Re: safety and politics
 

fatalsaint: I realize that most of the people that you know think the same way as you do regarding government regulation and "interference" in people's lives when it comes to gun control. But in most other western nations, the American way of looking at gun control seems more than a little bizarre. This is not meant as a criticism of you or your way of thinking, I'm just pointing out that you might be in the majority in your neighbourhood, city, state, whatever, but among stable, wealthy nations, the NRA approach to gun ownership gets puzzled looks and blank stares. They just don't get why Americans all need to be cowboys and have a gun on their hip.

For instance, why not have a law that insists that your guns are kept locked up? The government still can't bust into your house to make sure you're doing it, but if there's a law, it's more likely that people will do it, and that can't be a bad thing, can it?

Re: safety and politics
 

I was watching Judge Judy the other day.

These parents had bought their son a bee-bee gun. He used it to shoot up his neighbor's property, causing extensive damage.

The parents swore they were responsible people. But the mother was caught in a lie about supervision-- turns out the kid wasn't really supervised.

It's one thing to think that responsibility can be confined within a family-- but it can't. It's truly naive to think that we can all rely on each other to exercise proper judgment in the absence of nanny-style regulations. It's a nice libertarian theory, but it collapses in practice. Which is why we have civil constraints like speed limits, zoning laws, etc. Yes, people violate them. Yes, they can be a pain in the ***. But the anarchy you lean towards would, in reality, be an ugly thing that in short order would reduce the human race to a handful of surviving savages. Those who would voluntarily exercise good judgment and self-restraint would be in the first wave of extinction. That would, ostensibly, include you.

I was raised on a farm. We were given guns at very early ages and expected to be responsible by a stepfather who also saw himself as responsible.

But we weren't. And he wasn't. We abused our guns, as kids will. It is naive to think that doesn't happen (and on a larger scale than theorists would like to believe). It is a miracle we all survived, given some of the stunts pulled.

We make choices about our living conditions after adolescence. We are born into societies with laws. If one dislikes those laws, one can work to change them or find an environment more conducive to their preferences. It all comes down to how extreme one will act based on their beliefs.

Fatalsaint, you say you will take your beliefs to their farthest extreme but I don't believe you. If that was true, you would already be living on some lawless frontier, trusting solely in your own capabilities and the wisdom of your nearest neighbors. But you chose to stay in a crowded society of restrictive laws. If the frontier is not an option, how much work will you put into changing those laws? How much change do you expect for that effort? Have you ever really sat down and conducted those thought experiments? I am guessing no.

I am not saying any of this to be mean or nasty. This is a philosophical issue and I am simply asking you to philosophize... to an extreme. Have fun. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

The Libertarians have it right. (Please take a look...)

Re: safety and politics
 

actually.. I couldn't begin to tell you what people around me think about gun control. I'm more a recluse.. (I did mention: I don't leave the house all that often.) I do know that other countries think our insistence on the right to keep our silly little guns is strange. I respectfully, disagree.

I never said everyone was responsible.. I said they should be. If they're not.. that is their fault.. and I should not be blamed for it. If their irresponsibility affects me.. I blame them.. not society - but that specific person(s) responsible.

That was you. I was raised around guns, had access to my fathers guns since I was 10 years old. I never once showed it off to my friends.. certainly never loaded it.. and only rarely ever went in to look at them when the parents were away. Let's be honest.. they were cool - but I understood also that they killed.. and even at a young age I had witnessed someone else have an accidental discharge with their firearm.. so the first rule of safety "Always assume a gun is loaded" always stuck with me.

Now.. where I was an idiot like you were is not with the guns.. it was with the off road motorcycle my parents bought for me when I was 14-16 for our annual camping trip. I can't tell you how many cliffs I nearly went over, how many cars I nearly hit... I guess that means we should outlaw motorcycles too?

I said I have contemplated my beliefs to the extreme, and said that should they happen I have decided they are better than the alternative on the opposite end of the spectrum. I have not said I have lived it; and chose it after the fact.

HOWEVER ... believe me.. I really do wish I had my own 5-10 acre land that I could fence and close off from the rest of the world, including the federal .gov (hell; disney as their own LEO).. I also have a very small group of very tight friends that would love such a thing as well. One's a doctor, his father the Sheriff of a county, ones an engineer, there's me the geek, and a few others. I myself have no farming experience.. some of the others do.. but in theory the group of us could actually make our own little tight-nit society away from everyone and not bothering anybody. (Did you know they sell Missile Silo's?? Atlas silo's are for sale for building homes and such out of: Talk about my DREAM HOUSE.)

