Just curious on different points of view
- Thread starter 9mmGirl
- Start date
We is the Government thus we have the power (If we would use it)
Something I remember from Grade School. We are the government. We elect our representatives to transact business on our behalf. The key here is "elect". The most powerful weapon has proven to be the VOTE. Saturday, hundreds of thousands risked their lives to go vote and get their finger dyed to signify that they had. To them it was an honor.
In this country there are voters that won't vote because:
It was raining
I had a Dr's Appointment
The wife had me running errands.
I couldn't leave the office
I forgot
I don't care
I don't know
I didn't want to
---and on and on.
When less than 1/3 of the eligible voters show up to vote then there is a problem. For those that feel they need change in government --- go for it. Vote! Get your Family members to vote! Vote for anyone you want, but vote. Only then will some of the ancient morons that seem to have that legislative seat superglued to their A$$ either get the message or the boot.
Unless you forgot those early lessons, we are governed by consent, OURS.
Perhaps a little off topic but in response to the post "As long as government has the power, the citizenry needs to have that same power" we do. It is in the form of "us giving them permission to hold office through the ballot".
Another election is coming up. If not registered do so. If you tend to find excuses to not vote, get off your A$$ and do so. Nobody will be shooting at you and the threat of car bombs is far lower in this country.
Something I remember from Grade School. We are the government. We elect our representatives to transact business on our behalf. The key here is "elect". The most powerful weapon has proven to be the VOTE. Saturday, hundreds of thousands risked their lives to go vote and get their finger dyed to signify that they had. To them it was an honor.
In this country there are voters that won't vote because:
It was raining
I had a Dr's Appointment
The wife had me running errands.
I couldn't leave the office
I forgot
I don't care
I don't know
I didn't want to
---and on and on.
When less than 1/3 of the eligible voters show up to vote then there is a problem. For those that feel they need change in government --- go for it. Vote! Get your Family members to vote! Vote for anyone you want, but vote. Only then will some of the ancient morons that seem to have that legislative seat superglued to their A$$ either get the message or the boot.
Unless you forgot those early lessons, we are governed by consent, OURS.
Perhaps a little off topic but in response to the post "As long as government has the power, the citizenry needs to have that same power" we do. It is in the form of "us giving them permission to hold office through the ballot".
Another election is coming up. If not registered do so. If you tend to find excuses to not vote, get off your A$$ and do so. Nobody will be shooting at you and the threat of car bombs is far lower in this country.
My first thought is that your friend needs a basic civics lesson. President Bush didn't sign the assault weapon ban because it was never sent to him!
The congress would have had to either passed a bill re-newing the AWB as it was or pass a new AWB in a different form. It would then be up to the president to either sign it or veto it. He said that he would have signed a re-newel of the then current bill.
As for her seeing no reason for a "civilian owning an AK-47", so what, there are lots of items in America that civilians have "no reason" to own, but we are allowed to own them anyway.
I agree there are a lot of things no one has a reason to own but are not prohibited. No one has a good reason to own hair spray, but many people own it anyway, and no one would prohibit it. And I don't doubt someone has been killed with it at some point.
I'd ask her why she thinks she should be prohibited from owning an semi-auto AK-47. Would she kill someone if she had one?
IZinterrogator
New member
Rosa, I'm a bit confused, because we do allow the Iraqis to have AK-47s in their homes, one per adult, as a matter of fact. And they get full-auto ones, not semiautomatic-only ones like we do. Who are we stopping from having them?
XavierBreath
New member
9mm Girl..........
Here is a very good page discussing this issue.
Here is a very good website for your friend to read.
Explain to her that there are people and organizations who feel she should not be allowed to have many things she may own, want or need. These include cats, ferrets, mice, diamonds, fur, leather garments, cameras, all motorcycles and any automobiles that can exceed 55MPH. There are people who would like to burn books she wants to read, blow up clinics she may want to enter, and kill her friends because of their skin tone. Some groups would prohibit her from recieving an education, from voting, or holding a job. Others would force her to cover everything but her eyes before she can leave her home. Others would simply not allow her to leave. She may not even think of these freedoms that she would cherish if they were threatened, but the same mindset that threatens her freedoms threaten mine.
edited to add: I'm sure your friend is talking about SAR1s and WASRs rather than AK47s. Tell her to at least understand what she is arguing against.
Here is a very good page discussing this issue.
Here is a very good website for your friend to read.
