SuzukiSavage.com - I propose we define 'assault weapon'

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #165 - 01/11/13 at 06:01:21

Paraquat wrote on 01/10/13 at 09:24:38:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/282862_469506279775024_1266494907...

--Steve

One more of those bogus mis-representative cartoons and you parroting it blindly ...

Why is it mis representative you ask ?

No one is talking about 1 gun murder. 1000's of those happen everyday. They are just that, murders, some dont ever get solves, some do ... etc etc etc ... some are even justified.

We are trying to stop the mass killings. To be representative of what the debate is about, the pile of bodies needs to be taller than the 2 men talking ...
Garbage from our press as usual. Freedom of the press makes sense, only if they were staffed (or is that stuffed) with morons.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

Paraquat

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 2206

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #166 - 01/11/13 at 06:11:31

srinath wrote on 01/10/13 at 19:32:15:

Its not the guns fault. Its the careless owners part. Its the careless sellers fault. There is no way to properly make sure they dont get into the wrong hands cos the NRA says, we need guns and we need them now.

How was the owner careless selling it to someone who is competent and legally able to own such a firearm?
Whether or not someone steals it is another argument all together.

srinath wrote on 01/11/13 at 06:01:21:

Why is it mis representative you ask ?

No one is talking about 1 gun murder. 1000's of those happen everyday. They are just that, murders, some dont ever get solves, some do ... etc etc etc ... some are even justified.

Quote:

A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.

...but,yes, ban rifles.

Quote:

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2008/10/23/the-butcher%E2%80%99s-bill-...

Did you even look at any of the other statistics I posted? Allow me to refresh you...

Why won't you take any action upon these other objects?

--Steve

Back to top

IP Logged

MShipley Serious Thumper Offline SuzukiSavage.com Rocks! Posts: 681	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #167 - 01/11/13 at 06:45:08 http://www.therightscoop.com/15-year-old-defends-home-against-burglars-shoots... Good thing that gun did not have a fingerprint lock intended only for the owner.
Back to top	IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13887

Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #168 - 01/11/13 at 06:47:30

There’s a bigger point to be made other debating what is or is not an assault rifle. What needs to be clearly understood and an umbrella over all discussions on gun control is the fact taht the 2nd (and 3rd) amendments are designed to give citizens the opportunity to defend the freedom of this nation not from outside invaders, but from our own government. The idea that we will remove or further restrict the right to own a firearm is a non-starter in my mind.

How often have we heard the calls to ‘arm the rebels’ of other nations? How often during the ‘Arab Spring’ have we heard this? Why? Because those citizens have no weapons which to turn on their oppressors. Is there a point in our future where our own government turns to far to the left or right and we are left with no resort other than to fight for our lives and freedoms? In my lifetime; seems unlikely. Impossible? No.

The 2nd Amendment is not about guns to hunt with or guns to target shoot with; the 2nd Amendment is about the ability for oppressed citizens to unite against their own government. This cannot and will not be taken away. We have enough gun laws on the books. Enforce the ones we have. Take mental health more seriously than we have in the past.

The right to keep and bear arms should remain as it is.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #169 - 01/11/13 at 06:56:00

Lots of irrelevant crap stats here ...

Tobacco use kills the person using the tobacco. As does alcohol and drugs. Medical errors and unintentional are simply accidents as are auto accidents. They happen ... all the time.

Really banning guns wont make a scratch in this ... Firearm homicides, as in somene intends to kill someone - or kills an intruder ... 1 murder @ a time ... can not be stopped at all. Trying to stop that will do 10 times as much damage for every bit of good it does.
This is the number for 2012 that I'd like to see brought to 0.

Gun rampage killings = 282. Why ? that is the school killings, theatre killings, parking lot killing ...

Dont try to say I am trying to stop all death. Once again look @ all the stats you have yourself posted ...

Korea, japan, china, all very crowded places. I am sure you could go on a stabbing spree in NYC and make a similar tally. Why does it not happen ... well, its easier to do it with a gun.
Fire - you do know it takes like a few hours for a fire to spread right. Once again, hand him a gun and see how many he kills. Its an option in a country without firecodes and extreme crowds. Like japan, korea, India etc.

6 people killed with baseball bats ... by 4 people. Nice, not 27 by 1 guy.
Stabbing spree wounds 41 in berlin. See that is a classic example of why guns are far far far superior. You give that guy a gun, and the amount of time it takes to stab 41 people and the crowded train station, I'd bet he'd have a pile of bodies taller than the train station.

