What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
753 Comments
- Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -27/+270It is dishonest to suggest that an "assault weapons ban" is reasonable.
- normlsparky, on 04/20/2009, -18/+147Another, more accurate, term for the "gun lobby" is "registered voters" who happen to own firearms. Those of you who are pushing hard for a new assault weapons ban have obviously forgotten the political ramifications of the '94 ban. Perhaps a review of the political landscape immediately following the '94 assault weapons ban would be in order.
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/p ...
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_ ...
Take a long, hard look at how registered voters who own firearms responded to Democrats who supported the ban. 1995-2007 were bad years for their party, and not something they are anxious to repeat. - Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -12/+139There exists no rational justification for a prohibition on a subset of rifles -- which, amongst all classes of firearms, are the class least likely to be criminally misused (and, in fact, which are less commonly involved in homicides than are knives, blunt objects or "personal weapons) -- based solely upon cosmetic features that do not actually affect the function of the firearm.
- Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -7/+118I will offer another explanation of the fundamental irrationality of an "assault weapons ban".
The following firearm is legal for civilian ownership in most of the United States, and was legal during the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban":
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uplo ...
The following firearm was legal during the period of the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban", but is prohibited as an "assault weapon" under California state law:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uplo ...
The following firearm would be classified as an illegal "assault weapon" under the now-expired federal "assault weapons ban" and manufacture of the firearm was prohibited during that time:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uplo ...
All three of the above referenced firearms are in fact the same rifle. The three digital images were recorded within a period of minutes, and the only component altered for each image was the stock. The functional components of the firearm were not altered at all; in spite of the classification of "assault weapon" (whether by California law or by the now expired federal law), each of the three configurations were functionally identical, resulting in no greater rate of fire, no increase in accuracy and no alteration in the force of projectile. Thus far, no advocate of an "assault weapons ban" has provided any rational justification for firearms regulation that effectively prohibit features on the stock of a firearm that do not, in any way, affect the functionality of the rifle. - badenglishihave, on 04/22/2009, -25/+134Screw this pro-hippie, pro-disarm-Americans-so-they-are-defenseless article. Buried.
- jehan60188, on 04/22/2009, -11/+109I'm a firearms enthusiast (aka "gun nut"). I don't trust my government, and as such I believe every citizen should be armed- if the government fears a revolution, then the government will serve the people. Not the other way around.
Some people believe my ideas to be too radical.
What isn't radical is that police have no legal obligation to protect you (Warren vs DC)
The only person responsible to pretect you is yourself.
So what are you going to do when three bad uys come up to you, and demand your wallet? Hand it over, and hope they leave you alone. No amount of money is worth a life. But what if that's not enough? What if they want to hurt your significant other? Then you "fight the good fight" and "put up your dukes"? You'll probably lose. So, now, you've got a broken body, and your s/o is being taken advantage of. Or, just like the scum that's trying to hurt you, you play to win. You take every advantage you can get, and that includes drawing down on them with that j-frame revolver of yours. Two of them chicken out and run away. But that third guy is a tough cookie. He thinks you're bluffing. Well you aren't. And you shouldn't. To defend yourself, and your loved ones, you should take every advantage possible. And that includes packing, and knowing how to use it. - inactive, on 04/20/2009, -28/+114true automatic weapons are already illegal(as they should be)So called assault rifles are nothing more than cosmetically enhanced rifles. they only increases the ego of the owner not the danger of the weapon.the assault rifles that have been found in Mexico real automatic assault rifles are already illegal and were mostly obtained through their own military(Mexico's).you really want to stop the massive gun violence in Mexico? LEGALIZE drugs in America.After all it's the American drug dollar they are fighting for.
- BattMatt, on 04/22/2009, -6/+90Some of you have held up Britain as an example of good gun laws.
But I submit to you Washington D.C., and for that matter Australia. Has crime decreased in those areas since guns were banned, or has it increased? And why?
