0
   

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 01:36 pm
I don't play with strawmen. That looks like a target the pink pistols might use.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 01:43 pm
Federal law controls the transfer and importation of armor-piercing ammunition, as described in 18 USC sec. 921(a)(17).

"(B) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' means-

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term 'armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."


This is the Federal statute to which i referred. I did not mention kevlar or deer slugs.

Note, however, that CJ immediately went in to attack mode, and attempted to divert the discussion to a topic he had introduced, not the topic to which i had referred. This is precisely the sort of hysterical ranting which the gun nut lobby encourages in the attempt to obscure and control any debate. Therefore, of course, CJ was erecting a strawman.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 01:54 pm
No, I was just pointing out how silly you looked, kinda like your federal regs. Silly. They are designed for one thing and one thing only - to deny 2A rights to citizens.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 01:58 pm
Setanta wrote:
The point is to introduce the hysteria immediately, and avoid the necessity of providing a cogent argument for the need for such things as armor piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.


This is what i wrote. You immediately brought up kevlar vests and deer slugs, which bears no relationship to what i wrote.

However, you did demonstrate exactly what i was saying--which is that you would rather introduce an hysterical rant than to provide a cogent argument for armor-piercing ammunition or streetsweepers.

I propose as your new theme song the scarecrow's song from The Wizard of Oz:

I could while away the hours
Conversing with the flowers . . .
If i only had a brain.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:07 pm
cjhsa wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There you go again Joe-boy. "semi automatic" weapons my ass. You just disqualified yourself from the discussion.

Are you suggesting that Zumbo was referring only to fully automatic weapons when he talked about hunters using "military-style assault rifles?"


Do you know the difference? Do you know that semi-automatics are one of the most popular hunting weapons even if you exclude "scary looking guns"? And certainly the most popular for personal protection - bar none.

You must have a dog in the fight - disarming people makes them easier to control. Right Joe?

Now now, ceej, it wouldn't be fair for you to expect me to answer your questions when you don't answer any of mine. Besides, when you ask a question in response to another question, it makes it look like you really don't know the answer to the original query.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:21 pm
cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.


This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:35 pm
McGentrix wrote:

Why Britain needs more guns

By Joyce L Malcolm
Author and academic

"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about to prove that warning prophetic.

For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger.

Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.

The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.

But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?

Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and 33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame.

A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.

The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.

First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.

According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned: "Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people of their right to personal safety.


Did you read this when I previously posted it McTag?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:39 pm
Well, that's an American professor's opinion. From 2003.

I do suppose, most of you agree. Now and it the time published.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:48 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, that's an American professor's opinion. From 2003.

I do suppose, most of you agree. Now and it the time published.


Do you believe it to be false, or the facts to be out of order Walter?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 02:58 pm
As far as I remember the discussion, most thought his ideas to be false - at least those who from related offices like the Metropolitan Police and the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

I've no intention to look it up again - it was a minor topic in 2003, and I doubt that many Broitons are/were interested in what a professor of history from Bentley College says/said.

But perhaps my memories are wrong or I'm wrong.
Certainly related because I'm no native English speaker - before you remind me and others again of that. ®
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:01 pm
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.


This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.


Did you pull that stat out of your arse, as you call it over there? And have your subjects been so thoroughly brainwashed by their own government and school systems that they believe that hogwash? What crime do you think you are preventing? Do you believe criminals simply won't do their jobs any longer? Are you crazy?

(I believe you are). Apparently you are very afraid of something, which you no longer have any defense against. But that fact eludes you...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:15 pm
Joe - I believe Zumbo was referring to "scary looking guns".
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:20 pm
cjhsa wrote:
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.


This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.


Did you pull that stat out of your arse, as you call it over there? And have your subjects been so thoroughly brainwashed by their own government and school systems that they believe that hogwash? What crime do you think you are preventing? Do you believe criminals simply won't do their jobs any longer? Are you crazy?

(I believe you are). Apparently you are very afraid of something, which you no longer have any defense against. But that fact eludes you...


That is a very rude post, and you are a very unpleasant fellow.

The "stat" was got from the Internet, two minutes before my post.

Get your own figures if you like, they will not be much different.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:22 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
As far as I remember the discussion, most thought his ideas to be false - at least those who from related offices like the Metropolitan Police and the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

I've no intention to look it up again - it was a minor topic in 2003, and I doubt that many Broitons are/were interested in what a professor of history from Bentley College says/said.

But perhaps my memories are wrong or I'm wrong.
Certainly related because I'm no native English speaker - before you remind me and others again of that. ®


Well, that is certainly an easy out. I may have to remember that.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:24 pm
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.


This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.


Did you pull that stat out of your arse, as you call it over there? And have your subjects been so thoroughly brainwashed by their own government and school systems that they believe that hogwash? What crime do you think you are preventing? Do you believe criminals simply won't do their jobs any longer? Are you crazy?

(I believe you are). Apparently you are very afraid of something, which you no longer have any defense against. But that fact eludes you...


That is a very rude post, and you are a very unpleasant fellow.

The "stat" was got from the Internet, two minutes before my post.

Get your own figures if you like, they will not be much different.


Here

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita


No McG, I had not seen your article before. I do not agree with most of it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:26 pm
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
McTag wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
There can be no "some gun control" in the debate. That is a stepping stone for those who want all guns banned. Look at England or Australia or even Canada and decide if those are the kind of rules you wish to live by, because if you don't choose to defend your 2A rights, you will wind up just like them. Unarmed, scared of their own shadow, and hopeful, very hopeful that the police and government will protect them at all times.


This is 100% wrong. There is not one British citizen in 1,000 who would prefer our gun laws to be altered to be like the States.

The USA is held here as an example of how NOT to do it. If you want to know the reason for that, look at the gun crime figures.

The USA gun murder figures are 30 times higher, per capita.


Did you pull that stat out of your arse, as you call it over there? And have your subjects been so thoroughly brainwashed by their own government and school systems that they believe that hogwash? What crime do you think you are preventing? Do you believe criminals simply won't do their jobs any longer? Are you crazy?

(I believe you are). Apparently you are very afraid of something, which you no longer have any defense against. But that fact eludes you...


That is a very rude post, and you are a very unpleasant fellow.

The "stat" was got from the Internet, two minutes before my post.

Get your own figures if you like, they will not be much different.


You might want to check your research.

Also, if you think I'm rude, at least you are paying attention.

let me ask you, what purpose does disarming a law abiding populace serve?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:28 pm
Geeze, you're never very swift.

If the populace were law-abiding, why would they need to be armed?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:30 pm
Setanta wrote:
Geeze, you're never very swift.

If the populace were law-abiding, why would they need to be armed?


Apparently you cannot distinguish between good and evil. Turn in your weapons immediately - oh - I forgot, you are already unarmed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:35 pm
Whether or not your witless criterion of good and evil obtains (define both terms before you sling them around), if the populace were uniformly law-abiding, there would be no need for them to arm themselves, either against criminals (there would be none in a uniformly law-abiding populace), nor against the government (as they would abide by the laws which the government promulgates, given their uniform law-abiding nature).

That's one of the pitfalls of puking up propaganda--it doesn't require any thought, so you are caught flat-footed when the propaganda which has been provided you is idiotic, as was your question about "law-abiding populace."
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 03:36 pm
cjhsa wrote:
... Look at England
and if I said look at America?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:00:18