I don't think people in government should be killed, even if they do send people off to war. I didn't approve of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, whom most people here know is not my hero. I don't approve of the war in Afghanistan, but it is a decision made by officials whom we duly elected. If we believe in peace, then we need to practice it.

Originally Posted by Weave

Machine guns have been illegal since the 1934 act.

Not entirely true. The 1934 law made it illegal to own without being licensed by the federal government (obtained through the department of treasury amusingly enough). Newly manufactured automatic weapons were banned in 1986. For instance no one may purchase an automatic rifle built in 1995. That said it is still possible to obtain a license from the federal government to own and operate fully automatic weapons built previous to 1986 (weapons that were grandfathered in) and at that point are only subject to state laws and restrictions.
Purchase of an automatic weapon is subject to a $200 tax and the 1986 law has made legal automatic weapons produced before 1986 prohibitively expensive.
Of course if you have ever fired a fully automatic rifle then you know how useless it is. It tends to mess with your aim just a bit.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I wish I still believed that. I think that, to start with, with basically have decent people elected to congress. Some arrive jaded already from state politics or corporate politics. The good ones, the Mr/Ms Smiths of the bunch, come to Washington all full of ideals and how they are going to make a difference and everything. And then they are subtly subverted.

First, they get the welcoming committee, the office in the capitol building, the staff, the luncheons, the hobnobbing with power brokers. They get called to meetings with bigwigs in the party, maybe the president himself, they are treated graciously by these people. They feel important. Then a big vote comes up, and maybe they feel like the party line isn't correct, or they haven't read the legislation. They get the call from the whip making sure they are going to vote "correctly" and if they aren't, the pressure starts. They delude themselves that this one vote won't matter, and boom, it starts. Soon they are in the fold and part of the bloc. Maybe they campaigned against earmarks, but now they are told this is how the game is played, you have to play ball, here is a perk for your district so that your people are taken care of... Just vote this way on this bill for this company or industry, and you will have nice comfy seat on the board when you retire with a salary you barely have to do anything for... and it gets to even the best of people. Power corrupts.

I don't know about this new class of representatives, these Tea Party folks. They were elected for their principals I'm told. I wonder how long it will take for them to be seduced by power?

Now, I could be wrong about all of that, but I am a Joneser/Xer, so I am naturally pessimistic.

It starts the moment they hit Washington, so it's only a matter of time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not at all. Whether one has, or has fired, a gun has no relevance to the question.

It has all the relevance in the world as I pointed out above. Believing you can make an argument from a state of ignorance is irrational.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Another thing I have never understood. Granted that you keep a gun under your pillow, but we are supposed to keep these guns locked up like your others. What good are locked-up guns when a burglar or government agent shows up at your bedroom door and points a gun at you? There's no time to get your gun.

It is not under my pillow. That would be rather dangerous and stupid. It is in a bag next to the bed. As far as the locked up rifles go, they are impractical for defending my bedroom against assailants. There are also neighbors to consider and rifle rounds can go through people and walls. That is why the revolver stays loaded and within reach. That said, there are loaded magazines in the safe and given a minute warning can be made use of if need be.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It has all the relevance in the world as I pointed out above. Believing you can make an argument from a state of ignorance is irrational.

The issue is whether guns contribute to safety. You don't need to know how to fire one to know the issues. I have always heard this ridiculous argument that if people know how to fire weapons, people will be safer. No, the issue is whether people should have them, and who should have them, not how to fire them. The fact is, the criminals, or law enforcement, whichever you prefer to fear, is more likely to know how to use them, and be in position to use them, than most individual gun owners. If you know how to use your machine gun, contratulations. Now, get rid of it, for your own sake. You have no right to have it, probably, and if the law finds out, they might invade your home and shoot you. Give it up copperfield.

It is not under my pillow. That would be rather dangerous and stupid. It is in a bag next to the bed.

Wow. lots safer! 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.

As far as the locked up rifles go, they are impractical for defending my bedroom against assailants. There are also neighbors to consider and rifle rounds can go through people and walls. That is why the revolver stays loaded and within reach. That said, there are loaded magazines in the safe and given a minute warning can be made use of if need be.

You may not have that long. I suppose if the law comes over and says "come out with your hands up" you have a chance to get your weapons. A burglar will not give you that chance. And the law will have you outgunned, and probably dead. Meanwhile your loaded revolver is probably also illegal for you to have in that position. If not, it is very likely more of a danger to you and your family and friends than to any unlikely burglar. Get a dog, or move to a friendly neighborhood like mine. By keeping a gun, you are contributing to the violence of our society. You know better.

Originally Posted by Xer H

It starts the moment they hit Washington, so it's only a matter of time.

<sigh> As expected...

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Of course if you have ever fired a fully automatic rifle then you know how useless it is. It tends to mess with your aim just a bit.