Unfortunately one has to take into account practicality... I have to make money.. I have kids to feed.. and I have a wife. I don't have the luxury of just dropping everything and vanishing into no where.

What am I doing to change the laws?? Easy .. I am here, and everywhere else I've seen active gun discussions trying to educate those who don't actually know jack about guns - and buy the BS and crap the news and politicians feed them. Hopefully, I can give at least some people, an insight to the insanity of punishing the many for the crimes of a few.

And Tex - Thank you. That post didn't make me feel like a pathetic 4 year old with an IQ of a Dolt. It was well worded, and made sense even to my small mind. So I appreciate the change in tactic there.

Oh and...

What Aisu said.

Re: safety and politics
 

No, they're driven by a host of those things that are taken into account in their unwitting analysis; "careful" is all that's really lacking there.

I thought it was obvious that was not intended to be complete; you're saying you wanted that uber-thick sentence filled out more? :eek:

Yes, all those are issues, to be added into any such analysis.

FWIW, While it obviously varies with age, I think the best approach to kids and guns is to make sure they know as early as reasonable:

• How to use them
  Squirrel hunting with a 22 LR is great, as is tin-can plinking, especially with larger calibers. Paper-punching's not bad, but blowing holes in paper doesn't leave a ~8 year old with near the impression of guns' power as firing a .44 Magnum at a coffee can and watching it go flying. Yes, after a few rounds with Dad steadying the gun (and controlling the recoil), he let me fire one all on my own, which I did on my third attempts at holding the (positively enormous :)) pistol steady enough to aim. (Dad reloaded his own ammo for 44 mag; used a .357 soft lead bullet with a plastic sabot, which yielded more energy with lighter recoil than most factory loads. It wasn't going to harm anyone, but it was still quite noticeable.)
• how to handle them
  for activities not involving a loaded gun, always keep the guns physically separate from the ammo, and of course the four rules
• never to handle them without permission, at peril of effective punishment; but being liberal in granting that permission, when you're around to supervise, and with no ammo

At least this combo worked for us when we were kids. No guns were locked up, although some of the handguns were kept in out-of-the-way places nearer the ceiling than kids can handily reach. We handled guns (rifles mainly, but also some handguns), we got to cycle the different actions and understand how they work, and we never had an accidental discharge, and always had the gun pointed in a safe direction in case one had happened. IMHO, this approach works a lot better than the notion of simply preventing kids from accessing firearms that seems prevalent these days, because it fails safe. If you depend on locking the guns up, as soon as they find a gun unlocked, you've got a kid playing with a firearm. Maybe even a little kid, who can only make the trigger on that double-action go by grasping the butt in both hands, with both thumbs on the trigger. This tragedy happens all too often, and I don't think locks or safes are a complete solution.

But if you rely on kids knowing guns, and being forbidden, if they ignore the rule and get a gun down to work with, they know how it works, they know to keep it pointed safely, and even if their goal is to take it, load it, and shoot it, they have the skills they need to do that without hurting anyone. Besides, if their curiosity is satisfied from firing and manipulating the guns regularly, and if they understand that these guns can bring death -- that they can turn frisky furry animals into lifeless (and tasty) meat, they've suddenly got much less reason to grab a gun, and more reason to remember the safety rules.

And I need to practice my insane-driving car-wrecking skills, too.


(Looks like fatalsaint beat me with somewhat similar experience while I was fiddling with formatting... As for that compound idea, it'd be nice, till Janet Waco sends in the stormtroopers.)

Re: safety and politics
 

Awww...cmon Benson.. You don't think a dozen armed crazies bunkered in a missile silo with only two controllable entrances and built to withstand the direct hit of a nuclear strike could put up a good fight against a few stormtroopers ;)

And whether i beat you or not..you're definitely more eloquent than I. You tend to get the point across more fully and with less rambling than I do :o.

Re: safety and politics
 

Libertarians also believe that markets correct themselves, and no regulations are needed.

Tell that to US taxpayers now footing the bill for the biggest bank and insurance bailouts in history. Tell that to each of us losing his job thanks to that greed and stupidity (that list includes me).

