this: is there another solution that preserves the rights of the militia and the 2nd amendment, but that can also reverse the recent trend of increasing numbers of violent crimes (including Columbine and DC sniper style mass murders) involving assault weapons? -Adam |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:19:04 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle " a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an intermediate cartridge" Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively. The above definition is the accepted technical definition of the firearms industry, both military and commercial. The Germans invented the first assault weapons. Also, when I expressed my concern about the definition of "assault weapon" needing constant updating, I was not thinking only of projectile weapons, but of any future handheld device designed for military with lethal capability at distance. I'm just imagining that in 100 years we may have rifle-like devices that do not necessarily shoot bits of metal, yet I can imagine the debate over ownership of these weapons will change far less than the weapons themselves. -Adam Of course. But "small arms" will always be "small arms", no matter if its a round lead ball or a bolt of plasma coming out of the end of the man portable weapon. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:53:58 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
In article , Gunner wrote: On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote: Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are excellent marksmen.) Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your next question below. Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people and became too powerful. Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize this advantage? 150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia, or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I *seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. -Adam DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL**** DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE IS PAST. Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent in choosing your alias, for which I apologize. Accepted. While you may be a man of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er Adam....chuckle.... In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so. You will enjoy. Equally as pragmatic but far less surreal than Catch 22 and the good guys win in the end. Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus, riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less. The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for old dead white guys. I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able to predict the future of weaponry. Nor does the type of weapon make much difference. And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns? What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as "Assault weapons"? Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor in unfortunate accidents. Such arms are used in a tiny fraction of one percent of crimes or accidents. Other types of firearms..hummm you do realize that if you own a swimming pool, you are 1000 times more likely to have a death or maiming than if you own a firearm? I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_ owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. Laws only effect those whom are willing to obey them. Criminals by definition do not care one way or another if something is illegal. Drugs for example have been illegal for many many years, yet they are easily obtained on virtually any street corner. There are an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. These DGUs seldom involve a shot being fired. # In 1997, a total of 32,436 persons died from firearms in the U.S. # Firearm suicides accounted for 54% (17,566) and firearm homicides 40% (13,252) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 981 unintentional firearm deaths and 367 for which intention was undetermined. # In 1996, a total of 34,040 persons died from firearms in the U.S. # Firearm suicides accounted for 53% (18,166) and firearm homicides 41% (14,037) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,134 unintentional firearm deaths and 413 for which intention was undetermined. # In 1995, a total of 35,957 persons died from firearms in the U.S. # Firearm suicides accounted for 51% (18,503) and firearm homicides 44% (15,835) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,225 unintentional firearm deaths and 395 for which intention was undetermined. Source: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1996. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45, No.11, Supplement 2. June 12, 1997. p 10, 55. Now you will notice the term Homicide used above. Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being for any reason, be it legal or illegal. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. The numbers above reflect murders AND the lawful killing of criminals by police and citizens totaled together. The population of the US is around 290,000,000 with the number of firearms estimated to be around 300,000.000 arms of all types. So a simple exercise in math will show you that firearms homicides etc involve a minute fraction of the population and of the number of firearms in private hands. However if you believe Hollywood or the media, we are knee deep in bodies. One should further note that if the homicides of minitory males between the ages of 13 and 25, BY minority males between the same age range, are removed, the homicide rate of the US falls to within a couple points of that of the UK, where firearms are virtually banned for all intents and purposes. Those deaths of course are gang killings over honor, territory or rights to sell drugs on the streets. One should further note..that firearms deaths and injuries, by all types has been steadily falling for the last 13 years and are now lower than the totals of the early 60s. In addition, 42 States now have "shall issue" Concealed Weapons permit systems, which tends to explain the also rapidly falling crime rate (of all types). I believe that in 2002, legal assault weapons were involved in 5 homicides. ( 5) Five. And there are an estimated 30 million of them in the US at present. The crime rate before the Assault Weapons Ban was equally as low. You might not be aware of it..but do you know that in most US states, fully automatic machine guns are quite legal for citizens to own? A $200 Federal tax stamp and a background check are all that is required to own, collect, and