Biden vows to ban assault weapons 'come hell or high water'

I'm starting to think our ui 'friends' simply have no concept of inherent rights, as they don't have them.

 

Actually it's not really all that much. For every 100,000 people, it effects between 4-6 individuals. That's 0.00005% of the population, which is actually a tiny number.

As for our Constitional $hit, nobody invited you to come visit, so it's really not your business. Maybe your time would be better spent trying to convince your own countrymen that freedom of speech is an important thing that you should be (and are) entitled to.

 

True. But they do have AR-15s in their patrol cars.

 

I don't think I am. I think I am using correct definitions.

Self defense guns are for preserving life.

How many deaths were caused by the participants in the last Olympic biathlon?

How many deaths were caused by the gold medal winners?

True.

I'm making my own point.

 

Competitive shooting is one sport where men have no advantage over women (with the possible exception of very small women may have trouble using very large guns, like barret .50s, under certain circumstances, but I dunno of any run-n-gun drills involving barret .50s, so prolly not worth worrying about). As more and more women are pished out of other sports by 'trans women', expect more of them to turn to competitive shooting where men dressed like women cant use their genetic advantage to dominate.

 

Well READ NYSRPA v BRUEN, which is a new case, and maybe learn something.

 

No, you're using diplo speak and pretending like you don't have a right to kill someone in certain circumstances.

No, they're for using deadly force.

The fact you can practice target shooting doesn't change the extant purpose of a firearm. Its for killing people when you have a right to do that, and that is both legally and morally correct.

You're not doing a very good job of it.

 

True. I don’t carry an AR-15 when I’m pulling a calf or watering cows from an irrigation well. But there is almost always one in my vehicle be it the pickup or tractor or semi. Things that need shot with a rifle/carbine don’t wait around for you to drive back to the house (or police station) and get a rifle out of a locker, load it and drive back to where the thing needed shot.

 

You're right.

That's why I used women's competitive shooting as an example; being larger and stronger isn't a significant advantage.

Thanks,

 

You should check out this thread and the video for that piece of hypocrisy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/jon-stewart-demolish-a-2a-fanatic.608764/

 

Could well be the case in other countries too.

Just a reminder that they are the police. Funny how every day Americans want to do what the police do. And the army as well. Must be Hollywood's influence...

 

Errant government official??

(J/K, J/K)

 

I am doing no such thing. The fact that self defense may result in the death of an attacker does not change the fact that the purpose of self defense is protection from harm.

So tell me again how many lives were taken by the gold medal winners in the last Olympic biathlon?

Is that what the biathlon competitors were doing on TV during the Olympics? Practicing?

That is incorrect. Self defense might result in the death of the attacker, but killing the attacker is not the purpose of self defense.

The purpose of self defense is to protect the defender.

Yes I am.

 

Actually that's the influence of our founding traditions. Our military was supposed to be a militia made up of the entire able bodied male population. Our first police were volunteer 'watchmen' who basically just alerted the local population to a crime. Clearly not a perfect system, but the idea of a community defending and policing itself shouldn't be all that far removed from the idea of a community governing itself.

 

the cartridge we use is far less likely to kill than say what our snipers use. and its not an issue to me but tactically the purpose of infantry rifles is to inflict casualties on the opposition and to suppress movement so other weapons can take out the enemy

 

I do believe the 2A had/has a very definite purpose. I also subscribe to the non aggression principle. If the errant government official is wasting fellow citizens with F-15s and tanks as they are now proposing for mere possession of firearms ….well…as I said, the 2A as a guard against standing military tyranny was quite intentional.

And I’m not stupid enough to go toe to toe with tanks and F-15s with an AR-15 either. All units operating armor and aircraft employ small arms. It’s not to fight Russian migs or T-14s.

But I’ll reiterate. I subscribe to the non aggression principle.

 

I already know about it.

What does it say about criminals right to carry guns?

 

I'm familiar with that thread, and you should know that I've been an active participant. Still, I see nothing hypocritical about my statement, which I stand by. Jon is a ass, who took on a mental midget, asked some gotcha questions with some made up statistics, and probably edited the footage to make him look worse than he made himself look.