As tragic as things like Columbine and Virginia Tech were, couldn't you see a scenario where those sort of horrible people could be stopped much more quickly in the future by educated, honest citizens who have weapons and can use them properly in self-defense?
And who really thinks that if we pass a law getting rid of guns that criminals will just turn theirs in? They're criminals! Honest people would be left defenseless, police would become corrupt, and criminals would rule the roost.
The answer is not gun laws. The answer is an educated and responsible public. Good luck with that. - Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -11/+93"So I gather you disagree with Obama regarding the role (perhaps importance) of assault weapons in the Mexican gang violence. Is that true and could you back that up?"
President Obama's assertion is unsubstantiated. His declaration that his assertion is "known" is not a logical demonstration of the reality of his claim.
Many of the firearms recovered from criminal organizations active in Mexico are military-issue firearms not available to civilians in the United States, including numerous fully automatic firearms. - XDingoX83, on 04/22/2009, -10/+77My question is since when does another country take precedence over the Constitution and individual rights enumerated in the bill of rights? If this was the first amendment people would be going nuts. I don't care if 100% of the guns that the drug traffickers use come from the US it is hands down wrong to limit the rights of the US for the benefit of another country. I can't believe we are even debating this, if this was any other amendment people would be up in arms protesting and boycotting Mexico.
- sindex, on 04/22/2009, -6/+73"Is the American gun lobby is [sic] just too strong to let our leaders push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress?"
Let's hope so, because a ban on weapons for solely a cosmetic look rather than any functionality is far from rational. - Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -8/+73The term "assault rifle" is misused in the above statement, as actual "assault rifles" are restricted by the 1934 National Firearms Act.
That 55% of 17% of firearms recovered by Mexican law enforcement authorities can be described as "assault weapons" based upon certain cosmetic features does not demonstrate that such firearms are commonly criminally misused in the United States. Rather, the prevalence of armed criminal cartels in Mexico demonstrates either an inability or an unwillingness of the Mexican government to effectively control crime within their country, including a lack of proper maintaining of their national borders. - nkleffman, on 04/22/2009, -4/+60Calling a semi-automatic rifle an "Assault Rifle" is like calling a kitchen knife a "Stabbing Knife". It has no meaning outside fear based propaganda the gun-grabbers are trying to push down our throats. There are only bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and automatic rifles, which I prefer to call "Defensive Rifles".
- icehawk219, on 04/22/2009, -9/+63Maybe instead of infringing on our constitutional rights we can just, you know, fix the problems that are driving people to do this suff? You know, things like legalize Marijuana, fix the economy, fix the health care system, fix the education system. But nope, all you people want to do is sign over every freedom you have so the Federal Government can keep you warm and safe at night. Why not install cameras so they can watch you in your house too, to make sure no ones bothering you? Maybe you can let them listen in on your phone calls so some one doesn't call you a bad name and make you upset? Here's an idea, fix the real problems for once!
- Dimensio, on 04/21/2009, -2/+55"In other words, the author wants the same background checks for gun show sales that licensed dealers have to abide by."
The majority of firearms sellers at such "gun shows" are in fact licensed firearms sellers. Federal law requires that these sellers perform an instant background check with the sale of any firearm, even if the firearm is sold at a "gun show" and thus constitutes a "gun show sale". Only private, non-licensed sellers are not required to conduct such a check; the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is not accessible to private resellers of firearms, thus such sellers cannot perform such a check even if they desired to do so. There exists no federal requirement for such a check -- regardless of where such a sale occurs -- because federal regulation if intrastate firearms transactions would violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The "gun show loophole", frequently claimed to exist by firearms prohibitionist organizations, does not actually exist, as there exists no legal exemption of the requirement for background checks for sales that occur in "gun show" environments. - Dimensio, on 04/21/2009, -5/+57"Perhaps one could debate the status of the AR-15, but I always thought the AK-47 was an assault weapon. So unless you can come up with a better rationale, I have to say that Obama’s statement does not seem that far off the mark."
You are exhibiting a common misunderstanding caused, in part, by confusion of terminology both by the media and by firearms enthusiasts.