Look, I actually start off libertarian in my own approach to any subject. It's just that pure libertarian beliefs are often great in theory but poor in practice, so like society in general I accept that civil laws are a necessary evil and have to stop short of absolute libertarianism.

FYI, I voted for more Libertarians on this year's ballot than any other group-- and that includes Bob Barr for president. I'd rather see Libertarians as judges than anyone else. But they're not perfect as a party. They just think they are. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Well, good luck with that one, Don Quixote. What you're saying there applies to most if not all civil laws. So... would you completely strike down ALL such burdensome civil laws due to that nature?

Careful! That way be dragons. ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Nobody is perfect... But I still pick the one CLOSEST to what I think is right. I actually didn't even realize I was libertarian (or at least..more so than rep/dem) until this election...never really paid attention to what they stood for. Everyone is always so focused on rep/dem... but this time around with the two complete failures of candidates (my opinion all..) made me actually pay attention to the alternatives.

But back again...Nobody is perfect...I just think the failures of the libertarian (assuming, again, a 100% libertrian run society) would be better than the alternatives. The all suck... just one sucks less..and gives me more control to fix the suckage :)

Re: safety and politics
 

I tend to agree to an extent, which again, is why I voted mostly libertarian (on principle).

But to me the best party is one that doesn't even exist: The TRULY Fair-and-Balanced, Common-sense, Liberty-First party. Ah, one can dream...

Re: safety and politics
 

Tex, I so~ wish there were "Thanks" in this forum. Voting for civil liberties always deserves a "Thank you."

If the gov't wasn't in the market, it might just correct itself... *cough* Off-topic...

But why bring that up when their view on guns and the second amendment are spot-on. ;)

I, like Chuck Norris, love my guns and my rights. Yay for civil liberties and firearms for the upright citizenry! :D

http://www.codeodor.com/images/dont_tread_on_me.gif

Re: safety and politics
 

NOW whose the Don Quixote? :D.

Seriously, you are correct that my point of view can be abstracted to include all laws. We are again back to the Anarchy I mention before being the end result of all my views to the extreme :). So, obviously - consider practicalities - I'm going to have to give to some extent less that extreme became a reality (assuming of course, I was powerful enough to shape the way the entire system is run.)

I think that groups and/or communities have a better idea of what that group and/or community needs/wants/etc as laws and requirements. I think the federal government needs to back off (I heavily disagreed with this damn Bailout).. I think the people need to thrive, or fail, on their own hard work. Now, back to being practical, not every single community can make their own laws. It's just not realistic. However, If the Federal government would completely back off and do, what is in my opinion, it's job of protecting the borders - dealing with foreign relations, dealing with things such as space exploration/scientific studies (maybe, this in and of itself is a slippery slope), etc - and allow the local states to enact laws as determined by the people.

(wow.. me and that bold button). Now, this includes everything from say - murder, kidnapping, rape, etc - would be up to the STATES to enact such laws, the exemptions/justifications considered legal, etc. You said earlier it would be a convoluted mess.. and mayhaps that is a correct assessment - OTOH, nobody knows what Texas wants more than Texas, nobody knows what Oklahoma wants more than Oklahoma, and to insist on the government to stamp a "one sized fits all" solution to everyone is ridiculous. (again, IMHO :)).

I saw this question on a political quiz.. I have no idea where they got it from.. "Two consenting adults should be able to challenge each other to a duel to the death."

I Agree. Why not?? Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the holy-heaven they want to do regarding each other.. so long as they don't include an un-consenting third party.

... And I'm off on rant again :o

Re: safety and politics
 

I still have to disagree.

History clearly shows why governments got involved in the first place. Markets USED to enjoy a signifiant degree of autonomy, just as Libertarians desire, and it did not work. Human greed is inescapable, and when gross amounts of money and power are at stake, it grows proportionately. Eventually power is consolidated into the hands of a few (to wit: Standard Oil, poster child of antilibertarianism) and the rights of the rank-and-file are violated (newsflash to some: little people have rights, too).

I think one of the biggest mistakes the Supreme Court ever made was granting "human rights" to corporations. That was truly evil.

And I really don't like the idea of government protection. That gets abused, too. But the beauty of that system is that WE THE VOTERS own it. WE decide how we are governed. The unfortunate part is that too few people dig deep enough into the candidates and issues to make properly informed choices of governance... hence 2 terms for Bush [major side rant].

