Guns: how much longer will it take ....

His offense was trivial and the penalty was trivial.
I did not wish death upon him.
If that were my wish, then I 'd have chosen a different gun.

On the other hand:
if he were in an emergency of independent origin,
woud I rescue him from its effects? I dunno about that. . . .





David

the penalty, as you call it, has prevented you from getting some very nice replies to your star trek question, oh well, too bad, i might hate guns and the obsessives who, well, frankly obsess over them, but i do like star trek

Guns: how much longer will it take before we have hand gun vending machines next to the Coke machines?

Speaking of guns and star trek one of the early second generation shows had a crystal creature that had wipe out all life off a number of planets and was cheerfully trying to do the same to the star ship.

A woman scientist who was somewhat annoy as her son and family was on one of the plants so wipe out found a way to destroy this creature and as a result of so doing it was stated that her career had come to an end.

The statement was that some way could and should had been found to meet this creature needs without it wiping out all life on any planet it came onto!

Talk about taking the ideal of non-violence into the realm of insanity!

I did take note that I did no see this episode in the normal rotation of repeat of the shows, so perhaps someone with a brain cell working decided that this show had taken a good idea a little far.

Heller made it clear that governments can regulate gun ownership. Thus, assault weapons can, and should, be banned for the general public.

Typical rhetoric from a moronic left wing extremist... do you even know what an assault weapon is?

True how is an "assault weapon" any more dangerous to own then any other semi-auto rifle?

It looks meaner and more military then other rifles but that is all.

Oh yes the number of rounds in an ‘assault rifle” tend to be more however as had been proven over and over you do not need a large capacity magazine to be able to place down a large and rapid rate of fire in a short period of time.

Changing out magazines hardly slow someone down greatly and any rifle can be fitted with larger magazines.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5]

--wikepedia.com

i will never understand why anyone needs to own anything more than a long rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes

i could possibly understand handguns as sport/target shooting, but really see no need for private citizens to own them

Any fully auto weapon of any type had been ban except for holders of class 2 licenses since the 1930s and therfore is not an issue.

Assault rifles laws had of late not mean a fully auto weapon as we all know. but ones that look like it is a military weapon.

Side note I had a friend that just needed to own his very own thompson and the paperwork he needed to go through was amazing.

Second as far as I am aware of there is only one case in history of a legally own class two weapon being used in a crime,

Advocate, you are such an ass wipe and you just proved that you did not and do not know what you are talking about.

Drop in for a friendly visit - I will let you shoot a few rounds from a few rifles in my collection.
If nothing else, you will gain a new appreciation and understanding of fire arms and you may have some fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Crime
While NFA weapons are largely perceived (and portrayed in news media and movies) in the United States as 'dangerous'[citation needed], their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.[11] A previous director of the ATF testified before Congress[citation needed] that fewer than ten registered machine guns (out of over 240,000 in the nation) have ever been used in any type of crime (including nonviolent offenses such as failing to notify ATF of address changes, etc.). The criminal use of other legally-owned NFA weapons is similarly rare. The Title II weapons used in prominent crimes, such the AK-47s used in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, have universally been illegally-owned or illegally-converted weapons.

Your vulgarity tells me that you can't handle the truth. Maybe it is H2O on the brain. You write as though you have an IQ of about 75.

The public does not need to have assault weapons. Moreover, Heller tells us that it would be legal for the govt. to ban them.

i've fired guns before, it's fun i agree

i have no problem with hunters and guns used for hunting, let's face it, you could defend yourself in your home with a shotgun, you could raise a militia against the government with any long rifle

the obsession with semi automatic weapons and hand guns for personal protection (eg conceal and carry) is what i don't get

Perhaps u did not see my earlier post to u, on that point,
on an earlier page:

Re: Advocate(Post 3624861)
"Advocate" wrote: (in part)

Advocate wrote:

Well, it left it open in the sense that that issue was NOT before the Court,
but some of its dicta suggest that the Court may well respect
a pro-freedom, anti-government position.

". . . It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service"M-16 rifles and the like"may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "
[All emphasis has been added by David.]

the key word being lawful, they could make possession of some guns unlawful, this would still leave guns available for a militia

You are clueless and your comments are insignificant.