 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
They didn't ban clips over 10 rounds, they banned magazines over 10 rounds. Which seriously reduces the viability of a weapon for its constitutionally intended military purpose while doing almost nothing to its fear-mongered intended purpose as a murder weapon. I doubt that many people even know what flash supressors do or why one might want to have one, but I can't think of a single instance where a weapon with one was used in a crime where the flash supressor aided the criminal materially. And flash supressors add to the length of weapons that are somehow scarier because they can somehow be "concealed", much like a baseball bat can be concealed under a trench coat. No one will ever suspect it, no siree! |
Then you are not a police officer, obviously, being ignorant of the circumstances of many crimes. Every single police department in the country is for this ban, and for good reason. As for "the military purpose"- nowhere does it say any citizen at any time should have any weapon with "military viability". You can;t leaglly own a tow missile system- is that your constituional rights being denied? No, not anymore than you can decry not owning a howlitzer.
quote:
And we forgot to mention that bayonnet lugs have also now become legal. I guess they were banned because if they hadn't been, people who bought the right sort of bayonnet could have turned their modern semi-automatic carbines into fearsome spears! |
What would be the point of a bayonnet? to hunt dear with?
quote:
As for the militia argument. It seems that the people of Iraq don't seem to believe your argument that they have no chance against the U.S. Army. They also seem to value even the sorts of weapons that are still legal in the U.S. as well as real assault weapons. Note that for all of our bombers, tanks, artillery etc. the most common weapon deployed by the U.S. is still the assault weapon, with the machine gun in second place. This is because these weapons still have a great amount of utility in modern warfare. How would we be doing in Iraq if the Army decided to simply trash all of our lead throwers because they are obslete? Not as well I can tell you. |
Wonderful piece, but utterly ignoring the basic realities of both Iraq and what you claim people need assault rifles to do. I don;t think anyone in Iraq thinks they can, by a pitched battle, defeat the US. They can't. But that is not their aim (maybe fantasy, not aim). Their aim is to defeat the US politically- to create chaos, undermine the new interim authority, and then drive us out that way, not by a total military victory.
The aim of any militia would be to "defend their homes", 1., and to undermine the control of a "dictatorial regime". Just having assault weapons would simply jnot do much in the way of achieving that aim. Great example of that- Iraq itself. Do you think that multiplicity of assault weapons now in Iraq came out of nowhere? Or solely from the armies armories? No, people in Iraq were hevaily armed- Saddam gave out assault weapons to the people-to protect him. So many Iraqis had assault rifles, and as far as I know, it did diddly for their freedom or ability to fight off the Saddam Regime, which is not even in the same order of magnitude as strong as the US.
The only part of Iraq where people were able to keep Saddam at bay was in the North, were foreign powers interveend to limit Saddam's abilities.
quote:
Personal firearms provide enough of a force multiplier that simple police operations in their face are severely complicated. Replacing police operations with military operations are often even more complicated, with huge political implications. This is the whole foundation of guerilla warfare, and I can't believe I have to explain that to two very intelligent posters, one of whom is a communist! |
Which is all very nice, but only has a chance of success if the enemy regime has some inherent weakness that some other non-violent opposition that can use the crackdown as an excuse for its own actions. Without another weakness a guerrilla war will collapse. Guerrila wars can bring down regimes with internal crakcs, but not strong ones, which will simply ruthlessly crush the opposition. BUt you miss something more insidious, which is the control of the media. As I have said before, it never need get to the point were you have a militia at all- the modern states has multiple ways of undermining any possibly violent opposition from the start-cutting them off at the knees without consequence. Anyone so isolated that they can't be brought to ruin otherwise is too isolated to be political significant (like the freemen in Montana).
A simple method would be to accuse them of tax fraud and ruin them financially as they fight the charges. Or even simple "identity theft". I mean, the ways to find and eliminate someone as a possible resistor in the modern world are endless. And having an assault rifle won't help you worth ****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
And this will increase the sales of assault rifles on the black market in Canada.
In Canada, like most other CIVILIZED countries, assault weapons are illegal for any citizen.
What does that tell you |
Yet you have IIRC, more guns per person than in the US. |
Um, no, not even close. Stats as of 1995 show that the US has almost four times the per capita ownership of firearms, including almost 10 times the per capita ownership of handguns.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:23
|
|
Instead of the random ramblings of the anti-democracy liberals, heres some facts about 'assult rifles' from this well written and referenced piece.
quote:
The following statistics summarize the findings of official governmental statistical surveys. Because different governments reported data for different years, or reported different types of data (e.g. (p.407)homicides vs. gun seizures), the raw figures reported from each jurisdiction are sometimes not directly comparable.