*sigh* Only in Utopia... ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Fatalsaint, I won't quote your last post but suffice to say we are LARGELY in agreement on that one. I think the Fed has gone wayyy beyond its mandate. A great example is the recent abuse of imminent domain which (and this still boggles my mind) the Supreme Court upheld (!!!). And ever since the Fed discovered it could hold the highway funds carrot over the states, Congress has been able to blackmail states into just about anything. Texas *almost* fought that once (I believe it was on drinking age) but eventually capitulated like every other state. Grrr....

I also believe localities should decide issues for themselves, and that includes hot-button things like smoking in restaurants. Control over the citizenry should diminish exponentially the further one gets from local elected officials... but, thanks to our last 2 presidents, in some cases the Fed has more power over local affairs than localities (eg, No Child Left Behind). WTF??? :mad:

Re: safety and politics
 

I'd love an example... But... lots of regulation and gov't interference are clearly working in today's market. I'm still with the Libertarians here.

Hells yes.

Protection for corporations is wrong. And, no, we've given up too much to feel "secure." We don't have a say in the market anymore. We could have fixed that in this election, but the people went the opposite way!


Utopia can't happen, but if you stop trying, everything fails and goes to pot. So, try. Reach to unattainable (or even just what we had before).

I will.

Re: safety and politics
 

I gave the classic example: Standard Oil. But heck, just refer to The Great Depression. Guess what the root cause was.

I was actually referring to protection for the citizenry FROM corporations.

Oh, and McCain would not have changed anything for the better vis-a-vis markets. I'm not saying Obama will, either... but McCain is more rhetoric than action (check his voting record).

Agreed.

Re: safety and politics
 

I got to this part of the thread and before I lost it I wanted to highlight fatal's line here. I think it's very important because it gives us huge insight into him and perhaps his fellow gun owners. fatal finds a gun scenario fun, right fatal? And maybe you would because you have gone through training. You are confident with such things. This confidence means that what would scare the cr*p out of most of us is something you would enjoy the challenge of. I truely don't mean this as a criticism but as something for you to keep in mind when talking to us about guns.
I'll speak for myself rather than assuming anything about anyone else here. I am absolutely terrified of guns no matter who has them.( again, remember I'm fine with limited personal and responsible gun ownership) And that includes the prospect of there being one in my own house because I'm not familiar with how guns work, how to safeguard them or how to deal with the possibility that I might actually have to use it one day. Would I actually have the nerve to pull the trigger in the proper situation? Would I know when that situation was actually self defense and when it was not?

You may say, well, the NRA advocates that gun owners get training and you should too. Well, but do I really want to live with that kind of awsome responcibility? In an event where I think it's use is warranted am I going to use it or am I going to simply be outgunned or am I going to end up killing an inocent person and have to live with that for the rest of my life? Or will something else hidious happen like my kid finding it and shooting a friend or me or going to school with it?

The other thing about that is this? I simply don't find guns fun like you do. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be going down to the shooting range on weekends to practice and keep my skills up. I'd frankly love to be doing about 12 other fun things including learning more about my Nokia.

So, think about it a bit, OK? I give you credit for both making your case and for having a sense of humor about this. Just remember that there are some of us that would rather let the police deal with such things. They get paid to take on that kind of responsibility. You are obviously fine wth it, but I'm just hoping some of that next trillion can get spent on ways to make the situation safer for the rest of us.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

Should we all like... hug.. and sing Kumbaya or something??? :D

ETA: nvm...sungrove ruined it.

Re: safety and politics
 

Sungrove.. I do not mean this in any negative way. But no.. I would NOT recommend you buy a gun or use one as self defense....You yourself said you do not like them and That is OK. That is the reason people like myself and the police exist.

I don't like people voting against MY RIGHT to have a gun....but I have NO ISSUES what so ever with people not wanting one for themselves. I do my damndest to make sure the people around me are safe, police do the same, firefighters and active duty .mil as well.

Like you said...I've been trained .. I've seen it in action.. I keep myself sharp on the range and I do NOT advocate uneducated gun ownership either. Having a gun is a huge responsibility, as well as a pleasure; I don't deny this.

But again... I can not support the goverment getting involved in this.

Re: safety and politics
 

Shall we start the thead over? ;) I guess one thread can not the problem fix.

Cheers,
Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

Without any government oversight, how do you suggest ensuring educated gun ownership?