shoot one. That and the huge price that they now cost as a result of the 1984 restrictions caused. Know how many legal machine guns have been used in homicides since 1934? (1)one. A cop fired up his cheating wife with his department issue weapon. So they are not much of an issue either, with an estimated 250,000 in private hands. The Knob Creek shooting event is a wonderful and fun place to go visit http://www.machinegunshoot.com/ Check the photo gallery G However..I digress. Please do reread Kerry's platform with an open and informed mind. Also try to keep an open mind when reading or watching the spew from both the antigun fanatics and the media and Hollywood. They have only one agenda..and thats to take firearms away from the citizens and make the Government the only entity with the ability to defend itself..and when that happens..sooner or later...this happens: http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm Gunner Asch -Adam "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:19:04 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2 years? A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary battlefield weapons. Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle " a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an intermediate cartridge" Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively. The Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. The Germans organized their infantry around machine gun teams in the first world war and for the first years of the second world war. But modern blitzkrieg (lightning war) moves too fast for effective use of heavy machine guns in the assault. So they developed the Sturmgewehr 44 as the rifle for assault troops. Capable of full automatic fire, it supplied the rate of fire of a machine gun, but in a light and much more portable package. To achieve that lightness, the assault rifle had to be designed for a low power cartridge so recoil wouldn't make it uncontrollable in auto fire, and so an individual infantryman could carry the relatively huge amounts of ammunition automatic weapons tend to expend. All following assault rifles have been modeled on this original sturmgewehr (assault rifle). The two best known examples today are the Soviet AK47 and the US M16. So the class of weapons gets its name from the original German weapon which served as the prototype for all other weapons of this class. The idea of the assault rifle is a light weapon capable of a large rate of *automatic* fire. Its primary tactical purpose is to give the advancing infantryman something to hold onto so his hands wouldn't shake quite so much. It wasn't designed primarily to kill, that's the job of artillery. It was mainly intended as a "spray and pray" way to keep any remaining enemy's head down while troops advanced over ground already well plowed by artillery. The light cartridge is designed primarily to wound rather than kill. That's because the military calculated that a wounded enemy takes two of his buddies out of line to carry him back to an aid station while a dead man only occupies the efforts of the graves registration unit after the battle is over. Thus it is militarily more valuable to wound a man rather than kill him. (Previous generations of military rifles, called main battle rifles, were designed to a different philosophy. They were designed to achieve one shot kills. So they used full power rifle cartridges, as did heavy machine guns, and troops were trained to actually *aim* at the enemy rather than simply spraying shots in the enemy's general direction.) The original Sturmgewehr 44 fired the 7.92mm Kurtz (short) version of the German main battle rifle round. The AK47 fires a 7.62x39 short version of the Soviet main battle rifle round. A similar US round would be the .30 carbine cartridge. The M1 carbine doesn't qualify as an assault rifle, though, because it doesn't have the capability of fully automatic fire. (The M1 carbine was developed by the US as a replacement for an officer's pistol. The idea there was that the pistol is a nearly worthless combat arm for anything but very close quarters fighting, but they didn't want to load an officer down with a main battle rifle, so the MI carbine came to be as a light and handy replacement for the pistol. There is a variant, the M2, which is capable of fully auto fire, and was issued to some paratroopers in WWII, but the US didn't adopt that as its primary assault rifle.) Instead, in the 1960s, the US adopted what troops immediately dubbed the "Mattel Toy" because of its plastic stock construction. The M16 carries the low power round concept to an extreme by adapting a civilian woodchuck hunting cartridge, the .222 Remington, turning it into the ..223 or 5.56mm NATO round. In other words, they used a cartridge originally designed for hunting 20 pound rodents. (In the 1970s, the Soviets copied that idea, and came out with the AKM74 assault rifle, which also fires a low power .22 cal round.) As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are just now coming to grips.) Gary |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:25:50 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
rights. Having just re-read this proposed ban, and seeing the types of weaponry listed, I think I have a good understanding of what my real concern is with these weapons, and I'd like your view on it. My real concern is not with the law-abiding owners of these weapons, but with the relative ease with which they seem to find their way into illegal ownership and ultimately to crime scenes. Have a look at the chart on this page for example: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...570665,00.html Ill give you a heads up Adam...anything with Violence Policy Center mentioned is based on fraud, spin and outright lies. They are the most rabid of the antigun fanatics. Did you notice the use of the word "crime scene"? Not homicides, not murders. If you dumped the ashtray out of your car..its a Crime Scene. Notice the nifty way they push their propaganda? The Colombine Twins also used a shotgun (most of their victims were killed by a duck hunting shotgun) and they had accumulated a large quantity of propane tanks they had planned on exploding, which if sucessful, would have cause horrendous casualties. See any mention of either the legal and more lethal shotgun or the legal propane tanks? Law enforcement officers in particular seem quite vocal about "renewing and strengthening" the production ban on these weapons as a means to making their jobs (and the the US as a whole) safer. What I'm asking is this: is there another solution that preserves the rights of the militia and the 2nd amendment, but that can also reverse the recent trend of increasing numbers of violent crimes (including Columbine and DC sniper style mass murders) involving assault weapons? -Adam Another heads up..the majority of rank and file LEOs are NOT in favor of gun control. Period. Each and every time you find mention of any that are..you will notice that they are police chiefs and administrators. Political animals whos livelyhood depends on supporting the Cause of the moment. I should mention that I myself am an ex police officer. Further..Two..