The actual Automatic Kalashnikov model of 1947, or the AK-47, is a fully automatic "assault rifle" that discharges ammunition once the trigger is pulled until the trigger is released. However, fully automatic firearms are restricted in the United States by the 1934 National Firearms Act, and such firearms are not readily available to civilians. The Kalashnikov action, because of its relative durability and reliability, has been copied into a number of other cosmetically similar or identical firearms, many of which are termed an "AK-47" because of the cosmetic resemblance, even though the firearm is technically a different model. In the United States, any such firearm marketed to civilians must operate only in semi-automatic operation and cannot easily be modified to fully automatic operation. These rifles cosmetically resemble the AK-47 assault rifle, are chambered in the same caliber cartridge and even accept the same magazines, however they do not operate as "assault rifles" because they cannot operate in a fully automatic firing mode. It should also be noted that purchasing such firearms legally in the United States is likely not as cost-effective as purchasing an actual AK-47-based "assault rifle" from a black market source. If the "AK-47" rifles used by Mexican criminals are actual fully automatic assault rifles, then they did not originate in the United States.
"Do you have an objection to closing this gun show loophole? "
Please define the "gun show loophole". I cannot comment upon such a concept until it is reasonably defined.
"Maybe I misunderstand you, but this makes me think that you are of the opinion that the blame should lie solely with the Mexican government and that we have to do nothing about it. Such a position would concern me greatly, since it is a known fact that the violence is spilling over on this side of the border. Simply blaming Mexico will not solve our problem."
The "problem" is one of enforcement and of enabling. The United States has no jurisdiction to act in Mexico, and thus can only work to enforce border regulations and restrictions to prevent criminals from Mexico from arriving in the United States. The United States government can assist in disabling these criminal organizations by re-evaluating the ongoing "war on drugs", which serves primarily to keep such criminal organizations in operation. Suggesting that the United States respond by restricting legal access to firearms to United States citizens is entirely unreasonable, both because it infringes upon the rights of non-criminals and because Mexican criminals demonstrably obtain firearms from multiple alternative sources. - mattgilberg, on 04/22/2009, -10/+61There is no denying that guns are dangerous. Regardless, it is still our "right to bear arms".
- nobama89, on 04/22/2009, -3/+53Assault weapons make up approximately 1.6% of the guns involved in gun crime. Its a political ploy by the dems that does absolutely nothing to make us safer yet takes away out second amendment rights. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sportsmen, its about protection from criminals, foreign invaders, and most importantly, a federal government that becomes too powerful.
- MadN, on 04/22/2009, -7/+57The issue with gun control is legal creep, Gun grabbers never quit.
Every time they get one gun ban on the books, the next year they want to ban more types of guns.
Ban all "assault weapons" is what they say, but then they write the law to ban all semi-auto weapons of any kind.
We are stupid to believe our Constitution will protect us, if we do not protect our Constitutional rights. - trevor98, on 04/22/2009, -8/+56Buried for using the lie that most guns in Mexico come from the US. The caveat that this is only of guns that are traceable is lost on both Obama and the press- they are either lazy or liars.
- Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -7/+55Can you please provide a rational justification for a prohibition on the sale and manufacture of a subset -- defined solely through cosmetic, rather than functional, components -- of a class of firearm not only less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, but also less commonly used in homicides than knives, blunt objects or "personal weapons"?
- normlsparky, on 04/21/2009, -3/+49The AR-15 is the semi-automatic, civilian version of the fully automatic M-16 used by our military. They are similar in appearance only.
The M-16, being capable of fully automatic fire, can function like a machine gun. That means a single pull of the trigger causes multiple shots to be fired, in rapid succession, until the trigger is released.
The AR-15 is not capable of fully automatic fire. It functions like any semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun. That means that each time the trigger is pulled, one shot is fired. It can not function like a machine gun.
The AK-47 also has fully automatic and semi-automatic versions. The fully automatic versions are not readily accessible to the US civilian market, much like the M-16 used by our military. The semi-automatic versions are available to the civilian market, like the AR-15.