Keep in mind you've already acknowledged a problem with convicted criminals owning firearms, and policing even that as a restriction requires official oversight...

Re: safety and politics
 

I said I did not advocate it.. not that I wanted to control or enforce it.

Re: safety and politics
 

If you Americans had kept proper oversight on your financial system, you wouldn't have let the greedy scammers eat out your whole system from within, like termites that eat the frame of a building from the inside; everything still looked fine on the outside, until, one day, the whole thing fell down... taking the whole global city with it.

Anyone else wonder about what else could be all rotten on the inside, just waiting to collapse? As we've seen, it tends to be the areas where nobody's really paying attention, and where it pays much better to pretend everything's all right than blow the whistle. Look for parts of our society that are largely self-regulated.

I actually don't know what these areas are. I'm mostly just wondering out loud. Maybe there aren't any areas left that are quite so free of scrutiny and full of easy money as Wall Street used to be.

Re: safety and politics
 

Hi qole,

I agree with your comment. Are we not living through yet another example of the consequences of deregulation? The idea is, 'please just leave us alone, we can be trusted, and it will be good for all of us' The fox guarding the henhouse, right?

Since fatal's recent comments in which he ( for some reason I assume you are a guy,:) ) refuses to budge from this position that we can not allow any regulation of guns because that would inevitably leed to an all out ban on guns, I have realized that this attitude is why the change will have to happen with a fight. If you and your fellow gun owners where willing to comprimise, fatal, I think it could be worked out. But instead there is this stubborn resistence to reasonable regulation.


I just don't want this country to turn into something like Somalia with people ruling the streets with guns. It just seems like a horrible possibility especially given the political divisions and economic hard times.

And why as it we need to own assault rifles and be able to buy them without a background check at a gun show? And what do you do with them ?

So there you go, gun owners fear a total ban and I fear lawless tribalism ( don't take that the wrong way, I don't mean skin color)
I think we better find the middle ground. The current situation is going nowhere. And I suppose that's the way gun owners like it.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

I've been thinking about it; if given the opportunity to make a quick buck doing something crooked, there's a lot of people out there who can justify it to themselves... I mean, who could put melamine into baby formula, just to make some more money? Who could trick poor people into buying a house that's way out of their league, with a mortgage that has credit-card interest rates after a short period of low interest rates?

I think these lowlifes are out there all the time, always looking to cheat and scam the system, and good regulation keeps them in check. Beware when a self-regulated industry says, "there's nothing to see here, it's all under control," because someone is probably being paid off by the scammers to turn a blind eye.

Honestly, I'm not nearly so worried about the legal gun owners; their motivations tend to be much "smaller," protecting their home, family, neighbourhood against ... well, whomever they think are the bad guys. I'm really not very worried about the muggers, thugs and home invaders. They're the petty criminals, and they're going to get caught because they're just stupid.

I'm terrified of the sharks in suits who know how to roll subprime mortgages into mezzanine CDOs, get the ratings companies to rate them AAA and then sell them to investors all over the world.

EDIT: Why am I scared of these white-collar criminals? They could destroy my life much more completely than a home invader, by destroying the value of my house, undermining my mortgage-holding bank, forcing my company to lay me off due to a imploding economy....

Re: safety and politics
 

This has already been discussed.. in great detail. And are you using the fake definition of an assault rifle? There is a difference between an AR-15 and an M16. M16's are still very tightly controlled.

Benson also addressed this in detail. Gun shows have nothing to do with it. Some states allow a non firearms dealer (like me for example) individual, to sell a gun I no longer want/need, to someone else, without requiring me to do a background check on the other person. Just like a credit card machine, every check through the BCI costs money. And this also does NOT apply to M16's. Anyone with a fully registered NFA firearm must have the recipient of the firearm go through the same 6 month process before he can sell it to them. (AFAIK).

Well no.. You want more controls, I want less. Doubt anybody is "truly" happy in the current half-limbo state of gun-control.. but I'm happier than I was prior to 2004 about it.

Re: safety and politics
 

I hear ya. This sort of thing is just going to make a better environment for the illegal gun owners to do their thing. You know, wrotten economy leeds to the young seeing guns and drugs as their economic crack cocaine.

