I reread your post above again and still must not be getting your point. Can you spell it out once again. I must be getting dense this late in the week.
To think more gun control will help crime is a bit absurd. I don't even know why it's such a big issue, I think democrats are for strong gun control so much just to (*)(*)(*)(*) off conservatives.
Sure. The other member had posted both a concern of military grade weaponry AND an unconcern with civilian grade weapons finding their way into Mexico. I had agreed that a concern of military grade weaponry was justified, but not to discount the impact of the civilian grade weapons (that happen to come from the US) at the same time. OK?
How 'bout you post some facts and figures regarding the amount of "civilian grade" weaponry that is supposedly flowing into Mexico like a raging river? I'd really like to know just how many .22 rifles, .410 shotguns, .25 pistols, .38 revolvers, and other such "civilian" firearms are crossing the border. Oh, BTW - An assault rifle is NOT a "civilian grade" weapon, so AK-47's don't count.
Most people are not primitive wilderness-dwellers dependent on killing for food, so no-one needs guns. People buy them to show off or because they are (*)(*)(*)(*) ('excreta' do?)-scared of their own imaginings. Let's spend the money on psychiatrists instead.
Look at the lack of logic in your opening sentence - "Most people are not primitive wilderness-dwellers dependent on killing for food, so no-one needs guns." Most people aren't farmers, so no one needs a combine. Most people aren't water skiiers, so no one needs a ski boat. Most people aren't HIV-positive, so no one needs AIDS medication. The rancher in Montana who buys a rifle to shoot the wolves, coyotes, bears, and mountain lions who prey upon his livestock is buying a rifle because he wants to show off? Whether or not the anti-gun proponents care to admit it or not - firearms have a legitimate place in society. Idiotic statements like "...no one needs a gun", merely serve to illustrate the lack of intelligent thought amongst a substantial portion of the anti-gun crowd. And this, my friends, is why the pro-gun people and the NRA are so entrenched in their positions...
Unlike extreme-right Americans I sometimes overstate. Scarcely anybody nowadays needs a firearm, except a tiny minority of farmers and vast numbers of neurotic Americans, who'd be better with treatment. That do?
Scarcely anybody needs a 3,500 sq. ft. McMansion on 2 acres of land - a 2 bedroom apartment will do just fine. Scarcely anybody needs a Cadillac Escalade SUV that gets 15 mpg - a Toyota Prius hybrid will do just fine. Scarcely anybody needs to take a two week vacation in Boca Raton - two weeks at home will do just fine. Scarcely anybody needs to eat steak - grilled chicken will do just fine. Scarcely anybody needs to drink alcoholic beverages - water will do just fine. Scarcely anybody needs to be so presumptuous as to determine what other people do and do not need - "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Buy as many as you can. Along with ammunition, they will be worth their weight in gold in the coming years. "Unlike extreme-right Americans I sometimes overstate. Scarcely anybody nowadays needs a firearm, except a tiny minority of farmers and vast numbers of neurotic Americans, who'd be better with treatment. That do?" Iolo And when your crack-smoking neighbor's pit bull is biting your arm off, you will call 911 and wait 20 minutes for the police to show up? The other neighbor (who isn't smoking crack) with a 9 mm will save your arm in less than one second.
You yourself have already posted figures showing that most of the weaponry as been civilian grade weapons. remember? What's the matter? Aren't your own sources good enough? BTW- we already defined automatic weapons as military grade, did we not? As you know, in the US a whole range of weapons are readily available to the civilian public, including .50 caliber rifles, and a whole range of semi-automatic weapons fairly well suited for combat, in spite of their advertised usefulness for civilians. Right? There's really no need for deception as to the arms we're talking about friend.
You were doing great until quoting Patrick Henry. It was both irrelevant, unnecessary, and over the top. Uuoogh, you were SO close.
Click Here. I don't know anyone who goes hunting with any of these weapons, do you? So, even though these weapons are sold commercially, I wouldn't exactly call them "civilian" weapons.
Do you "need" a computer or is it a luxury? If we start allowing the government to ban private property on the basis of need, we're all in for a world of hurt. I might as well say goodbye to my 2000hp race car now.
I know this is OT, but I am very interested in motor racing, so what sort of racing car has a 2,000 bhp engine? Did you mean a dragster? The most powerful production car in the world is the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, with an 8 litre, W16 engine developing 1,184 bhp.
