Assault Weapon features and what they do.

i just had a (one of my many) silly idea on this subject;

legislate that all guns be inscribed with a serial number, that can only be destructively removed. Enforce all firearms of any kind be registered. And apply the penalty for whatever crime the gun ('s carrier) is convicted of to the registered owner of that weapon, whether or not that person can be connected in any way to the crime.

The people who seriously want to have guns would then be VERY careful to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands, and many current gun owners would readily abandon their weapons in light of potential circumstantial complications. Who wants to go to jail for ten years because their gun was stolen.

As in all things, If you want the freedom, you must accept the responsibilities!

[i said it was silly, now didn't i?]

Bo, interesting concept.

However, the NRA would use their influence to make sure nothing like that ever happens. In fact, I remember there was some movement to get a program going that "fingerprinted" each gun according to the mark the gun left on spent shells (or something to that effect), and the NRA did everything they could to stop it.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how much the NRA owns in the government (cogressmen, etc).

Bo, they already have that here in new york state. Guess what? there are old antique pistol collectors here that are leaving the state now, due to owning hundreds of old old west colts and having to pay tax on each and every one every five years.

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Guess who gets more practical use out of such a weapon? Gang members who want to kill alot of people at once. <<---this is such a liberal comment, let me say only this. send them to my house. The biggest lesson from the LA bank robbery was that you should never be out-gunned. I will never be. If you would like to cower in fear in your home when armed gunmen shoot up YOUR town, you go right on ahead and do that. Let me know where you live so i can get over there 1000 feet from your home and target shoot to really piss you off too. Screw my rights so that you feel more comfortable? you are insane or stupid or both. no, screw YOU. the majority of gang related violence is NOT by assault weapons, but by handguns. that is a FACT. as for fingerprinting guns? i am all for it if the police dont use it as a means to check up on people that own guns. I have my right to privacy. By the way, they DO do that for handguns in new york state now. People are so ignorant to guns, its not even funny. If you are afraid of being shot by gangs or robbers, GET A FRIGGIN GUN TO SHOOT BACK WITH! banning guns will only put them in the hands of criminals. A good word for an unarmed citizen is "victim". Because you dont like beer, does that mean I cant drink it? come on get real already.

Apparently, a good term for the pro-gun camp would be "incapable of mounting a sound argument".

Really, Bvamp, the sophomoric level of debate that the pro-gun crowd in America usually delves to is to cry.

I don't advocate gun control in America but the frequent absence of logic and reason in your crowd's arguments is almost reason enough to do so.

You should be ashamed to have to argue at such idiotic rhetorical levels. You are better than that, I can say this without knowing you because everyone's better than that.

...and before there is a comment on the 2nd amendment saying it was to hold a militia ready in waiting....what exactly do you think people are doing now, after 9/11. I would be more worried about a riot after a chemical attack than a stupid gang, or the taliban running around with guns they are going to get ANYWAY, and shooting up people's homes at random. Its ok, I as well as millions of other americans will be there to protect you, if we can. again, the best thing you can do is protect yourself. A one shot deer gun wont cut it for me for a home invasion (which there are plenty of in my area), or if something serious happens. I have a right to live free from fear, and a right to protect myself, my possession, and my neighbors. To do that, I will keep and bear arms. Unless I screw up and do something that causes them to be taken away by law from me, I have every right to have anything I want. They should make them available through more paperwork and a special tax stamp. not ban them. too easily gotten right now, but banning them outright WONT EVEN COME CLOSE to making this country any safer. You speak of HANDGUN related violence anyway, when you talk about gangs. Well, I have them WAY outgunned. The criminals will still get guns no matter what you do.

Craven de Kere: how does one respond to "all guns are bad and should be illegal"

Bvamp, am I correct to guess that you are a teenager?

that you are incorrect to assume. why because of my typing format?

and Ill be damned if im going to prison for ten years because someone came with a crane to get my gun safe when I was away. You would have to dismantle my home to get to my guns without the combination to my safe. People are only hearing the bad things that have happened out there. they dont account at ALL for the people that have rightfully defended themselves and others. It is really lopsided in the world. turn on the news. you only hear about the bad things in the world. the gun issue is the very same. either way, you trod on my rights by banning them. To be free is pretty simple. you are free or you are not free. Take a look at what has happened in england since they disarmed....you get robbed or assaulted, and you have to sit there and take it, or you can go to jail LONGER than the person that attacked you. Like I said, Im up for registration and all that nice stuff, but BANNING? that wont do a damn thing except take away law-abiding citizen's rights. The crooks arent going to go away, nor will the 350 million guns in this country, no matter WHAT one does. The solution is not to take away MY rights because of people that abused thiers. I am not them. Dont treat me as such.