Not to mention the expense in ammunition. The one time I ever tried the full-auto position, I burned through a 30-round magazine in what felt like the time it took to blink twice. It's even quicker than just lighting your money on fire.

There's a reason why the auto selector position is in the middle...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I repeat: there is no legitimate restriction on speech.

I repeat: there are legitimate restrictions on speech, particularly commercial speech, all over the place.

You sound like a boomer.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I repeat: there are legitimate restrictions on speech, particularly commercial speech, all over the place.

Except that the restrictions that are legitimate are the ones not on speech, and the ones on speech aren't legitimate. The examples you gave were purely of those two categories (though generally of the first).

And you are a Boomer

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And you are a Boomer

Don't you love a forum where accusing someone of being a boomer is actually a form of insult?

Oh, the humanity!

James50

1. The Jacob Weisberg piece said more or less the same thing that I did. It's very difficult to regard Loughner's target as random in the current political climate, however wacked out he may be.

2. I was one of the best shots in my basic training company, but I don't think I've fired a gun since.

3. I think something is profoundly amiss in a society in which people claim they need to own semi-automatic weapons to protect their lives and, if need be, their rights against the federal government and government in general. It's really a denial that civilization exists, and it's a threat to civilization. The strength of the pro-gun movement is like the strength of the deregulation movement: it's an indication of the general erosion of respect for government and the authority of the state, which I think is threatening much of the world with anarchy. I know this is not about to change--it would probably take an armed revolution and its defeat to change it now. But it is not a step forward.

Originally Posted by James50

Don't you love a forum where accusing someone of being a boomer is actually a form of insult?

Welcome to the internet

Originally Posted by James50

Don't you love a forum where accusing someone of being a boomer is actually a form of insult?

Oh, the humanity!

I know. I almost deleted the post, for fear my insults had gone a step too far.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The issue is whether guns contribute to safety.

That is not the issue at all. Safety is subject to opinion and conjecture.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You don't need to know how to fire one to know the issues. I have always heard this ridiculous argument that if people know how to fire weapons, people will be safer. No, the issue is whether people should have them, and who should have them, not how to fire them. The fact is, the criminals, or law enforcement, whichever you prefer to fear, is more likely to know how to use them, and be in position to use them, than most individual gun owners.

Doubtful. How many criminals do you suppose show up at the local gun range to practice? Police? Well, if you know any police officers, just ask them how much they train shooting live ammunition. I bet you will be surprised by the answer (hint: with rare exceptions it isn't very often).

And frankly given the track record of overzealous police operations gone wrong, I can't say I am impressed or even interested in their brand of "public safety":

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you know how to use your machine gun, congratulations. Now, get rid of it, for your own sake. You have no right to have it, probably, and if the law finds out, they might invade your home and shoot you. Give it up copperfield.

Um, I do not own a "machine gun" nor did I ever say I did. I merely discussed the laws with which I am familiar. If I did own one it would be because I was licensed to do so. I can assure you that every weapon I own is legal according to both my state's and federal law, so I do have every right to own them whether you like it or not. And that being the case Eric, why would the police invade the home of a law-abiding citizen? Do you support home invasion of innocent citizens?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You may not have that long. I suppose if the law comes over and says "come out with your hands up" you have a chance to get your weapons. A burglar will not give you that chance. And the law will have you outgunned, and probably dead. Meanwhile your loaded revolver is probably also illegal for you to have in that position. If not, it is very likely more of a danger to you and your family and friends than to any unlikely burglar. Get a dog, or move to a friendly neighborhood like mine. By keeping a gun, you are contributing to the violence of our society. You know better.

I may be killed in a freak circus accident. We can get into hypotheticals all we want. I may also hear a burglar breaking a window in the living room while I sleep. He may be carrying a knife with the intention of slitting my throat and raping my girlfriend. I may wake up and greet him at the bedroom door. I may use the weapon to intimidate and subdue him or if that doesn't work, I may defend my life and the life of a loved one by killing him. See how easy hypotheticals are?

With no way of knowing how life will turn out I can only prepare for possible eventualities and give myself a better chance of survival.

Oh and just so you know there are no laws here that state I can't keep my revolver where I keep it, in the manner I keep it. You are ignorant and irrational to even assume otherwise.

Oh and to your last point, none of my weapons have ever been used in a violent manner. But besides that, I made my peace a long time ago that human beings are violent creatures, always have been and always will be. It's in our nature. It's even in your nature Eric.

And that Eric is why I own firearms and will continue to own firearms until the day I die.

But you Eric appear to be getting more and more irrational by the minute. You are sick Eric. I would suggest that you seek some help for that. Maybe get some good meds. I would hate to see you make the news someday holding someone hostage in your underwear.

Originally Posted by Odin

So much more the false equivalency BS, a Palin fanatic posted this on Palin's Facebook page:



These sad excuses for human beings f***ing suck.

Did she really say that? or is it a fake page? That seems cold hearted even for her.

