The debate and firearms

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
I thought the "assault weapons" portion of the debate was rather interesting. I think Romney skirted the difficult issue, he appears to want regulations regarding "assault" weapons. Obama was even more cautious and he said NOTHING about added anti-firearm laws yet, very curious, the NRA will continue to back Romney and claim that sooner or later Obama will take our guns.


another distortion of reality from the right.
 
The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, just to let you know. The NRA is more about using fear to make progress with its own agenda. This happens every time you politicize something.

For some reason we just don't use the Constitution anymore and it has fucked us up badly. What part of the government having no power to limit any kind of firearm possession whatsoever is so hard to understand? What part of use gold and silver as money and only Congress having the power to coin it did we not understand when we instituted a private corporation to do it for us?
 
canndo said:
I thought the "assault weapons" portion of the debate was rather interesting. I think Romney skirted the difficult issue, he appears to want regulations regarding "assault" weapons. Obama was even more cautious and he said NOTHING about added anti-firearm laws yet, very curious, the NRA will continue to back Romney and claim that sooner or later Obama will take our guns.


another distortion of reality from the right.
Click to expand...

Imo even using the term "assault weapon" is offensive. No soldier worth [his] salt would accept what the media so blithely call an "assault weapon". An assault weapon, by definition, has a select-fire provision. cn
 
NoDrama said:
The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, just to let you know. The NRA is more about using fear to make progress with its own agenda. This happens every time you politicize something.

For some reason we just don't use the Constitution anymore and it has fucked us up badly. What part of the government having no power to limit any kind of firearm possession whatsoever is so hard to understand? What part of use gold and silver as money and only Congress having the power to coin it did we not understand when we instituted a private corporation to do it for us?
Click to expand...


Very interesting Nodrama, I had not considered that the NRA doesn't really represent gun owners and what you say makes sense. I am not sure that what you say is true about congress's constitutional ability to limit firearm posession. congress does have the power to alter even amendments to one extent or another.
 
cannabineer said:
Imo even using the term "assault weapon" is offensive. No soldier worth [his] salt would accept what the media so blithely call an "assault weapon". An assault weapon, by definition, has a select-fire provision. cn
Click to expand...



the right calls rich people "job creators", the left calls everything that looks scary and has attachments as "assault weapons". They like that term because it sounds ominous. Put a fake flash supressor and a bananna clip on a .22 and it becomes an instrument of mass murder.
 
canndo said:
the right calls rich people "job creators", the left calls everything that looks scary and has attachments as "assault weapons". They like that term because it sounds ominous. Put a fake flash supressor and a bananna clip on a .22 and it becomes an instrument of mass murder.
Click to expand...
Could you give an example of the left calling anything an assault weapon that wasn't ????
 
londonfog said:
You can't be this dumb ^^^^ Muskets vs AR-15.
Click to expand...

It is worth considering that at the time, there were no regulatory barriers to an individual owning the premier weapons of the day: the rifle, the field-piece, even a first-rate ship with its complement of cannon.
If a strict parallel were to be drawn, forbidding the ownership of, say, an M1A2 tank or an F-22 would be an infringement.
In real life, we have good reasons to keep the heavies (an Ohio-class sub sort of jumps to mind) out of private hands. But for us to be nationally wringing our hands about dumb projectile weapons seems ... odd to me. The great advances have been in surveillance, and if I were to head a 2nd-Amendment champion organization, I'd focus on civilian access to those weapons. cn
 
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:
they took a mintute to reload back then, today you can have a clip with over 10 bullets, they would have wet their pants if they saw the modern firearm.
Click to expand...

actually you could have a magazine that can hold a lot more then 10...but you understand my point. Let us not even talk about the type of "bullets you can now have.
 
londonfog said:
Could you give an example of the left calling anything an assault weapon that wasn't ????
Click to expand...