It is important to note that the fully automatic AK-47 used by the military in many countries around the world, does not have a different name for the semi-automatic version available to civilians in the US. - Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -6/+48The United Kingdom's homicide rate by firearm was low prior to the enactment of their draconian firearms prohibitions. The overall homicide rate of the United Kingdom has not decreased since the implementation of that prohibition, and thus it is dishonest to credit the prohibition with the United Kingdom's relatively low homicide rate.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 04/22/2009, -5/+45Anyone who wants assault weapons banned should watch this video first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30 - Wag3Slav3, on 04/22/2009, -5/+40Does anyone even read history? WTF?
"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence. Violence in our own country as well. Now, having said that, I think none of us are under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy."
THE PURPOSE OF THE 2nd amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend themselves AGAINST THE STANDING ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES!
Under the 2nd Amendment according to the PURPOSE AS WRITTEN allows me (my local militia) to own F16's, tanks, surface to air missiles and even, yes, guns that will shoot more than one bullet when I pull the trigger.
I wish the media and public schools would stop trying to convince us that the 2nd amendment is for hunters to be able to kill ducks and people in the inner city to kill burglering meth fiends.
It's purpose is so when someone gets elected and then purposefully disregards the will of the people (pretty much every professional politician in congress and the entire executive branch) revolution will even BE POSSIBLE.
It's direct defense against tyranny. Not to allow you to do the job that the police were originally intended to do, but abrogated decades ago. As a side note, the police are an organization with ridiculous powers that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITSELF. Cops are just armed citizens and should be held to the same laws they piss on every day when they use our tax dollars to arrest us for victemless crimes. - luvliberty, on 04/22/2009, -11/+45There is no rational limit to gun ownership. If we allow limits, before you know it, we'll in the same situation as other countries. No guns allowed (helpless, defenseless). Anyways, statistics clearly show that the majority of gun crimes are by those that don't legally own the gun. Right to bear arms is pretty straightforward. We have a right. America is a free country BECAUSE the population owned guns. We are less free when our elected officials attempt to put bans on that constitutional right!
- lag051183, on 04/22/2009, -1/+35Penn and Tellers ***** did a great episode on gun control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gripreX2aiQ
Here's a clip for the "gun free zones" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGmFj9282Q - TheGroje, on 04/21/2009, -2/+34This isn't true, actually. Title II firearms (your "true" automatic weapons) can be legally purchased and owned by private citizens who pass the required background checks and are prepared to jump through the legally mandated hoops, pay the necessary taxes, and comply with the BATF regulatory procedures involved. Many "true" automatic weapons are legally (and safely) owned in the US by private citizens, all of whom would presumably disagree with your "as they should be" declaration.
Generally speaking, anyone that is willing to submit themselves to the scrutiny that is required to -legally- own a Title II is not going to be very likely to use those items in an irresponsible or criminal manner. Wikipedia says that only two legally owned fully automatic weapons have been involved in murders since the NFA was enacted. Personally, I'm surprised that the figure is so high. - maz2331, on 04/22/2009, -2/+32Because the Supreme Court has said so. A ban is unreasonable and unconstitutional if it affects a class of arms that is in common use at the time.
The legal landscape has changed big time from 1994 on this issue. The 2nd Amendment is actually being recognized now. All of the "collective rights" theories that permitted many laws to be passed have been officially discredited, and now the "regulators" have a much higher hurdle to clear.
Even the 9th Circuit just voted for "incorporation" under the 14th Amendment, thus making it binding upon the states, and strongly suggested that "strict scruitiny" is needed for any restrictions. - Dimensio, on 04/20/2009, -4/+33"Can you please provide a rational justification for owning an automatic weapon?"
Your inquiry is a non-sequitur. I made no mention of "automatic weapons"; I inquired regarding restrictions of semi-automatic firearms only.