Akron. Of the 669 guns seized by the Akron police in 1992, fewer than 1% were "assault weapons."[87] The 1% figure represents a decline from 1988, when about 2% of seized guns were "assault weapons."[88]
Baltimore County. During the first nine months of 1990, out of 644 weapons logged in to the Baltimore County Police Property Room, only two were "assault weapons." Out of 305 murders in the city of Baltimore in 1990, only seven (2.3%) involved rifles and shotguns of any kind, much less any subset of those firearms labeled "assault weapons."[89]
Bexar County, Texas (including San Antonio). From 1987 to 1992, "assault weapons" were used in 0.2% of homicides and 0.0% of suicides. From 1985 to 1992, they constituted 0.1% of guns seized by the police, according to Vincent DiMaio, the county's Chief Medical Examiner.[90]
California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases."[91] Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."[92]
Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was (p.408)perpetrated with a military caliber rifle.[93] Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."[94]
Chicago suburbs. From 1980 to 1989, "assault weapons" totaled 1.6% of seized drug-related guns.[95]
Connecticut. "Assault weapons" constituted 198 of the 11,002 firearms confiscated by police in the years 1988 through 1992.[96]
Denver. A gun-by-gun examination of the firearms in Denver police custody as of March 1991 found fourteen "assault weapons" among the 1,752 crime guns. Only one of those guns had been used in a crime of violence (an aggravated assault).[97]
Florida. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in seventeen of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986 to 1989.[98]
Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."[99]
Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.[100]
Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles."[101] From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.[102]
Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, (p.409)1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."[103]
Minneapolis. From April 1, 1987 to April 1, 1989, the Minneapolis police property room received 2,200 firearms, nine of which were "assault weapons."[104]
Nashville. Of the 190 homicides perpetrated in Nashville in 1991-92, none were committed with an "assault weapon."[105]
Newark. According to surgeons at the University Hospital in Newark, in the 1980s there was one wounding in the city in that decade in which the bullet removed was the type found in "semiautomatic assault rifles."[106]
New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey.[107] No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988.[108] Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.[109]
New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.[110]
New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in (p.410)twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.[111]
San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.[112]
San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.[113]
Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapon analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."[114]
Washington, D.C. The Washington Post reports: "[L]aw enforcement officials say that the guns have not been a factor in the area's murder epidemic."[115] "Assault weapons" were 3% of guns seized in 1990.[116]
National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle.[117] No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.[118] |
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
Thats not what Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine... so one of yall are misinformed, and for some reason i think its michael moore |
Michael Moore also decided to show some of our most successful socialized housing and called it the "slums" in Canada. Methinks he's never been to the Jane/Finch area of Toronto - it'd give most US projects a run for their money.
To be totally fair, though, Moore didn't really lie about the guns. IIRC, he said that we had plenty of guns, which is true. It's just that we hardly have any handguns compared to the US - a fact which, like so many other, didn't quite seem to fit with his overall message, so he omitted it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
Going back a little, given that militias wouldn't really be useful to overtly fight against a ruling power, and anyone resisting would have to resort to guerilla tactics, does that mean the second amendment is pro-terrorist? |
The second amendment is pro-revolution.
It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people.
Power flows from the barrel of a gun.
I find it so odd leftists, out of solidarity, or perhaps embedded misandry, revile guns, oblivious to the facts that every election, America has only slipped closer to the bonds of fascism.
The time to fight may be in your lifetime. And some yokel who has four guns, and a penchant for the Right wing aggressive agenda, perhaps in a state of martial law, may just come and make your entire mind a blightful disgrace on your bedroom wall.
All your intelligence and knowledge is nothing compared to a few grams of lead guided at highvelocity by some high school drop out finding it's way into your skull.
I cringe at the idea of some fanatic coming to my house, and blowing my head off. In all his stupidity, he at least realized one thing, a gun is power. Him with a gun, vs me, with a gun, and I have the upper hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
It's always fun and frightening at the same time to see the perpetual state of fear and paranoia so many Americans seem to be in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
The second amendment is pro-revolution. |
No it isn't. It was, however, anti-authoritarian. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the United States had a body of armed men with which to defend itself, without having to rely on a standing army, which ould be used to make someone a king.
quote:
It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people. |
Yes, but not in the way you mean.
quote:
Power flows from the barrel of a gun. |
But this is not the only source of power.
quote:
I find it so odd leftists, out of solidarity, or perhaps embedded misandry, revile guns, oblivious to the facts that every election, America has only slipped closer to the bonds of fascism. |
We don't. Don't mistake liberals for leftists. I'm a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment. We just don't identify with the rights of gun manufacterers,or their lobby group, the NRA.
All I've done is explain what the 2nd Amendment's purpose was, what the assault weapon ban did, etc. We also have to recognize, however, that the 2nd amendment has failed, and thus is an anachronism. In this context, it's not unreasonable to favor restrictions on certain arms which serve no useful function in civil society.
As for the U.S. being fascist, hah. America doesn't need fascism. The capitalists get what they want without it. They don't need fascism, so they won't allow it to take power. If they did allow it to take power, an armed American public certainly wouldn't be able to stand up against the U.S. military, and sadly, there would be plenty of people willing to join the military and fire on their fellow citizens.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-09-2004 17:04
@provost.
|