In my state, all those semi-auto rifles on a quasimilitary pattern qualify. Oh, and the fifty-cal. A fifty is not a credible assault weapon! I've seen local newspapers call semi-auto pistols "assault weapons" fer grief's sake. A sadly absent sense of history imo. cn
 
cannabineer said:
It is worth considering that at the time, there were no regulatory barriers to an individual owning the premier weapons of the day: the rifle, the field-piece, even a first-rate ship with its complement of cannon.
If a strict parallel were to be drawn, forbidding the ownership of, say, an M1A2 tank or an F-22 would be an infringement.
In real life, we have good reasons to keep the heavies (an Ohio-class sub sort of jumps to mind) out of private hands. But for us to be nationally wringing our hands about dumb projectile weapons seems ... odd to me. The great advances have been in surveillance, and if I were to head a 2nd-Amendment champion organization, I'd focus on civilian access to those weapons. cn
Click to expand...

Not so sure I agree with you on this one.. Dumb projectile weapons sure do a lot of damage. Very easy to get.
 
londonfog said:
Not so sure I agree with you on this one.. Dumb projectile weapons sure do a lot of damage. Very easy to get.
Click to expand...

I have difficulty getting them here ... the state in which I live has no problems banning entire classes of'em. Perhaps you live in a less-restrictive state. cn
 
londonfog said:
Could you give an example of the left calling anything an assault weapon that wasn't ????
Click to expand...


That would be a tough one london - it is all personal experience and incidental. Frankly, I don't know what an "assault weapon" is. Is it just the selectable rate of fire (is that right guys?) between semi and fully automatic? is it the size of the clip or magazine? is it the caliber? All I know is that true anit-gun folk seem ready to call anything with a black metal finish and utilitarian stocks an assault weapon.
in other words, it seems to me to be more of a political term (job creator) than a specific sort of description of a particular class of firearm.
 
all you gun owners, let me offer you my deepest sympathies for having grown up with single mothers.

i learned in the debate last night that if you have a single mother, you will get guns and do gun stuff. romney told me so, and i trust the guy.
 
cannabineer said:
In my state, all those semi-auto rifles on a quasimilitary pattern qualify. Oh, and the fifty-cal. A fifty is not a credible assault weapon! I've seen local newspapers call semi-auto pistols "assault weapons" fer grief's sake. A sadly absent sense of history imo. cn
Click to expand...

you do realize there is a difference between an assault rifle and an assault weapon.
 
As a person who has owned guns since 10 years old, I would throw a fit if I couldnt have a shotgun at my house.
Although, I have never thought of having a gun as "protection". I have a lake at my house and snakes and other worrisome creatures cause problems. At the same time, there are many guns on the streets that I really dont like seeing on the streets.
 
cannabineer said:
It is worth considering that at the time, there were no regulatory barriers to an individual owning the premier weapons of the day: the rifle, the field-piece, even a first-rate ship with its complement of cannon.
If a strict parallel were to be drawn, forbidding the ownership of, say, an M1A2 tank or an F-22 would be an infringement.
In real life, we have good reasons to keep the heavies (an Ohio-class sub sort of jumps to mind) out of private hands. But for us to be nationally wringing our hands about dumb projectile weapons seems ... odd to me. The great advances have been in surveillance, and if I were to head a 2nd-Amendment champion organization, I'd focus on civilian access to those weapons. cn
Click to expand...


Interestingly, one runs afoul of strict "originalists" such as Scalia who claims to be able to channel our founders when he is confronted with constitutional quandries or constructionists such as Thomas, when it comes to the constitutional definition of "arms". but I think you will see that in the end, Scalia and Thomas find that modern weapons are still a ok with them even though an originalist would properly claim that only muzzle loading black powder weapons are protected under the 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Biden-Trump Debate Prep.
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
hanimmal
hanimmal
Jimdamick
Trump proves he is an asshole, again
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
ttystikk
ttystikk
greg nr
4 Ways Using Even Legal Marijuana Makes You a Second-Class Citizen - alternet
Replies
3
Views
636
potroastV2
potroastV2
vostok
Kate Steinle: Trump outrage over murder case acquittal
Replies
1
Views
388
_gresh_
_gresh_
VIANARCHRIS
Growing opportunities
Replies
2
Views
778
gb123
G
Back
Top