And this leeds back to my original point. We, as a country need to spend our collective wealth more carefully so that the homeland is better taken care of. What are we doing spending billions on these wars over seas? Is it really worth it? Is it American lives we are saving over there or more Corporate greed? I'm goin with the latter. I know some are happy we got tough with the supposed bad guys over there. I can kind of see that. But I just think the price we are paying is way too high in GI lives lost, in Dollars and in the lost opportunities that huge pile of waisted cash could represent to a healthier economy and safer country.

Ah, but safety, what a boring subject. Right? Unless it's someone you care about.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

The point is, they might be seen as low life afterwards, and from an outside point of view, but it isn't that easy to spot while its going on.
I mean, if you ask any of those you accused of being low lifes why they did it, they would probably give a reasonable answer. There is very little evil needed for these things to happen.
Of course nobody would sneak into the storage room at night and spill melamine into babys milk, laughing an evil love and rub his hands. That's Hollywood. In reality, there is the scientist who says its possible but never suggests it, there is the business guy who might suggest it but never actually does it. there is the worker who mixes some stuff without really knowing what and so on.
And we are all doing it! We are buying the best deal and we are outraged if we learn that that company treats its employees poorly, waters their products down or dumps there waste in the lake near our home. We say to our selves "what horrible people" and go on shopping at the second cheapest place.
You may find a lot of similar examples. And thats why we need mild regulations. Not to keep us safe from evil people (aka "them"), but to protect us from things that people like us are involved in.

And by the way, its the same with guns.
It's not those robbers with a gun that I would be afraid of in the US, its people like fatalsaint who think they got it all under control and all the accidents that might happen (child gets hand on gun, late home dad gets shot by anxious wife, owner gets shot while cleaning, owner gets shot by armed robber who would otherwise just have taken some stuff, ...) could not happen to them.
Its the same with, for example, cars. They are really dangerous without anybody driving a car with the actual intention to kill someone.
But cars, unlike guns, have a better cost/benefit-ratio. And even they are very regulated (certain age, need a licence, take a test, can only drive on designated ways, have to follow a lot of rules while doing so...).

Coming back to my initial statements in some very early post: Most US-Americans posting here really scare me because of their attitude. Sungrove may be the only exception. Well and qole obviously, but he's from Canada. :)
Cheers you two. I salute you for coping with fatalsaint!

Re: safety and politics
 

fatal, I can go buy an assault rifle for a thousand dollars today. Period. People can go to gun shows and buy guns without a background check. These facts are all the detail I need to feel the way I do that some gun owners positions are way too radical and apparently unnegotiable. But I do think this is the year I go buy a shotgun. I see very little hope for political progress.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

There are of course 100% armed parts of the world, but not ones that most people here would like to live in. The phrase of Hobbes about life without government being nasty, brutish and short comes to mind. Child soldiers, not fans of gun control, have had large effects in some areas. I bet that a bunch of libertarians could buy property in one of those countries and demonstrate how well their theories work. They could carry guns and defend their rights against all comers. In fact, I think that several attempts to buy islands and put these ideas into practice have been made. For some reason, they didn't thrive (unless someone will point out an area where such an experiment IS thriving). I guess that a true test of this nature requires the cooperation of the rest of the world to work.

Re: safety and politics
 

Thanks for the support itschy. Although I totally disagree with fatalsaint, I respect him/you for holding and expressing your belief.
I think it's good to talk these things out with those we disagree with.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

I challenge you to prove that. My definition of an assault rifle, like most people I know from gunsmiths to military to LEO, all consider an "assault rifle" to be a fully automatic firearm.

1 pull of the trigger. 30 rounds are fired.

I compel you .. LEGALLY go outside and purchase a Fully Automatic firearm for less than 1k dollars. Today.

I'll be waiting.

Re: safety and politics
 

I disagree. It IS easy to spot early on, and in this case, WAS. As I posted earlier, state governors a few years ago identified the warning signs and approached the Bush administration, which was (criminally IMO) predisposed toward allowing the shanigans.

So don't believe anyone who says malfeasance is hard to spot. It isn't. And in fact the signs are usually apparent to those close to the situation early on. The problems begin when you find that regulatory agencies are highly staffed with corrupt insiders, and whistleblowers are abused.

When you suffer the culture of corruption that we've had for some time, spotting a problem means nothing. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, who upon becoming Speaker of the House announced that no impeachment proceedings against Bush would be allowed to proceed under her watch. That's scary, too.