Any word on the Westboro Baptist Church, greet and meet at the AZ border. I hope they have a Come-To-Jesus moment and avoid this.


Send out the Sheriff.

http://chicago.gopride.com/news/arti...near-a-funeral

Originally Posted by Justin '77

There's an old saying about what those who live by the sword can expect. What's disturbing is not the consequences, but the choice to engage in behavior that can have those consequences.
On the gripping hand, a person who doesn't hurt people not only is not equivalent to someone who does engage in harming others -- he is superior.

So you are arguing that deadly force is never justified? If you are not, and do believe there are circumstances where deadly force is justified, is it still justified if innocent people are likely to be hurt or killed?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What are you doing with a gun, Odin? Be offended then.

As I said before, it is a total fantasy to believe that individuals with guns can stop the army of an authoritarian regime. Again, learn from Waco and Ruby Ridge. It won't work. Janet Reno will win, and you will lose your life.

Please get rid of your gun before it hurts someone. I value your life and those of your family and friends.

It's about time Americans left and right outgrew their gun fetish. But I understand; like everything else in this country, things move at glacial speed. What I mean is that many Americans do accept this idea, and gun control is brushed aside today.

I accept that you are a gun owner, and can think. That is obvious. Well, think then; and get rid of your gun Odin.

I hunt. I have a rifle for deer hunting and a shotgun for hunting waterfowl.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were a bunch of wackos, not a serious military threat. You don't think genuine guerrilla forces can fight the US military? Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks for posting this Zarathustra, from the Washington Post. I guess the pro-gun folks here don't want to read it.

It was pretty much dismissed out of hand as liberal claptrap. Warren Buffet is a major stockholder in the newspaper's parent company. He's a liberal anti-gun nut, right?

Originally Posted by Odin

I You don't think genuine guerrilla forces can fight the US military? Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Remember, they were continually resupplied by China and the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Did she really say that? or is it a fake page? That seems cold hearted even for her.

it was a Palin farn commenting on her official FB page.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Not to put too fine a point on it, but primarily to protect myself from people like you. Now that is not to say in the event of confiscation, that I expect you personally will be showing up to pitch in. I understand that you will gladly hide behind the police during such an event.

So you keep an AK-47, among other weapons, so that you can fight the government when/if it comes to take your weapons?

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Remember, they were continually resupplied by China and the Soviet Union.

I'm pretty sure SOMEONE would be helping supply the ammo. The US is a big country.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm pretty sure SOMEONE would be helping supply the ammo. The US is a big country.

It be ironic if a pro-gun resistance (which I imagine has a lot of overlapping demographics with immigration-restriction supporters) started getting supplies funnelled in from Mexico.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

1. The Jacob Weisberg piece said more or less the same thing that I did. It's very difficult to regard Loughner's target as random in the current political climate, however wacked out he may be.

2. I was one of the best shots in my basic training company, but I don't think I've fired a gun since.

3. I think something is profoundly amiss in a society in which people claim they need to own semi-automatic weapons to protect their lives and, if need be, their rights against the federal government and government in general. It's really a denial that civilization exists, and it's a threat to civilization. The strength of the pro-gun movement is like the strength of the deregulation movement: it's an indication of the general erosion of respect for government and the authority of the state, which I think is threatening much of the world with anarchy. I know this is not about to change--it would probably take an armed revolution and its defeat to change it now. But it is not a step forward.

As you already know, David, I'm a liberal woman who has spent a large portion of her adult life living in conservative environments. Because of this I've come to at least understand both sides of just about every argument. On the gun thing, well, my husband is a card carrying member of the NRA. He loves to hunt. Growing up in Alaska this was one of the main sources of entertainment for many like him. I had never been around guns until I married him and suddenly I had this arsenal in my house. It was a little unsettling at first. (He does not have automatic weapons. Just basically shot guns, riffles and a hand gun.) But I once asked him about automatic weapons. If his reason for wanting to own guns was because he liked to hunt, did he think automatic weapons should be legal? He answered, "yes". I asked him why? You don't need a automatic weapon to go hunting. He just kind of laughed and responded, "Well, it might be fun to go hunting with an automatic weapon."

See that's the thing. I know lots of guys, who like my husband, love their guns. Mainly the only time they get them out is when they go hunting. I honestly think they kind of view them as cool toys. My husband says he has his hand gun for protection. In the more than 20 years we have lived together, I've never seen him get it out for "protection". I've never even seen him fire it. The only time I've ever seen him with it, was when we lived in Alaska and we would go hiking in the woods. The purpose for bringing the gun was in case we were to come up on bear. And anyone who has ever lived in Alaska knows that bears truly are a threat.

My point is that most rational people who own guns, use them properly. It's only the irrational people who are dangerous with a gun in their hands. But then, I've also heard stories of people who went crazy and hacked up their families with knives. You don't need a gun to kill someone.