cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:40 pm
CalamityJane wrote:
Private ownership of firearms is prohibited in many countries,
your reference to me being a fan of Hitler is quite appaling.

I oppose hunting as well. There are more humane ways
to control wildlife management, if in fact, it is needed.

I occasionally do enjoy a burger, however, I don't go and
shot a cow in order to satisfy my meat supply.


And there ya' go....

The first half of the first sentence scares the hell out of me. That kind of thinking will spells doom for the U.S.A. What the hell did all of our soldiers fight and die for? So we can be just like the rest of the world? I think not CJ and I don't think I'm in the least apalling, au contraire.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:42 pm
ebrown_p wrote:

Hitler also came to power with a strong pro-life stance. He accused the Jews of killing unborn babies. Do you go around comparing the pro-life movement to Hitler?


That's kind of like comparing the Yankees to the Redsox (i.e. pro-lifers vs. 2nd ammendment supporters). Not the same team.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:44 pm
I'm not entirely opposed to hunting, but it isn't anything I'd ever want to do.

When people do hunt they should be sure that the animal doesn't suffer.

But if they are such a frikken bad shot that they need to use a gun like this I suggest they take up another "sport".

I think you owe Calamity Jane an apology.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:51 pm
OK, CJ, I apologize for phrasing it that way. I should have asked "Are you familiar with Hitler's firearms ban?".

NOTE: This particular gun isn't even advertised for use in hunting applications. It is sold for target shooting. As I said before, muzzle loaders typically shoot .50 caliber projectiles, and are often used by hunters.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:57 pm
roger, I don't think that anyone is using them to rob 7-11 but I did find this in the same article I linked earlier:

Quote:
"Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane," adds Kelly.

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.

"There's some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that," says Barrett. "Yes, you could if you have a parked target."

But not in the air? "That's correct," says Barrett.

Just this past year, the Rand Corporation released a report identifying 11 potential terrorist scenarios involving Los Angeles International Airport.

In one scenario, "a sniper using a .50-caliber rifle fires at parked and taxiing aircraft." The report concludes: "We were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions" for such an attack.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 03:58 pm
cjhsa, what would somebody use this particular gun for? I understand that it's obviously built for target shooting, but what would somebody do with it?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:02 pm
old europe wrote:
cjhsa, what would somebody use this particular gun for? I understand that it's obviously built for target shooting, but what would somebody do with it?


I think, somehow, it's the principle of the thing for the NRA brigade. It's a gun, therefore people should be able to own it. In a way, I understand the argument since I belong to the ACLU, which puts a premium on free speech, no matter how abhorrent.

Having said that, I think it's absurd to argue that the U.S. would be at risk if its citizens couldn't maintain their own private arsenals.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:06 pm
What purpose does banning it serve?

Will it make the fragile Californians safer?
Will it eliminate street crime?
Will it create a more peaceful environment?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:17 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
I think, somehow, it's the principle of the thing for the NRA brigade. It's a gun, therefore people should be able to own it. In a way, I understand the argument since I belong to the ACLU, which puts a premium on free speech, no matter how abhorrent.

Having said that, I think it's absurd to argue that the U.S. would be at risk if its citizens couldn't maintain their own private arsenals.


Well, your last sentence... the argument has been brought forward before... But does anybody seriously believe that, for example, the EU countries are on the verge of a new dictatorship because access to guns is restricted or limited?

Does anybody seriously believe that, if those weapons were banned/access would be limited, the US would be subjugated by some madman and turned into a dictatorship?

And then there's the 2. Amendment thingy, of course. Where it says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Arms? I doesn't say guns, it says arms. So if you are arguing against banning specific guns, do you still make a distinction between certain types of arms, or do you say that the Amendment covers all kind of weapons?

I, personally, can read the Amendment easily as granting me the right (no, sorry, I already have the right, not infringing my right) to own, say, a Scud missile.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:20 pm
So is that an official condemnation , old europe, or have you already done your offical condemantion work today?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:23 pm
I saw that same article, Boomerang, and possibly it was your posting I saw. I'm not keen on banning a firearm because it might, but hasn't been misused. At the risk of being boring, I don't favor banning certain sports cars because they are capable of, and might be used to break a speed limit. If they broke it by a considerable margin; however, I would certainly support maximum punishment of the driver.