Re: safety and politics
 

"LEGALLY" is a red herring. Sungrove did not qualify his post with that term.

I have seen people claim to do what sungrove posited. I cannot however determine the veracity of such claims.

Re: safety and politics
 

Yes but "Legally" is the important part. You can not do what sungrove posted in a LEGAL way. Which, by definition, means that it is already illegal to do it.

Thus, we do not need more laws to make something that is already ILLEGAL, more.. Illegal?

Lets look at Drugs... there's already a outright ban on things like Marijuana, Cocain, LSD, etc, except for Medicinal Purposes. That's as close to a 100% ban as we'll probably ever see. And yet it's still buyable on the streets.. but the very act of BUYING, and of course SELLING that property is, already, illegal.

Anywhere that is selling a full on Military Assault Rifle and lets you take it home *same day*, A) is not likely to be under 1k, but B) is already an illegal transaction.

Now.. where sungrove is right, and I'm sure what he intended, is that I *can* go to my nearest gun store and buy me a new shiny Bushmaster AR-15 for less than 1k and walk out the door with it. However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
And, for added measure (as this is directly the word used by sungrove): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
What is selective fire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
My AR-15 that I can purchase, legally, today, and take it home with me cannot be fired in BOTH semi-automatic, and fully automatic.. Thus, is certainly not an "assault rifle", and is only an "assault weapon" in the sense that that's what politicians call it.

Re: safety and politics
 

Fatalsaint, I recognize the appeal to authority, but to me (and many people) it's a hair split. The article cited wants to make the claim that the term "assault" only has a military context, but that isn't realistic. Assault upon civilians can have radically different contexts than assault between or by military activists.

I would really, really hope we could avoid this sort of semantical entanglement...

Re: safety and politics
 

The problem arises into what exactly is an "assault weapon".. since it's technically not definitively defined anywhere. IF an "assault weapon" is merely a gun that looks scary.. well that's just ridiculous. Why in the name of the heavens and earth would we ban anything just for "looking" scary? Should we ban cars that have flames and teeth painted on them because they "look" scary or intimidating? People might crash on the road if they "see" it?

Or, does the term "assault" put before, mean as this article describes:
"A key concept in defining the military assault rifle is the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes."

Now.. THIS makes sense (at least, from their arguments). Because firing into a crowd, large volumes of fire, through automatic mode, could obviously cause a massive amount of destruction.

A semi-automatic rifle does not have this capability.. and there are many, many, semi-automatic rifles used for Hunting, Varmints, Sporting, etc.

Just because the news called it a "military style assault rifle".. doesn't actually make it military style, an assault weapon, or even more dangerous than your average semi-auto rifle. It just sounds scary, and gets the news ratings.

Re: safety and politics
 

...by agreeing that "assault rifle" should include any semi-automatic rifle, and thus be banned/illegal? Well, that would certainly help you make your point, wouldn't it?

I think the whole point (and I don't pretend to speak for fatalsaint) he was making was that the government made up the term, and purposefully gave it a very loose definition, specifically so that they could play the semantics game and thereby back-door a semi-automatic weapon ban.

I think the article cited was making the point that "assault rifle" only has a military context, not that the word assault has only a military context.

Re: safety and politics
 

You're constructing straw men again.

I understand if you enjoy going off on those tangents for the sake of it, but it really does pollute a discussion...

You are also arbitrarily editing the argument by pedantically focusing on the military definition of "assault". That's unrealistic. We are not talking about military use of weaponry. We are not talking about a military theater. We are talking about civilian situations. Ergo, military contexts and definitions need not apply. While "assault" may mean, say, 30 rounds of automatic ammo in a military context, in a civilian context it could be as little as 10 (for example) semiautomatic (please don't run with that statement as if it was an absolute).

That's what is so frustrating about these "debates"-- defenders of an issue want to willfully and even capriciously exclude important context and force the discussion into unreasonable black-and-white boxes that they control. And then, ironically, gripe about the media's spin...

Re: safety and politics
 

I am not so petty and I resent your unwarranted implication.

And I am saying that "assault rifle" can have different viable connotations in a military versus civilian context. That is just my opinion, briand. it was not derived from any source playing word games, either. Here's a newsflash: I'm a grown-up, just like you, capable of making up my own mind and constructing my own arguments. I'll let the spinning government lawmakers and breakers speak for themselves... and they sure don't speak for me.