Once again lots of things including ping pongs are lethal as has been pointed out. Pingpongs, soccers and hockeys cant give you a 30 body pile in 10 seconds. I've seen ping pongs in action and their killing power, they barely do 1 in an hour at best.

Really The count we are trying to eliminate in 2012 is 282. Yes that small ... pales in comparison with your 1,000,000 or so you have listed. Seriously ...

I'll say there is atleast 28 (10%) of the shooting an intruder cases in self defence. The idea is to get that 282 as low as possible affecting the 28 as less as possible or however many there were of the self defence category.

Bullets costing 100 bucks a piece and reimburseable for a justified homicide by the cops on the scene will easily solve most of it ... however it has never been tried, and it has to be run for a few years nation wide before we can see what it has done. We cant do that in NYC and not in alabama, and say it didn't work.

Its probablt going to affect sport hunters ... we can work on some sort of exchange types for them. We'd have to figure that out.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #170 - 01/11/13 at 07:02:13

WebsterMark wrote on 01/11/13 at 06:47:30:

There’s a bigger point to be made other debating what is or is not an assault rifle. What needs to be clearly understood and an umbrella over all discussions on gun control is the fact taht the 2nd (and 3rd) amendments are designed to give citizens the opportunity to defend the freedom of this nation not from outside invaders, but from our own government. The idea that we will remove or further restrict the right to own a firearm is a non-starter in my mind.

How often have we heard the calls to ‘arm the rebels’ of other nations? How often during the ‘Arab Spring’ have we heard this? Why? Because those citizens have no weapons which to turn on their oppressors. Is there a point in our future where our own government turns to far to the left or right and we are left with no resort other than to fight for our lives and freedoms? In my lifetime; seems unlikely. Impossible? No.

The 2nd Amendment is not about guns to hunt with or guns to target shoot with; the 2nd Amendment is about the ability for oppressed citizens to unite against their own government. This cannot and will not be taken away. We have enough gun laws on the books. Enforce the ones we have. Take mental health more seriously than we have in the past.

The right to keep and bear arms should remain as it is.

More useless and really in consequential interpretation of the second amendment.

The us has drones, and nuclear missiles. Your guns are toys if they turn on you. Your guns will help shoot your unarmed neighbor after the US government drops the nuclear bombs on you.

The arab spring talks of arming the rebels ... you're interpreting that to mean guns ... OK it is guns also, but they also want tanks, recon vehicles, and other military equipment, not just guns. And those regimes dont have nuclear weapons, they have chemical at best, and they can not move the chemical weapons cos we (US and nato) are watching over that. So it is rebels with guns, and regime with tanks jeeps and guns. Close enough, and the rebels want jeeps and tanks and more guns. Fair enough.

I know you wont give up your guns webster. I am not taking them. I just want you to pay for the security you have when your kids have armed guards in our schools.

Cool.
srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

MShipley Serious Thumper Offline SuzukiSavage.com Rocks! Posts: 681	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #171 - 01/11/13 at 07:07:02 So as a country we can afford $1.2 billion to give away cell phones. But we dont want to spend any to protect the kids.
Back to top	IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13887

Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #172 - 01/11/13 at 07:20:10

More useless and really in consequential interpretation of the second amendment.

No; this is the only interpretation of the 2nd and 3rd amendments that matter. This is why they were written. this is not a debatable point.

now, if you want to debate ignoring that fact, okay, debate away, but not why they are in place to begin with.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #173 - 01/11/13 at 07:24:01

MShipley wrote on 01/11/13 at 07:07:02:

So as a country we can afford $1.2 billion to give away cell phones. But we dont want to spend any to protect the kids.

Cell phones ? To whom ? soldiers ?
1.2 billion is what it will cost for a couple days if we are to staff every school with enough guards for proper coverage.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #174 - 01/11/13 at 07:28:06

WebsterMark wrote on 01/11/13 at 07:20:10:

More useless and really in consequential interpretation of the second amendment.

No; this is the only interpretation of the 2nd and 3rd amendments that matter. This is why they were written. this is not a debatable point.

now, if you want to debate ignoring that fact, okay, debate away, but not why they are in place to begin with.

Have you read the second amendment ?

Paraphrasing: It says we need to arm the citizens and form militias cos its un feasible to maintain a military in times of peace.

If you want to ignore that fact and post arguments using the second amendment as toilet paper, you go right ahead.

You want guns to stop a tyrannical govt as outlined in the second amendment. The Govt can level your state and the 4 surrounding it in a matter of a few seconds. Your gun then can be used to shoot your unarmed neighbor and eat him. You dont stand a prayer if the govt turns against you.