Can you please provide a rational justification for a prohibition on the sale and manufacture of a subset -- defined solely through cosmetic, rather than functional, components -- of a class of firearm not only less commonly criminally misused than any other class of firearm, but also less commonly used in homicides than knives, blunt objects or "personal weapons"? - Dimensio, on 04/21/2009, -9/+38Can you provide a rational argument, rather than emotional invective and hyperbole, in support of your position?
- jfitz369, on 04/22/2009, -2/+31@scottbaez
"Seriously, name one purpose for assault weapons that don't involve blowing away people you don't like."
... Defense from tyranny, protection of civil liberties, personal protection.
"During the Constitutional debates, Patrick Henry questioned how the people could resist tyrants if their arms had been taken from them." - http://tinyurl.com/c6t37a
If you don't think tyranny can happen in the US I suggest you do more research into the matter. Every government eventually becomes corrupt. I think ours has now been for quite some time. Please don't let them disarm us.
And on a side note - It's probably military contractors selling weapons to Mexican gangs. Who else has the money and connections to do it? Rednecks? Good ol boys? Doubtful. And lets take a step back and look at this - stupid drug war fuels destabilization of Mexico and the empowerment of drug cartels. As a result, American weapons are getting sold to Mexican gangs. But ALSO, we are now contracted to help train and support the Mexican military - i.e. we are selling American weapons to the Mexican government. But how can the Mexican government afford our weapons and training? Easy, the US loans them our tax payer money. So now we have the classic situation where we are funding and arming both sides of a conflict we created so that the military industrial complex can profit.
Isn't that awesome!? And so now, as long as we're being raped by government and private interests they just figure why not take away our weapons too! Please don't let that happen. The Founding Fathers weren't stupid. Liberty isn't stupid. Protection from tyranny isn't stupid. - toomuchsun, on 04/22/2009, -2/+31Vermont has next to no gun control - you walk into a gun store, pass the NICS check, and can carry it immediately - openly or concealed.
No "permit" required, no training courses, etc.
Vermont to this day is one of the safest states in the US, with low rates of firearms deaths, suicides and accidents. - Arsenard, on 04/22/2009, -4/+33GUNS create killers just like boats create Pirates!!
- lyonsban, on 04/22/2009, -1/+30Some are excellent for hunting. The AK is a superb deer hunting rifle because the round is heavy and flat shooting. The M16 sucks because the round is a high powered 22 designed to wound humans, it also keyholes if it touches the tiniest branch or leaf. The .223 used by the M16 is a fairly good open ground gopher round, but I prefer others. No hand held rifle can only be used for killing humans and the best at killing humans are also, no surprise, best at killing human sized prey, such as deer.
You seem to have two misconceptions:
The point of hunting is to kill quickly and efficiently so you can have a trophy and meat for the freezer. My perfect hunt involves a deer falling into prepackaged pieces on my back porch, although I must admit stalking prey has an atavistic enjoyment of it's own, which I don't begrudge others.
"Spray and pray", also known as "full automatic" is very scary, but terrible for killing what you aimed at. You kill by using a well targeted, single shot to a vital organ. Follow up targeted shots are used to reduce suffering and pain. Fully automatic fire has been phased out of military doctrine since the Vietnam war, in fact modern assault weapons fire three round bursts, rather than fully automatic fire. - Dimensio, on 04/22/2009, -0/+29"Funny, I would have thought that assault rifles were specifically designed to assault people."
I made no mention of federally restricted assault rifles. I am referring only to the class of semi-automatic civilian rifles that have been defined, purely because of cosmetic attachments, as "assault weapons" in a deliberate and dishonest attempt to create public confusion.
"Seriously, name one purpose for assault weapons that don't involve blowing away people you don't like."
The AR-15 was initially marketed as a hunting rifle, and is currently the most popular centerfire recreational target rifle in the United States.
"They are not good for hunting,"
Your assertion is demonstrably false, as many firearms classified as "assault weapons" were in fact designed as hunting rifles.
" and their ammunition is designed to take down people."