No, but because of the level of arguments you use and a seeming penchant for heroism that was reminiscent of adolescence.



Certainly not by using the cartoon response that preceeded this question.

There are a couple of people here who made intelligent arguments in favor of guns (see fishin' and roger's posts to start). The arguments you use do guns a disservice.

The way you try to frame it in terms of courage makes it look lame, "guns in lieu of peni" is what I've taken to call those rhetorical adventures.

You also make claims that are, quite frankly beyond your ability to substantiate (some that I think are not able to be substantiated at all). And worse yet, you don't bother to qualify them at all.

Here's an example of a claim you make merely on the strength of your conviction without any hope of being able to substantiate it as an objective truism:

"banning them outright WONT EVEN COME CLOSE to making this country any safer"

Upon what do you base this claim? Just your gut? A few factoids? A collage of soundbytes? This is a very subjective issue with many layers, for example banning them is meaningless unless the measure's enforceability can also be assured.

Can you substantiate this bold claim? If not, don't make it or simply add a qualifier to it (e.g. "I think that...").

The popular pro-gun argument for the issue of enforceability is that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Now this is the type of rhetoric that really resonates in the minds of simpletons and on a school playground but if we examine it we will see that it is a meaningless statement that is applicable to all criminalization.

No kidding, by the nature of the terms, only criminals will be in violation of the law. No duh, that's how it is with every law because anyone who breaks it is, by the nature of the term, a criminal.

Another hint would be to avoid the hero complex. Your guns are not likely to save anyone (based upon statistics).

Similarly, the nation is unlikely to enter dire straits that will be solved through your gun ownership.

Just as the gun-control crowd doesn't try to portray you as a homicidal maniac it might be helpful to quit trying to portray those who are less enamoured by guns as helpless victims.

Many have weighed the costs and the benefits and by their estimation they are better off without them.

Just as you take your own decision on what benefits you seriously the same can be said for them.

But that being said we run into a situation of conflicting desires. It's not a choice of security versus no security but rather the means through which security is achieved.

The gun-control crowd is pushing for security through collective proscription and this understandably conflicts with your desire to achieve security through superior firepower.

So mentioning your "rights" in this context is close to meaningless, after all it is a discussion of whose wishes (read "rights") should prevail. It's important not to confuse an is with a should.

So what it boils down to is the essense of the dispute.

1) Can guns protect citizens in situations where collective security (police etc) are not present?

Hell yes.

2) Can gun control increase collective security if it is successful in banning guns?

Yes, and nations do achieve this.

3) If gun control does not succeed in its enforcement can it fail?

Yes. The idea is for it to work, and if it doesn't then it will understandably provide less security.

4) Can gun control work?

In some places it has worked spectacularly, in others it was nothing more than an ignored law.

Ultimately number 4 is a really important center of the argument.

Collective security has, in some places, brought much more safety than the "pack heat" version of safety that the pro-gun crowd advocates.

Moving either way can increase or reduce safety, it all depends on the circumstantial factors.

An armed populace might be able to better resist a theat but at the same time the armament could enable the threatening entities their means to wreak their havoc.

Similarly gun-control can succeed in collective security by starving all markets, but can also be an ineffective law that is not enforced.

Personally, I think America is so in love with guns that gun control to the point where it would starve the illicit market is not viable.

But I also think the notion of gun control makes sense, and is only not possible because of passionate people who like guns (I love 'em myself).

What doesn't make sense at all is the empty, if loud, rhetoric.

here is what it comes down to to me. the right to own a firearm is just as big as the right to NOT own a firearm. Dont take away my rights out of ignorance. And you should be reading NRA newsletters a little more. Personal crimes have INCREASED in the UK since the banning of firearms there. that IS fact. Then there is the other issue of taking the guns out of the criminals' hands. Here we go yet again. My "rights" as you call them are exactly THAT...MINE....NOT yours...not your mother's not your liberal friend's rights...they are MINE! What I do with MY rights is MY business. Just like cars....do what you want, but if you break the law, you are punished. I have NO right to tell you that you cannot drive that SUV V8 that you think will STOP in the snow just because it is four wheel drive. Who am I to tell you that YOU SCARE ME so you shouldnt have that vehicle? And because I dont get all kinds of technical doesnt make me any more wrong than you. To each thier own....or is THAT another unwritten law now that I have to be just like you?

TAKING MY GUNS WONT KEEP THE CRIMINALS FROM GETTING OR HAVING THEM! FIX THE PAPERWORK PROBLEM AND LEAVE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS TO DO AS THEY PLEASE!

Rights don't have sizes, and no they do not always share binarily equal import.

Some rights supercede others each and every day, so you need to make the case for it and not just claim it's big.



What ignorance? Now you are just spewing clichés. I am willing to wager that I have more information incorporated into my positions (on almost everything) than do you.