Besides we have a military that costs as much a the next 13 countries combined. That is right there counter to the second amendment.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

WebsterMark

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13887

Gender: male

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #175 - 01/11/13 at 07:34:12

your paraphrased statement is as wrong as 2+2=5.

this was not the intent. I suggest reading the writings of the times, the debates over this amendment. It has one meaning and not the meaning you and others are trying to assign to it in today's world.

A debate over if we could sucessfully turn back our own government against us is another matter. I think perhaps 10,000 would die and another 10,000 would take their place. that is at the heart of a fight for liberty.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" –Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

Back to top

IP Logged

bill67 Serious Thumper Offline old tired Posts: 8517 genoa city wisconsin Gender:	Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon' Reply #176 - 01/11/13 at 07:40:13 Patrick Henry was a good successful man he had 64 slaves.
Back to top	william h krumpen IP Logged

Paraquat

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 2206

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #177 - 01/11/13 at 09:14:11

srinath wrote on 01/11/13 at 06:56:00:

Lots of irrelevant crap stats here ...

Tobacco use kills the person using the tobacco. As does alcohol and drugs. Medical errors and unintentional are simply accidents as are auto accidents. They happen ... all the time.

Stabbing spree wounds 41 in berlin. See that is a classic example of why guns are far far far superior. You give that guy a gun, and the amount of time it takes to stab 41 people and the crowded train station, I'd bet he'd have a pile of bodies taller than the train station.

Tobacco kills people through second hand.

A stabbing spree of 41 wounded... and if one of them had a firearm it could've all been prevented.

The government could decimate my state, and the four surrounding it, to execute me but how much support do you think they could rally after wiping out all of New England? Do you think anyone would sit idly by and let that happen?

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

Could the government get so powerful that the will of the people is irrelevant? As it was stated above yes, it could some day.
I highly doubt the government would employ such weapons on it's own soil. Would US soldiers fire upon US citizens in this fantasy scenario? Would they appreciate return fire?

bill67 wrote on 01/11/13 at 07:40:13:

Patrick Henry was a good successful man he had 64 slaves.

You're judging him out of context.
I own 5 internal combustion vehicles. Some day the future generations might compare me to Hitler for my reckless disregard for the environment.

--Steve

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #178 - 01/11/13 at 09:20:52

bill67 wrote on 01/11/13 at 07:40:13:

Patrick Henry was a good successful man he had 64 slaves.

Yup, so was Benjamin franklin, and that lovely stalwart author of the constitution, Jefferson ... what a believer in equality, he even had 4 children (that we know of) with a black slave girl. What a nice white man.
Self serving fool ...

BTW there are some women getting raped in India ... to prevent that, I suggest ... we rape them all.

Self serving advice @ its best.
Or the Jeffersonian and the Strum Thurmond belief: I believe in black people being equal to white people ... therefore I'll get a few black girls pregnant ... Perfect that'll get em equal.

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged

srinath

Serious Thumper

Offline

I love YaBB 1G -
SP1!

Posts: 5349

Re: I propose we define 'assault weapon'
Reply #179 - 01/11/13 at 09:31:24

Paraquat wrote on 01/11/13 at 09:14:11:

Tobacco kills people through second hand.

A stabbing spree of 41 wounded... and if one of them had a firearm it could've all been prevented.

The government could decimate my state, and the four surrounding it, to execute me but how much support do you think they could rally after wiping out all of New England? Do you think anyone would sit idly by and let that happen?

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."

Could the government get so powerful that the will of the people is irrelevant? As it was stated above yes, it could some day.
I highly doubt the government would employ such weapons on it's own soil. Would US soldiers fire upon US citizens in this fantasy scenario? Would they appreciate return fire?

--Steve

Tobacco second hand smoke only kill people after decades. First hand it takes decades. And we really nowadays corral smokers into their own corner of the parking lot. In my office building, there is a big ash tray ~30-40 ft from the door 1/2 way towards the loading docks. Its where you will not even walk, people drive by, but no one has to walk through that zone unless they want to. Is your argument that flimsy ... we are choking smoking out of acceptance and taxing it to death.

The second amendment says militia not military. They dont have a nuclear option, dont have a drone option, nothing ... get rid of military, have militia. Long dead, the US govt killed it. You have a toy you can use to kill unarmed people.

Stabbing spree ... if someone there had a gun ... well it will be the guy using the knife. Why ? cos he has motive. In a free gun society, criminals and the people criminals threaten are usually the first ones to get guns. If none of the people in that area were threatened the ywont have a gun, but the killer for certain will. Why ... he knows he has a need. He knows that morning that he was going to stab people ...

Cool.
Srinath.

Back to top

IP Logged