Explain to her that there are people and organizations who feel she should not be allowed to have many things she may own, want or need. These include cats, ferrets, mice, diamonds, fur, leather garments, cameras, all motorcycles and any automobiles that can exceed 55MPH. There are people who would like to burn books she wants to read, blow up clinics she may want to enter, and kill her friends because of their skin tone. Some groups would prohibit her from recieving an education, from voting, or holding a job. Others would force her to cover everything but her eyes before she can leave her home. Others would simply not allow her to leave. She may not even think of these freedoms that she would cherish if they were threatened, but the same mindset that threatens her freedoms threaten mine.
My AK47 protects her little freedoms.
She should do her part.
There are times when a man needs a rifle with a 40 round magazine.
She should own an AK47 as well.
Remember New Orleans.
Remember South Central.
Molan Labe Baby! Molan Labe!
She should do her part.
There are times when a man needs a rifle with a 40 round magazine.
She should own an AK47 as well.
Remember New Orleans.
Remember South Central.
Molan Labe Baby! Molan Labe!
edited to add: I'm sure your friend is talking about SAR1s and WASRs rather than AK47s. Tell her to at least understand what she is arguing against.
Guy B. Meredith
New member
9mmGirl,
When talking with someone with a bias or just simple opinion it is not up to you to disprove the validity; it is up to them to support their comments. Just keep questioning until they run out of gas.
When talking with someone with a bias or just simple opinion it is not up to you to disprove the validity; it is up to them to support their comments. Just keep questioning until they run out of gas.
Back when the AWB was first passed, I challenged a friend's dad (both he and his dad were very liberal and anti-gun and still are) about his support for the AWB and any politician who would vote to pass it.
I said, "Mr. R., tell me what is so special about an 'assault weapon.' What does it do?"
And he responded by saying, "It goes like this: buddabuddabuddabuddabudda!..." and he mimed FULL AUTO.
I then hit him with, "Um, Mr. R., THOSE have been strictly regulated almost to the point of illegality since 1934. That's called 'full auto,' and all of the guns that would fall under the AWB are SEMI-auto, and can fire only ONE round per pull of the trigger. So thanks for illustrating for me the fact that supporters of this ban do so only because they don't actually understand what it is supposed to do."
He was proved wrong, but like most anti-gunners, I doubt very much that he changed his way of thinking. There is a LOT of doublethink at work in the mind of an anti-gunner. A guy like Mr. R. can be confronted directly with the lies that his anti-gun think-surrogates feed him; he can be shown specifically where they lied to him to trick him into giving his support; and somehow he will come through it STILL thinking that anti-gun is the position that makes sense. It's willfull self-deception: "doublethink." You can't overcome it with logic and reason. We will always have to fight idiots like that.
-blackmind
I live in the area (near Washington, D.C.) where we had a minor problem with a roving sniper a couple of years ago. He (or they) actually killed a few people around here before being caught. He used a .223 Bushmaster. In a news conference in Montgomery County the police were showing a similar rifle to the gathered reporters. It would have pleased me no end for a reporter to have asked how many such rifles the county had or how many sniper rifles. But they let me down.
However, have you ever noticed how crime control bills make more things illegal? Did you catch in the news that Brazil is considering banning firearms to solve the problem of illegal guns? The logic is mindboggling.
However, have you ever noticed how crime control bills make more things illegal? Did you catch in the news that Brazil is considering banning firearms to solve the problem of illegal guns? The logic is mindboggling.
Blackmind,
What you said is so true. Most anti's think an "assault weapon" is a machine gun with a 100 round drum or something to that effect. They don't realize how many guns the "assault weapon" ban actually covered. Full auto weapons are already highly regulated, and I sadly doubt that will change
.
The list of guns that the ban covered are half way down the page, here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=93650
What you said is so true. Most anti's think an "assault weapon" is a machine gun with a 100 round drum or something to that effect. They don't realize how many guns the "assault weapon" ban actually covered. Full auto weapons are already highly regulated, and I sadly doubt that will change
.The list of guns that the ban covered are half way down the page, here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/printthread.php?t=93650
"what do you know about dictators?"
Enough to know that they are a source of great ills in this world. Democracies run amok are another.
"do you know where I come from?
I'm from Catalunya (so you'll know)"
Never heard of the place, I'll look it up. Ah, Spain.
"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""
Franco, I presume? It seems to me that the war in the '30's pit the nationalistic forces of Franco against the communists, right? They both sound distasteful to me. My feelings about that war was that it was too bad they both couldn't lose. It all goes to show you that both sides of an argument can be wrong.
