Just curious on different points of view

9

9mmGirl

Inactive
A few nights ago a friend of mine and I were discussing politics and our conversation ventured into gun control. My friend is very unhappy about the fact that Bush didn't sign for the assault weapons ban to be passed again.

"I mean, there's no reason a civilian should own an AK-47," says she. This is her only reason for being disgruntled.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think there's a reason to stop people from owning an AK-47. We should have every right to own this gun if we wish to. It’s not like criminals are flocking to gun shows to legally purchase what they could already own.

Any thoughts?
 
I have a couple friends that recently started on the 'handguns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothign else' (to steal a line from Skynyrd) trip lately.

They can't seem to grasp that a handgun can do pretty much anything a rifle can do at close range, and are much nicer to carry around. One of these days, they are going shooting with me.

But anyway, I'm for anyone owning pretty much anything they want, and coming down on them hard when thy misuse it. You want a fully loaded MIG? Fine, but you launch that missile at something you shouldn't and we are shooting your ass down.
 
"Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think there's a reason to stop people from owning an AK-47. We should have every right to own this gun if we wish to."

I'm with you, only more so.

I'm of the opinion that anybody who knows how to use a weapon like an Ak-47 really ought to have one, along with an adequate supply of ammo. It is a "citizen's militia" or "nation of riflemen" thing. I feel that, should it come to it, the able bodied populance of the country needs to be able to rise up with credible arms either in defense of the country from foreign attack, or in revolt against our own domestic government gone amok. Nothing short of military grade equipment will do in either of those cases.

It is part of that "well regulated milita" clause in the 2nd ammendment.
 
"But anyway, I'm for anyone owning pretty much anything they want, and coming down on them hard when thy misuse it. You want a fully loaded MIG? Fine, but you launch that missile at something you shouldn't and we are shooting your ass down."

Yep. And if I want to set up a SAM battery in my back yard, and have a TOW missile launcher mounted in the bed of my truck, that's my own business. As long as I'm not shooting it at anybody, that is. Again, it is a NOR thing -- it takes credible military grade equipment for that kind of deterrence.
 
gb__in__ga ,

If you think you deserve the right to own all this powerful weapons, who are we to stop other countries from having them ?
This is a bit contradictory isn't it ? everything needs a limit otherwise can become overused, no?
 
Wild, and Rosa

Since I'm the government, and you own a SNIPER MEGA POWERED RIFLE I'm going to ban it.

And about us having a say in what other countries own...technically we have no say in what defensive mechanism they can own...
 
I have a couple friends that recently started on the 'handguns are made for killing, ain't no good for nothign else' (to steal a line from Skynyrd) trip lately.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and cops have handguns because all they do is kill people all day.
 
first off the assault weapon ban was a joke. what did it do? it kept you from getting new hi-cap mags. so all you had to do was pay more for one of the many pre-ban ones out there. also it banned folding stocks and things that make a weapon look like an assault weapon. this in no way stopped you from buying say an ak-47 or ar-15, it just limited some of the toys you could have on it. now i dont have the list here in front of me of what the ban was(expired), but I know that while it was on i bought all kinds of so called assault weapons. these weapons where semi-auto rifles with a barrel length of 18" or greater. tell me how this is going to stop someone from doing something with a firearm........im still waiting. anyone who wants to commit a crime, will. if you want a firearm and cant legally do so there are ways around it. these dumb laws keep firearms from the people who should have them, not the other way around.
next time someone says that not signing the AWB was a bad idea, ask them what it did in its 10 years.
 
"If you think you deserve the right to own all this powerful weapons, who are we to stop other countries from having them? This is a bit contradictory isn't it?"

Actually, no it isn't. Your analogy is not really valid.

Say, for instance, that I buy a surplus M-60 tank, park it in my back yard, and get a bunch of the neighbors together and teach them to be the other members of the crew. Neither myself nor my neighbors are violent felons, there is no reason to believe that we are going to attack anybody. We also put together a supply of main gun, coax MG and turret MG ammo. At this point, what our neighborhood now possesses is a credible deterrent to government run amok. At this point, nobody had actually done anything threatening. No assaults have occured in our neighborhood or in the town square using this tank. No response is warranted from the government, other than increased surveilance and a sure knowledge that our neighborhood has the potential to resist if it comes to that. We also have a credible deterrent against the next neighborhood's T-62 tank.