He suggest fingerprinting bullets, which is an interesting idea, but currently beyond our technology, and when it does become even hypothetically possible, it will be cost prohibitive. He also said that as we buy more guns went up, and cited 2020 as an example, but he seemed to forget the period of time in between 1990 and 2020, which gets an asterisk for what should be obvious reasons. You'll see in the diagram below that euring those 3 decades, homicides went down to at or very close to all-time lows, despite setting new gun sales records year after year after year, and during that time is the same time that the country went from no such thing as a concealed carry permit, to shall issue in all 50 States.

We were first in the Freedom State in 1986, and though I was too young to have a firm grasp of what was going on, I do remember people opposed to the very idea predicting blood in the streets, and minor fender benders escalating to murders by civilians carrying guns, all of which proved to be baseless fears, as not only did it not happen, as I said, the opposite is true.

And the decline coincided perfectly with the time it started and expanded. You think those things might just be related? It's possible, but even if not (and it's an unanswerable question), the idea that more guns means more crime was proven absolutely false.

 

I've giving you a like for the good effort for the post. I think that it is certain types of shootings that are the target of proposed gun laws, not crime per say. Yes, banning assault weapons would probably unduly affect law abiding citizens and not criminals. But eventually it would probably trickle-down.

The 'problem' is the cat is out of the bag that there are so many weapons in the US that a ban wouldn't even get a fraction of them. This is why countries like the UK in New Zealand and Australia have acted so quickly and decisively to get the proliferation of semi-automatics under control. It definitely wasn't a case of government overeach. Most don't want to end up with so many guns in those communities. Government responded to what the people wanted ( on those countries).

But (many) Americans think differently. When this thinking changes the gun laws will change.

 

It is probably not inappropriate to mention in this thread, of all threads, but of all the countries, the US is probably the one that I would have a slight eye on about federal overeach. Simply because it's such a powerful entity and POTUS in such a powerful position. And power does corrupt. Look at the last election.

But of course we're blowing smoke here. Nothing's going to happen. And if the army really does want to take you on it's a pretty pointless exercise to fight back. But then millions of citizens armed to the teeth could slow things down a bit...

P.s. I would start off with Buckshot for that errant government official. Just a bit of a sting, lol.

 

Interesting insight. I can't see anything wrong with that statement actually.

 

Trickle down to what? No assault weapon that is legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

I consider abolishing freedom for no reason to be overreach even if the population supports it.

The American people will never stop living freedom.

 

In time criminals will have more difficulty getting them as well.

 

What is this "in time" nonsense? Criminals are ALREADY unable to get them.

Note again that no assault weapon that is or was legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

 

LOL, the old timers used to load up shot shells with rock salt for trespassers.

Millions of armed US citizens would end US military tyranny on US soil in less than 48 hours. I would have thought Iraq and Afghanistan would have destroyed the romantic notions that the US military could subdue the armed US population. The Taliban didn’t even have access to the US supply infrastructure or the non military heads of the snake. Nor did the Taliban have access to recruit from a 16 million demographic of individuals trained by the US military in tactics, supply and support. Nor was the Taliban fighting a US military fractured where approximately half the members of the US military either bow out or join the opposition.

Somewhere around 80,000 Taliban and associates defeated the Afghan army and the US and affiliated global forces totaling over half a million operating in an area a bit smaller than Texas. A US military taking on today’s armed population would be an unmitigated disaster for the US military. And for everyone related to and connected to the political faction commanding such a military endeavor.

Such a conflict would not be pretty. It’s something we should avoid at all costs. And politicians and citizens talking about wasting other citizens with military might is not conducive to avoidance.

The fed doesn’t even have the cajones to pull off another Waco or Ruby Ridge today. Too many armed citizens show up to ensure it doesn’t happen. There are a lot of folks out here that would never start such a conflict but that would end it VERY quickly. Because quickly always saves the most lives and prevents the most destruction.