My ancestors fought against another dictator: Santa Anna. That revolution was successful largely because the Anglo settlers along with their Hispanic allies defied the dictator and had their own first rate armaments, including artillery. Go visit the link on my sig line, you'll see what I'm talking about.
So, what's your point? You know about dictators, first hand? I've stood in the line against them, myself -- U.S. Army, back in the '70's, in Europe, to counter the Communists. There were no shortage of people there who could and did tell me all about them based on their direct experiences. I can and have read the histories, I know how they come to power and what they do once there. And that's all I need to know.
Enough to know that they are a source of great ills in this world. Democracies run amok are another.
"do you know where I come from?
I'm from Catalunya (so you'll know)"
Never heard of the place, I'll look it up. Ah, Spain.
"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""
Franco, I presume? It seems to me that the war in the '30's pit the nationalistic forces of Franco against the communists, right? They both sound distasteful to me. My feelings about that war was that it was too bad they both couldn't lose. It all goes to show you that both sides of an argument can be wrong.
My ancestors fought against another dictator: Santa Anna. That revolution was successful largely because the Anglo settlers along with their Hispanic allies defied the dictator and had their own first rate armaments, including artillery. Go visit the link on my sig line, you'll see what I'm talking about.
So, what's your point? You know about dictators, first hand? I've stood in the line against them, myself -- U.S. Army, back in the '70's, in Europe, to counter the Communists. There were no shortage of people there who could and did tell me all about them based on their direct experiences. I can and have read the histories, I know how they come to power and what they do once there. And that's all I need to know.
"He (or they) actually killed a few people around here before being caught. He used a .223 Bushmaster."
What they didn't bother to point out was that the same thing could have been done with any reasonably accurate center fire rifle. The fact that it was a Bushmaster is really just a point of trivia, in other words. Any bolt action varmit or deer rifle that your typical shooter would have would have been just as effective.
So, the question that begs asking is whether banning rifles like that Bushmaster would have deterred these killers. Nope, they would have just picked up a sporting rifle and done the exact same thing. So called "High Capacity" magazines? Ok, so the rifle supported them, but the killers didn't actually make use of the extra capacity, hamstrung mags would have suited their purposes just as well. Evil looking Black Stocks? What difference would that have made? None. Evil looking Pistol Grip? No difference. Evil Bayonet Lug? Why bother, nobody uses them in crime, anyway.
What they didn't bother to point out was that the same thing could have been done with any reasonably accurate center fire rifle. The fact that it was a Bushmaster is really just a point of trivia, in other words. Any bolt action varmit or deer rifle that your typical shooter would have would have been just as effective.
So, the question that begs asking is whether banning rifles like that Bushmaster would have deterred these killers. Nope, they would have just picked up a sporting rifle and done the exact same thing. So called "High Capacity" magazines? Ok, so the rifle supported them, but the killers didn't actually make use of the extra capacity, hamstrung mags would have suited their purposes just as well. Evil looking Black Stocks? What difference would that have made? None. Evil looking Pistol Grip? No difference. Evil Bayonet Lug? Why bother, nobody uses them in crime, anyway.
RosaMariTB
New member
gb__in__ga
Yeah...I see you do know alot
. It so happens my Grand father was a Republican, he was not my ancestor but my very close relative. You are just asuming what other countries need or don't need, you brought up the dictator issue and as far as I'm concerned the ARMY did not give you the knowledge of other countries either.
What you read in a book could very well be somehow distorted from the truth (I found a few).
You may visit the country for a short period and then you came back. War is not what gives the knowledge of the mentalities and realities of what goes on in other countries. Also please remember there is a big difference between Spaniards and people from South America it would be like comparing North America and the UK. Matter fact to my opinion and sadly to say the mentalities of some people do need dictators.
The point here is your wanting the right to have a tank in your back yard...and your so friendly neighbors could end up to be deceiving and unless you kept your tank inside a giant fortress in your back yard there are many ways that "others" could sabotage it for the wrong purpose. If you can't understand my point here that's perfectly fine with me. I go for the 1st. and 2nd. ammendement of The Constitution of the United States, in force December 15, 1791.
A great brain is bigger and better than a big tank which after all is a big machine, I'll stick to smaller kind of Arms.
Some people was not violent before...but sure can get violent later.