Now compare that to your country analogy. Those countries who we seek to limit their military capability are specifically those who have histories of misusing those same or similar weaponry. They have established that they are not intending to use those weapons in a defensive deterrent manner, but instead as a means for oppressing their own peoples, territorial expansion, and other aggressive purposes. Keeping with the analogy I had started, it would be as if the neighbors and I had fired up our tank, shot up the houses of the neighbors who refused to participate with us, and then rolled into the next neighborhood down the highway and started blasting away, destroying their T-62 tank in the process. Oh, and then rolled our tank down to the town square and blasted in the door of the bank -- all of this for no good reason other than we just wanted to. Yes, if that is what we had done with our tank, it would be quite right for others (who have more and better tanks) to seek to kill us or take our tank away and send us to jail.

"everything needs a limit otherwise can become overused, no?"

No. As long as government has the power, the citizenry needs to have that same power. This prevents coups by the military and representative governments from becoming dictatorships.
 
For the whole country thing, we usually don't go after them until they have done somehing wrong, as gb said. Just like what should happen here.
 
why would you exempt government regulation from that maxim?
Click to expand...

I sure as heck would:

I have a motto..If its an Agency With Three letters, Might as well give up before the paperwork starts

WildespeciallyinsAlaska
 
Here's the reason.

"I mean, there's no reason a civilian should own an AK-47,"
Click to expand...

I had the opportunity to hear Wayne LaPierre speak on Oct 16th on Long Island and he had the new NRA slogan that he reitterated in response to the above question as well as every other anti 2A statement out there such as

"Why do you need a large capacity magazine?"
"Why do you need a semi auto?"
"Why do you need a handgun?"
"What is wrong with registration?"
"The police will protect you?"
"What is wrong with a 15 day waiting period?"
etc, etc, etc.

He shouted the reason after every question and vowed to make it the most commonly heard NRA slogan from here forward. It was only three words

"REMEBER NEW ORLEANS!"
 
I recently purchased a Romanian AK-47. Why? Because it looked like it would be fun to shoot! I bought it because I find shooting it to be entertaining.

This girl you were arguing with doesn't seem to understand that criminals most likely aren't going to legally purchase AK-47s or other weapons and go on a killing spree. They'll use guns for their crimes that they can get their hands on illegally. Therefore, banning the sale of these "assault weapons" to the general public doesn't exactly accomplish a whole lot.

Just because she doesn't see AK-47s or other "assault weapons" as having a purpose doesn't mean they should be banned. I'm going to take a wild stab and guess she would like to see all guns banned. :barf:
 
Outlawing certain types of weapons (specifically those on the Assault Weapon list) did nothing to prevent the illegal use of them. Repeat, the ILLEGAL use. If someone wants to commit an Illegal act, it is highly unlikely that they will concern themself with the illegality of the weapon they employ. For this reason, I have been dead set against the regulation of Assault Style weapons as well as Class III as it is today (Some can own, some can't. It depends on politics, not reason). More laws don't mean less crime. It just means more laws that are unevenly enforced.

Crime will be controlled only through certain punishment, not the liberal "rehabiltate them to make them good productive citizen" approach used for the last 30 years.

I may disagree witht he President on a lot of things but refusing to renew a dumb law was perhaps one of the smarter things he has done.
 
As your friend which of the following scenarios she'd rather face:

#1) Have her imagine that she works for Wallyworld and her violent ex boyfriend with a restraining order against him comes in, waves a HUGE knife around, stabs her 2 times in the back and is finally killed 2 hrs later by the police after an armed standoff.

#2) Have her imagine that she's works for Wallyworld when her violent ex boyfriend with a restraining order against him grabs a baseball bat from the sporting goods section runs down the aisle toward her and then starts hitting her in the head with it while she attempts to run. He's finally killed 20 mins later as he attempts to use the bat to get away from the police.

#3) Have her imagine she works for Wallyworld when her violent ex boyfriend with a restraining order against him comes in, waves a gun around and is immediately shot by an armed citizen before he can harm anyone.

In all three scenarios somebody dies. Would she rather it was only the bad guy or would she prefer to die also or be permanently disfigured, paralyzed, or be in a vegatative coma along with him. BTW, the scenario is based on the Arizona (NewMexico?) Walmart shooting from a month or so ago.
 
gb__in__ga,

what do you know about dictators?
do you know where I come from?
I'm from Catalunya (so you'll know)
I've lived under the power of a dictator, matter fact both my Grand Fathers faught against him.
I have to go now but..."I'll be back":D
 
Russ538, swmike, Rob_P.,

All of your statements combined add up to everything I tried to explain to my friend. She still wouldn't listen and continued to say, "I still don't see the reason why everyone should be able to own one."

I guess she wants the cops and the government to overpower everybody and give us absolutely no way to defend ourselves against them if the need would arise. I would tell her this, but I kinda want to keep her as a friend seeing that we share an apartment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top