This assertion is also incorrect. The .223 Remington round, used by the AR-15, was designed specifically as a hunting cartridge. It would appear as though you have not actually researched the subject on which you are commenting.
" They have no positive purpose."
Your conclusion is derived from demonstrably false premises. - MidnightReign, on 04/22/2009, -1/+28For those too ignorant to realize: Assault Weapon != Automatic Weapon.
Automatic Weapons are already massively regulated; in many states, they are outright illegal; even in a state which allows them, you must still hold in good standing a Federal Class 3 license, which is (a) a real ***** to get, and (b) expensive.
Even after you get the necessary license, you have to cough up thousands of $$$ for one of the rare automatic weapons made before 1986. That's right, a private citizen can't own an automatic weapon made after that year, period. Interestingly, the statistics on legal automatic weapons would suggest that they are NEVER used in crime. They are collectors' items and treated as such.
"Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic weapons (one shot per trigger pull) which often are designed to LOOK like military-style rifles. In some cases, such a rifle might be identical except for certain internal parts which have converted it to semi-automatic. The things which can trigger a rifle being categorized as an assault rifle: bayonet lug (in the last 50 years, how many bayonet slayings have there been?), pistol grip (ergonomics is to be a crime?), flash hider (which breaks up the flash pattern into smaller "rays" instead of a huge fireball, and is NOT a silencer).
You tell us: which assault weapon feature do you really fear? Why should these rifles be banned? - jehan60188, on 04/22/2009, -4/+31because it's a right.
if they require licensing for the second amendment, what next? a license to free speech? a 10 day waiting period before you can talk to an attorney? - badenglishihave, on 04/22/2009, -3/+30All of the legal gun owners I know are responsible citizens. Yes, they love guns. There's a reason why: it's fun to shoot!
It's the occasional kooks that Europeans like you (I assume) point to and say "See, SEE?! You should ban guns!" Except what you fail to notice is that most gun crimes are done with illegally obtained guns. - BoostingBlue04, on 04/22/2009, -8/+35More Liberal crybabies. Someone call the waaambulance.
- Switch53, on 04/22/2009, -1/+27actually it is reasonable considering we as Americans need to find someone to blame . I mean when you look at this country's homicide rates someone must be responsible right? imo what we really should be doing is looking at the murderer's and people who misuse guns and saying hey that might be our problem maybe we should be working on ways to fix that problem. Taking away guns in this country isn't a magic fix for our crime problems at best murders would become more gruesome since criminals would have to find new inventive ways to kill their victims. just b/c i have a pistol or ar-15 doesn't mean i'm going to go out and commit a crime with it. Quit pointing fingers and start fixing problems at the source, even with that said your still not going to change human nature.
- Samueul, on 04/22/2009, -1/+26Exactly. Brady was shot with a .22, so what did they do.. they went after "assault weapons"... .22, .25acp, .38 are the most widely used caliber in gun related crimes... Why? Because they are small, cheap, and easier to get than anything else...
Hmmm. I'm a dime store crook, do I buy the $2500.00 assault rifle or the $125.00 raven .25 that I can tuck in my pocket??????? Decisions decisions... - jsffive, on 04/22/2009, -4/+29I think it's exceptionally naive of the the poster of this article to automatically assume that the Congress would pass a "rational and limited regulation" about ANYTHING!
E. J. Dionne is a slack-jawed PUSSY, who has never been physically threatened by a gun in his life, and yet, while disregarding the "epidemic" of automobile fatalities and prescription drug deaths in this country, he wants to call for a ban on only those things that HE deems to be "unsafe".
He's EXACTLY the kind of person who, when somebody invokes a phantom menace, he crawls under the bed, and wants everybody to surrender their liberties, so HE can feel some small modicum of security.
He's also the same guy that thinks that there's some merit to forced national service, despite the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment ostensibly freed people from involuntary servitude.
Screw that guy.
With all that has happened in the past ten years, what exactly compels Mr. Dionne to think that our government is functional enough to pass a decent law that won't trample on our liberties first, and our security second?