Yeah...I see you do know alot
. It so happens my Grand father was a Republican, he was not my ancestor but my very close relative. You are just asuming what other countries need or don't need, you brought up the dictator issue and as far as I'm concerned the ARMY did not give you the knowledge of other countries either.What you read in a book could very well be somehow distorted from the truth (I found a few).
You may visit the country for a short period and then you came back. War is not what gives the knowledge of the mentalities and realities of what goes on in other countries. Also please remember there is a big difference between Spaniards and people from South America it would be like comparing North America and the UK. Matter fact to my opinion and sadly to say the mentalities of some people do need dictators.
The point here is your wanting the right to have a tank in your back yard...and your so friendly neighbors could end up to be deceiving and unless you kept your tank inside a giant fortress in your back yard there are many ways that "others" could sabotage it for the wrong purpose. If you can't understand my point here that's perfectly fine with me. I go for the 1st. and 2nd. ammendement of The Constitution of the United States, in force December 15, 1791.
A great brain is bigger and better than a big tank which after all is a big machine, I'll stick to smaller kind of Arms.
Some people was not violent before...but sure can get violent later.
Last edited:
RosaMariTB
New member
blackmind ,
who are we to try to impose our ideals unto others?
If someone wants to own guns that's find and it should be respected as well as the ones who do not want guns their opinion should be respected as well.
Big guns/small guns what's the difference? now tanks and missiles and other that's very differet.
who are we to try to impose our ideals unto others?
If someone wants to own guns that's find and it should be respected as well as the ones who do not want guns their opinion should be respected as well.
Big guns/small guns what's the difference? now tanks and missiles and other that's very differet.
THE TROUBLE IS, RosaMari, that it is very clear that MOST people who dislike guns enough to steadfastly not want them ALSO don't want US to have them.
It is very rare to find a person who absolutely detests the idea of being armed who does not also want ME to not be armed, or even to have the CHOICE.
I have not found the gun owner who wants to legally FORCE people to have guns whether they wish to or not. But many is the anti-gunner who wants to FORCE US to NOT have guns.
We are not the hypocrites in this situation.
And since when is your grandfather not your ancestor?
-blackmind
It is very rare to find a person who absolutely detests the idea of being armed who does not also want ME to not be armed, or even to have the CHOICE.
I have not found the gun owner who wants to legally FORCE people to have guns whether they wish to or not. But many is the anti-gunner who wants to FORCE US to NOT have guns.
We are not the hypocrites in this situation.
And since when is your grandfather not your ancestor?
-blackmind
RosaMariTB
New member
blackmind,
According to the american dictionary...
Ancestor = " a person from whom one is descendent, especially if MORE than a grandparent".
I consider my grandfather a very close relative.
"People that dislike guns" yes I agree with you.
"People that fears guns for other good reasons" no I don't agree with you.
According to the american dictionary...
Ancestor = " a person from whom one is descendent, especially if MORE than a grandparent".
I consider my grandfather a very close relative.
"People that dislike guns" yes I agree with you.
"People that fears guns for other good reasons" no I don't agree with you.
XavierBreath
New member
Let me make sure I understand, Rosa Mari.
You believe private citizens should be barred from owning tanks.
What about other types of tracked vehicles? What about helicopters and 4 wheel drive vehicles? Vehicles with more than two axles?
Is it the mobility with a gun that offends you?
If it's the difficult to penetrate armor, then perhaps citizens should also be barred from owning sandbags, armored trucks, and from digging bunkers.
Perhaps it's the color you find offensive? Green? Olive Drab? or Desert Tan. Is it the big white star?
Can you elaborate a little more on why you feel myself and others should not be allowed to own tanks?
This BMP1 is a nice one for a great price. Heck, you can even list them on ebay. What's the problem? It's not an assault rifle after all!
You believe private citizens should be barred from owning tanks.
What about other types of tracked vehicles? What about helicopters and 4 wheel drive vehicles? Vehicles with more than two axles?
Is it the mobility with a gun that offends you?
If it's the difficult to penetrate armor, then perhaps citizens should also be barred from owning sandbags, armored trucks, and from digging bunkers.
Perhaps it's the color you find offensive? Green? Olive Drab? or Desert Tan. Is it the big white star?
Can you elaborate a little more on why you feel myself and others should not be allowed to own tanks?
This BMP1 is a nice one for a great price. Heck, you can even list them on ebay. What's the problem? It's not an assault rifle after all!
Wildalaska
Moderator
O god.......
WildintothetwighlightzoneAlaska
WildintothetwighlightzoneAlaska