I don't hunt, by the way. The whole hunting argument is a false trail. A firearm need not be adaptable to hunting to be protected under the constitution.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:25 pm
I suppose you could "hunt" with it if you wanted, if you consider downing an elk at 2000 yards "hunting".
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:26 pm
I hear you, roger.

But when we can't take nail clippers on a plane because they pose a terrorist threat one does begin to wonder about such things.

I know, I know, nail clippers aren't protected by the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:28 pm
boomerang wrote:
So is that an official condemnation , old europe, or have you already done your offical condemantion work today?


uh....

Was that tongue in cheek? I'm so bad at figuring out irony....

But no, at the moment I'm still thinking about the pros and cons of a general weapon ban...

I'm still looking at Hitler's Waffengesetz from 1938.

I just feel that not everybody who just wants to own a weapon should be able to obtain one. I think there should be certain obstacles. I think weapons for hunting are okay...

I really need a little bit more input.

For example, is the first part of the 2. Amendment a qualifier or not? And then, what are 'arms'?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:31 pm
It was tounge in cheek!

I saw your condemnation on another thread after we were all encourage to condemn things.

You'll get no argument from me regading whether everyone who wants a gun should have one.

My answer: No.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:48 pm
That is the correct answer.

Who shouldn't be able to purchase a gun in the U.S.?

A. Convicted felons
B. Non-citizens
C. Minors (under 18)
D. Anybody who doesn't want to.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:50 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Hitler: Banned private ownership of firearms and confiscated them before he began rounding up jews....


Okay, so that's not true... I finally found the "Reichswaffengesetz" from 1938. In fact, it made it easier to obtain firearms. I was too lazy to find an English translation, but I'll post an excerpt anyway:

Quote:
"Das deutsche Waffengewerbe, das bekanntlich durch die Vorschriften des Versailler Diktats in eine überaus bedrängte wirtschaftliche Lage geraten war, ist in der noch verbliebenen Bewegungsfreiheit durch diese aus polizeilichen Rücksichten erlassenen gesetzlichen Vorschriften weiter eingeschränkt worden. Es hat sich daher seit langem bemüht, auf eine Milderung der von ihm als besonders drückend empfundenen Bestimmungen hinzuwirken.
Die Stabilisierung der innenpolitischen Lage hat es jetzt gestattet, das geltende Waffenrecht nach der Richtung durchzuprüfen, welche Erleichterungen gegenüber dem bisherigen Rechtszustand im Interesse des deutschen Waffengewerbes vertretbar sind, ohne daß eine Gefahr für die Aufrechterhaltung der öffentlichen Sicherheit eintreten kann. Denn Voraussetzung für jede Lockerung des geltenden Waffenrechts muß es sein, dass die Polizeibehörden in der Lage bleiben, den Erwerb und den Besitz von Schusswaffen durch unzuverlässige, besonders auch durch staatsfeindliche Elemente rücksichtslos zu verhindern. (...)
Wenn der Besitz von Waffen durch solche Personen nach Möglichkeit unterbunden wird, ist es vertretbar und angemessen, für die staatstreue Bevölkerung Erleichterungen in den bisherigen einschränkenden Bestimmungen eintreten zu lassen, die nicht nur der Allgemeinheit, sondern vorzugsweise auch dem Waffengewerbe und der in ihm beschäftigten Arbeiterschaft zugute kommen und geeignet sind, deren wirtschaftliche Lage zu verbessern"


Economical reasons were given why it should be made easier for a German citizen to buy weapons. The Weimar Republic had a lot of restrictions, and Hitler thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the bans demanded in the Treaty of Versailles.

On the other hand it was of course stated that a ruthless ban should be enacted to prevent subversive elements from obtaining guns....
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:52 pm
The correct answer is E - all of the above.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:54 pm
The idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is only to provide guns for hunting and target practice is wrong. Here's what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 04:58 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
The idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is only to provide guns for hunting and target practice is wrong. Here's what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington


I don't get it.

So at whom would you shoot with these weapons? Police, soldiers, government officials?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 11:19:53