You want to feel safer, Mr. Dionne? Go take a testosterone pill, buy a gun, and learn how to use it. Or here's another idea: go crawl under your bed, get in the fetal position, stick your thumb in your mouth, and let the adults handle things. We'll let you know when you can come out. - moxley, on 04/22/2009, -6/+30What we need is more people to tell any of these ***** who want to pass stupid laws based on how a firearm looks to ***** off.
I am sure that the real agenda of these people is to turn America into Brittan or Australia.
Gun ownership is a hugely important part of what makes America America, and laws don't affect criminals, they only affect people who actually follow the law (which means law abiding gun owners).
If you are scared of guns or think guns should be banned you really should go to a shooting range and get some instruction and actually see how guns work, do some shooting, learn about the history.
Don't let every movie or TV show you've seen since you have been 3 years old scare you into thinking an inanimate object is responsible for the actions of criminal men or women.
Firearm ownership is the ultimate guarantor of all of your rights - the one final bulwark against complete tyranny - and THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about - it isn't about hunting, it isn't about target shooting - it is about the right of the people to be armed to prevent a tyrannical government from taking hold, period.
People who are "anti-gun" should really think about this issue in a realistic fashion and should have some firsthand experience with firearms and responsible firearm owners.
If there was some way to magically snap your fingers and there would be no such thing as guns anywhere in the world then that might be something worth considering - but that just isn't the case, and putting restrictions (that are ultimately leading up to a complete ban) on law abiding citizens will not reduce crime or "gun violence" whatsoever - in fact, in every situation where we have data on this sort of thing crime tends to go up because the criminals know that the populace is unarmed..In states where concealed carry is made easy for law abiding citizens crime goes down...
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/04/trimming-bac ...
The link above is for John R. Lott's blog - he's (IIRC) a professor at the U of Maryland and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989.
He seems to have done a lot of research and has been very active in this issue and I find his blog to be invaluable when it comes to looking into what the real world effects of gun control legislation are. - LouisCipher777, on 04/22/2009, -1/+25oh, and the "gun show loophole", that is just a buzz word to mean private transactions of any kind. No more fathers giving their sons .22s for christmas. no more leaving your children your collection of firearms when you pass on, unless they do the background checks, etc.
I took my roommate, (a woman that I took trap shooting once and she fell in love with the sport), shooting, and she loved it. I bought her a shotgun for christmas. I know for a fact that she has never been in any trouble in her life, that she is of age, and that she is careful and thoughtful of others. Yet my gift would be illegal and could land us both in prison if they closed the "gun show loophole".
Do felons and criminals buy guns from private people without background checks? unfortunately the answer is yes. But it is a much lower number than most pundits seem to understand. It is easier for a criminal to buy a stolen pistol from their favorite crack dealer than for them to find one for sale at a gun show from a private citizen. - Dimensio, on 04/21/2009, -3/+26"Sure, check any statistic you want. the number are crystal clear."
Your statement does not constitute an argument. - stevenb, on 04/22/2009, -1/+23A 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.
Guys, please tell me where in the second amendment it says that we are being allowed guns for hunting?
It really puts me off the gun debate with someone when they bring up.. "X is not reasonable for use in hunting, so why do you guys need it?" -- Well, it's an inalienable right given to me by the Constitution of our country. Should you have to justify to me why you should have the freedom of speech? No, you absolutely should not... because once you start justifying rights that are absolute.. you begin to lose them.
As for "assault weapons" in Mexico, lets do a little bit of economics....
In the United States currently, AK-47s (The civilian semi-automatic version) are running $700-1000 USD.
In Mexico, I can buy a Russian, Cuban (Russian, basically), or Chinese AK-47, which is fully automatic.. for $3-400USD. I know, because I've got a friend who has looked into this for me down in Juarez.
Basic economics points in the direction the cartels would vote... Why spend double on a weapon that's only going to shoot one bullet every time you pull the trigger?