(2) crimes in 10 yrs involving assault weapons (as the antis define them) does not make a rising crime wave. In fact, Ill bet you that either of us can do a google search and find other devises that are far more often used for mass murder. Automobiles driven intentionally into crowds, plastic bags and garrots and knives in the hands of serial killers as another example. You do know who the Center for Disease Control is, correct? For years they have been on the anti gun bandwagon as they have been sponsors of the Violence Policy Center, etc etc..up til late last year.... http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/032559.htm feel free to look at this further in greater depth. Google is your friend. "October 06, 2003 CDC Report Questions Effectiveness of Gun Laws A massive new federally-funded study of national gun controls laws -- including gun-buyer background checks and waiting periods -- conducted by the CDC, found no proof that such laws reduce firearm-related violence. In the report, titled "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," researchers from the Centers for Disease Control do not state flatly that gun control laws are failing, merely that more study is needed. The CDC, however stated it would not be conducting additional research." There were 55 seperate studies that were used to form the report. Now take a look at the home page of the Violence Policy Centers webpage http://www.vpc.org/ Can you spot the 15 outright lies I spotted on the first page alone? Go to the Sks link for an example. By definition, even of the anti gun fanatics..the SKS is not an assault rifle. The rifle pictured in the ad show, is not a true SKS (which has a fixed magazine and holds 10 rounds) and importation of that particular rifle was banned in 1989. But they use that illistration to lead the reader into thinking every SKS is identical. I can go on in greater detail if you so desire..but Ill ask you this... If their cause and agenda is so rightious..why do they lie so many times on their website? If there was such a horrendous issue..why not simply let the facts speak for themselves? Chuckle..I should further point out that the cartridge fired in the SKS, is about half as powerful as the average deer rifle cartridge and is equivelent to that of the 3030 lever action rifle found in the rear windows of half the pickup trucks in the US. A further note..virtually every normal hunting round from a rifle will punch a hole through both sides of a bullet resistant vest such as the police wear, ( and the wearer inside)..so any "Evil Cop Killer Bullet" is the same ones used to hunt game animals in the US. Sigh..their agenda is quite clear. Ban any bullet that will punch a vest..and nearly all sporting and hunting rifles suddenly go dry. No hunting, no sport shooting, nada. Chuckle..a 90 yr old pistol shooting the .30 Mauser cartridge will punch most vests as well. And its a clunky old antique. Hell..a good hunting arrow will blow right though most vests. Shrug The agenda of the antis is quite clear, as is their 'any means justifies the end" tactics. Those folks are either very twisted, or very evil. Ill leave it up to you to make your own decision as to which. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:35:46 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote: As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are just now coming to grips.) Gary In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to wound a single enemy soldier. Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On 2 Aug 2004 12:28:10 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted: In article , Gunner says... Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. ... Depends on yer definition of 'deer.' Uh, Bill, is that you? - - Let Exxon send their own troops - ------------------------------------------------------- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:39:00 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted: On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:35:46 -0400, Gary Coffman wrote: As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are just now coming to grips.) If you're attempting to mow down masses of unshielded advancing troops, I can see the rapid rate of fire being a good thing. But for most usage, full-auto rates should be slowed down considerably to save ammo and make shots count. I put 90 rounds through an AK in just over a minute at the Machine Gun Shoot, and I was selecting several targets during that time and started with semi-auto mode to see how it kicked and aimed. It's amazing how quickly rounds go. In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to wound a single enemy soldier. Can you say "shotgunning"? I knew you could. - - - Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever. --- http://diversify.com Website Application Programming for YOU! |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
OT- John Kerry Co Sponsors Gun Ban S1431
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:24:23 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote: If you're attempting to mow down masses of unshielded advancing troops, I can see the rapid rate of fire being a good thing. But for most usage, full-auto rates should be slowed down considerably to save ammo and make shots count. I put 90 rounds through an AK in just over a minute at the Machine Gun Shoot, and I was selecting several targets during that time and started with semi-auto mode to see how it kicked and aimed. It's amazing how quickly rounds go. In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to wound a single enemy soldier. Can you say "shotgunning"? I knew you could. The actual technical term is "spray and pray" Gunner "In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman Liebmann |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT-Kerry Resume | Metalworking | |||
OT-: Kerry exposed | Metalworking | |||
OT- Open Letter to John Kerry: | Metalworking | |||
I ain't No senator's son... | Metalworking |