Ahhhh, but such is the tenuous line you must walk when you attempt to play both sides of this issue. While I, personally would agree with you that these particular weapons are more than most civilians would need, the fact of the matter is that these are considered civilian weapons in the US and are sold as such. I venture to say that if I were to argue that these particular weapons should not be sold to the general public, I'm sure that you would be at the head of the list berating me for being "anti-Second Amendment" or some other such nonsense. You really can't have it both ways, SpotsCat. Either they're civilian weapons or they are not. As you are well aware,.... they ARE, and they are being brought across the Mexican border through the US with great regularity and detriment to the Mexican public. To ignore this is to ignore a simple reality.
I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken - these are by no means "civilian" weapons, they're mainly military-style weapons that are being sold on the civilian market. Let's look at the list, shall we? 4 pistols - (Also, notice if you will, the use of the term pistol as opposed to the term revolver) - 9mm, 5.7mm, .38 Super and .45. Of these pistols, the first three are actually legal under Mexican law. Mexicans must get approval for a gun purchase from the Mexican defense department and are limited to guns with a caliber no higher than the standard .38-caliber. Larger calibers are considered military weapons and are off-limits to civilians. The .45 is probably the M1911A1 old Army pistol - which is made by a bunch of US manufacturers. The 9mm Beretta replaced the M1911, the 5.7mm is the FN Five-seveN, and the .38 Super is so uncommon in the United States, I can honestly say I've never seen one. 2 rifles - the AR-15, and the AK-47. As I'm sure you remember, both these weapons were listed as "assault weapons" and banned under Federal law for a number of years. You may consider these "civilian" weapons because they're for sale commercially, but they're not - they're knock-offs of military equipment. Do you know anyone who goes duck, quail, or pheasant hunting with a 9mm pistol? Do you know anyone who goes deer hunting with an AK-47? My point - which you seem so reticent to acknowledge - is that the Mexicans aren't coming to the United States and loading up on Mossberg and Remington shotguns, they're not buying oodles and oodles of Winchester bolt-action rifles, they're not making bulk purchases of Smith and Wesson or Ruger revolvers, apparently they're buying military-style equipment! That, mi amigo is the problem - the Mexicans aren't like da' homiez in da' 'hood who buy anything they can get their hands on, they're buying military-style equipment. So forgive me if I don't get too upset about "civilian" equipment flowing across the border into Mexico - I don't imagine they're buying thousands of 12-gauge shotguns and planning to make the wild mallard extinct like we did the passenger pigeon.
Too much gun control with rules and regulations on decent, law obiding citizens, just makes things more easy for the bad guy, who does not go by the rules nor the law, and could give a hog's fart. It's common sence....Those that find that hard to accept are simple mind ignorant.
It's a twin turbo 572 cubic inch big block Chevy engine in a 2000 Camaro. We built it to run 1/8mile Outlaw Class drag races. It would destroy a Veyron in a drag race but get creamed on a road course. It's also street legal in Michigan, so I will take it out and cruise the streets on occasion. (After removing the parachute and slicks, of course)
Sounds awesome! How do you get 2,000 bhp out of an 8.5 litre production V8? Is it blown, and running on special fuel? And at what rpm does it produce that figure? I know nothing about drag racing, but I want to do Superbike racing when I am earning money.
I'm astounded at your double standard, SpotsCat. I can only assume that your views on assault weapons mirror those of other more extreme anti-controllers here because you have voted in a poll here stating that you would like to see LESS gun laws (or less strict gun laws, which is basically the same thing). Every time I have had a conversation concerning assault weapons here, I have been harangued as to the fact that semi-autos might LOOK scary and appear like military weapons, but actually perform the same as any hunting rifle. The recurring argument to me has been that the only difference is cosmetics. Now you, apparently wish to play BOTH sides of this argument and now say that these weapons ARE different than hunting rifles and should be treated as such. Interesting argument and I would be very interested in hearing your (hopefully consistent) opinions on the expired assault weapons ban. I'm glad you asked. Your friend 'Whaler17' has stated here that HE does go hunting with one. How did you miss this? I'm glad you have modified your definition of military grade weapons to now include "military-style" equipment. Interesting shift, that. So, now that you admit that the Mexicans are buying civilian "military-style" weapons from the US,......what exactly do you propose we do about it?