In Mexico, I can pick up an assortment of neat military based weapons (M4s, M16s, RPGs, Grenades).. for pennies on the dollar compared to here where you cannot buy RPGs, or Grenades. Most of the M4s and M16s are coming from... ? You guessed it.. our military giving their military weapons for the war on drugs. Who'd ever think for one moment that their military and their entire government was legit and wouldn't turn around and sell some of them?
Wanna know what a LEGAL M4/M16 goes for in the United States? $10-15k. Wanna know what a LEGAL mp5 goes for? $25-30k. And that's after you get a class 3 license from the BATF. If you want to buy select fire or full auto weapons before 1986, then all you need is the tax stamp... But, good luck finding anything in those that aren't worth more than your car.
And last, but not least.
Regarding the gun show loophole that the antis are so in favor of closing. FFL based sellers are already required to request a NICs / 4473 check on everyone purchasing firearms from them. Private parties are not required to.. as Dimensio or whatever his name has stated. So... really, what you're going at is having private citizens selling private property telling the government what they're selling ONLY at gun shows. What's to stop them from walking outside the gun show and selling their weapons Face to Face on private property, or away from the show? Well, nothing, closing the gun show loophole is only a step toward requiring sellers to go through FFLs any time they sell their weapons to another private party. You ask, what's wrong with that? It's a defacto registration scheme. And gun registration has historically led to confiscation... Hell, it's even happened here during Katrina.. Police were using reigstrations to disarm their citizens because of the looting going on. Leaving a ton of their citizenry disarmed while there was an armed menace in their neighborhoods.
Rational gun control is a fallacy, given the context of our Constitution. I don't know about you, but my idea of "shall not be infringed" means, that nothing shall infringe a legal law abiding citizens' right to arms. Even if it's scary for you, you don't have any right to take away anyone else's rights, period. - apackofmonkeys, on 04/22/2009, -0/+22Madkenny obviously doesn't even know what an so-called "assault weapon" is. Hell, I don't think anyone knows what an "assault weapon" is, but one thing's for sure, the weapons they're trying to ban are not automatics, they just look "scary". Madkenny is just another anti-gun nut who makes himself look like a retard because he doesn't even understand what guns this bill is trying to ban.
- rthakidn, on 04/22/2009, -1/+23The so called assault weapons or no more dangerous than a 9mm handgun. They are semi-auto and yes they are intended to stop human beings (as is a 9mm handgun). Perhaps the only thing that can be said about them, that differs from semi-auto hand gun is being a rifle, it would be much more accurate. The ban was implemented because it was thought (and still is from the posts here) that mass murderers and thugs run around and use the spray and pray technique of shooting, which negates the rifles only advantage over the legally acquired (and accepted) handgun. Therefore, the slippery slope the ban sends us down, will be the inevitable ban on all weapons, when the ban proves to be ineffective and it is "discovered" that handguns can be used to "spray and pray" as well. The assault weapons ban exist ONLY because they appear sinister. As to the Mexican problem. I'd say that was Mexico's to deal with. If we assume, these thugs are coming into the US and getting them, then I'd say it is our problem. One of immigration.
- drunkinbda, on 04/22/2009, -1/+23Dimensio and others speak the truth. The assault weapons ban is just stupid. Some examples of things that were banned:
pistol grip
bayonet lug
grenade launcher
collapsible stock
and other "cosmetic" items
firstly..how often do criminals run around shooting grenades and stabbing with bayonets anyway?
someone mentioned the AK-47's and all that too. FYI the automatic versions of those are illegal with or without the ban, so i doubt someone will stop using it simply becasue they dont want to get caught with a pistol grip. The semi-auto versions, are no different then any other semi auto.. so why should they be banned cause htey look bad ass!!
one more note... this is a mitsubishi car
http://www.theautochannel.com/media/photos/mitsubi ...
this is a mitsu car too.
http://www.body-kit.com/lanevo5_01.jpg
is the second one better or faster car? no.. they are both mitsu mirage's... but one has cosmetic enhancements. -
Show 51 - 100 of 762 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