I was a member of the NRA for years. It's a fine source for deceitful use of statistics and nearly religiously stubborn arguments.



So? What is not fact is your implied conclusion that that is a result of any legislation involving firearms.

For your edification: look up post hoc ergo propter hoc that is the name of the particular logical deficiency you just exhibited.



So? I have absolutely no qualm with taking certain of your perceived "rights" away. Even if it inspires you to use upper case.



Fine, I declare my "right to take away your rights" and what I do with my rights is my business. You have no say.

Whoops, looks like rights can conflict huh? When this happens it's not gonna help to yell or use capital letters or anything.

You might want to aquire an argument.



Your excellent skill with capital letters has convinced me. Bye now.

One of the fundimental problems with this world is people with superiority complexes, IMHO. Translate the 2nd amendment for me then. Show me where defending my right to keep arms means that I can only have a 2 shot deer rifle, Mr. Brilliant. And when someone is saying to me that I should not own an assualt weapon because they "are bad or not to shoot deer with or that gangs can get them" I WILL YELL ALL DAY. Gangs will get guns no matter WHAT we do. THAT is a fact. They still do get them. Look at the gangs in Commiefornia. They are all still potently armed to the teeth. Lot of good those gun laws did there. Now only the criminals have firearms that put out more than 6 shots there. The cops have them too, but banning just about everything there because of the LA bank shootout has not done a damn thing. It is the police becoming better equipped that has made a difference.

I am surprised you didnt comment on my analogy with the SUV. Know why? Because I am so right, there is no point to comment or argue that point. That is the SAME thing. Ignorant soccer moms with thier SUVs DO kill people quite often out of ignorance of thier vehicles capability. If all you can do is be snyde, and just attack things I say from a simple perspective, then why dont you just keep it to yourself?

by the way? the legislature for the banning of most firearms in the UK DID coincide with the legislature of "dont hit the guy trying to kill you or take your car back or you go to jail" law. You spew b.s. Join the liberals if you havent already.

And to remind you, I DO believe in paperwork for ALL guns. THAT is the problem, not the types or numbers of guns available. Its all in how they are sold and handled that needs fixing. That is like banning SUVs because of soccer moms that cant drive them properly. You wouldnt surrender your pickup truck that isnt for busniess or your SUV because of that, now would you....what do you say if I were to suggest only contractors be allowed to own them? Or a Boat owner, but only for towing thier boat? That is a fairly accurate analogy for you. I am sure you will try to act all intelligent-like and come up with some tacful yet un-substantiated point. Do you WANT me to go search all this stuff down and post it all? All information I refer to is out there. If you really cared, you would go look for it.

As for rights outweighing others? You must think gay marriage should be the same as heterosexual marriage. I am all up to let gays have some kind of something, but to say that they are married like my mother and father? you are insane. It is a union under god for holy child bearing. gays cant make kids. You think that is fair I bet. There should be SOMETHING. not marriage like my mother and father though.

Here is yet another one for you...How about "no discharging of firearms within tonwship/city limits' in some areas? that is right? I will get arrested for discharging my shotgun into an armed intruder's chest. That is right huh? Point with this? if you cant figure it out, here you are: The criminals will still fire thier illegal weapons within city limits. I am penalised that I cannot defend myself without loosing the firearm I legally own, that I shot the idiot with. Nevermind fines or jail to boot. How is that fair, just, or appropriate? That just entitles the criminals to feel less endangered when I catch them in my home at night. My right to defend myself has already been harmed with those types of laws. They only benefit the criminals. You cant shoot within 500 feet of any dwelling in this state ANYWAY without permission, so what precisely does that law empower? to arrest the guy with the illegal gun that was illegal anyway? or how about the drunken guy shooting the neighbors cat? what exactly prevented them from going to jail BEFORE that law? That law single handedly told me I am a criminal if i defend myself, my property, my family.

I've mentioned nothing about the 2nd amendment, hey if you want to quote your scriptures that'd fine with me but I'm just not as into it as are you.



Enjoy yourself*.


*Not that I said any of those things, so I kinda suspect you just really like yelling.

Hey, if you want to avoid criminals, you don't need a gun. Just move to the suburbs and hide all your valuables in your books. They'll never think of looking there.

Craven, I didnt think you would have any realistic reply to that....and btw? yes you DID comment on that all. So have others.

Actually I didn't Bvamp, I really think you just had that rant pent up inside of ya. Anywho, if you are around later toward the middle of the week I'll make a point to swing by, this (gun talk) is always a lot of fun.

I do get all bent out of shape each time I see a soccer mom comment about banning guns of any type. Prohibition didnt work, neither will banning guns.

Just don't shoot 'em or anything. ;-)

why would i do something stupid like that?