Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.
- Thread starter garfoldsomeoneelse
- Start date
The soldiers in question might not fire on American citizens with lethal force, but if asked to gas or subdue by nonlethal means I'm sure they'd take far less issue with such an order. Enough use of nonlethal force might incite protesters to use lethal counters, and the presence of examples in which men and women of the armed forces have been gunned down during crowd suppression would increase their likelihood to comply with lethal force initiatives.Agayek said:
Until a point is reached where the people are seen as separate from the military, as the enemy of the military, and cannot be trusted or treated with anything but the strongest of countermeasures.
Everything is a matter of perception. The circumstances of the now do not necessarily reflect the circumstances of a potential future, and cannot always be anticipated.
That artical is from 2005.JRslinger said:
In Australia NOW it is a requirement that all firearms are kept at a gun club
OR
after two years ownership may be kept at home in a locked safe.
This stops guns getting into the wrong hands or being used in a moment of anger.
Even that artical mentions a 19% drop in gun murders, contrasted with a 4% increase in attempted murder involving guns (due to the ban on high powered semi autos).
This is a net 15% decrease in gun related crime.
The SMH is also similar to FOX in outlook ie biased and sensasionalist in nature.
Fact is that Australia's CURRENT rate of gun crime is 30 times lower then the US's (per 100K pop).
Actually we do in proportion, many differning nationalities fight for control. They just don't shoot each other.JRslinger said:
Because you are very likely to be shot with the family gun, by another family member (whom you are unlikely/unable to shoot back, as they have your gun....).JRslinger said:
To quote that same report wich is very out of date (from 1997)JRslinger said:
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack. "
Studies show that only 0.2% of crime is thwarted by guns, this includes the use of guns by police officers (20% of these incidents).
YOU DON'T NEED A FREAKIN AK-47 TO TAKE DOWN A DEER PEOPLE. If you can't do it with a regular gun or an arrow, you aren't a real hunter and are just compensating for something.
As for the "self protection" argument, maybe you should quit wasting your money on firearms and move to a safer neighborhood.
I've never understood how people keep dragging the second amendment around like a free pass...it was put in the constitution because at the time we were in a freaking war and there was still wilderness and bears and hostile Native American tribes and whatnot.
I'm sorry gun nuts, I'm with the pres on this. Hell, I wish we could use Chris Rock's stance on gun control....."Make each bullet $5000. Then if you hear that someone's been shot, you know they had it coming"
As for the "self protection" argument, maybe you should quit wasting your money on firearms and move to a safer neighborhood.
I've never understood how people keep dragging the second amendment around like a free pass...it was put in the constitution because at the time we were in a freaking war and there was still wilderness and bears and hostile Native American tribes and whatnot.
I'm sorry gun nuts, I'm with the pres on this. Hell, I wish we could use Chris Rock's stance on gun control....."Make each bullet $5000. Then if you hear that someone's been shot, you know they had it coming"
You will NEVER get it through these guys heads that the "scary" looking gun is the same damn thing as your grandads hunting rifle. Paint any rifle black put a pistol grip on it and suddenly it's an assault rifle that only has one purpose and thats to kill people. Or they think the asinine mag cap limit will help. (like the .5-3 seconds it takes to change a mag is gonna help prevent a killing spree)Samurai Goomba said:
But you can't argue with people that see things from an emotional or idealic perspective.
how much good is that assault rifle going to do against an Abrams tank or F22 raptor, the government has always had the civilian population outgunned even after the revolution the government had ships an cannon. I support the right to own a hand gun or hunting rifle after extensive background checks and psychological testing.x434343 said:
Most gangs in China dont have access to gun so they use the next best thing swords(machete,katanas,kukri). So does that mean we should ban all knives and sharp pointy objects?
And clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It was the very same 2nd Amendment that prevented the arms of newly freed slaves from being seized in the time following the Civil War. Many states in the South attempted to make it illegal for people of color to own a firearm, and their laws were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional. Read the Heller decision. The more recent Nordyke vs King decision in from the 9th Circuit of Appeals also details the historical and cultural background of the 2nd Amendment as part of the court's opinion.ravensheart18 said:
And to those who believe that an armed insurrection, when there is enough popular support, has no chance against a modern army, you need only to look as far as Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan (both times). That said, I doubt there will ever be a time when another rebellion occurs in the US, but there are plenty of other scenarios where it would be nice to be armed. Natural disasters come to mind.
Well I don't think its that a deal. The publc just needs shotguns AND WE WILL BE FINE. My friend told me "Why do they ba handguns bt ot shot guns? Shot Guns are more Dangerous" (I live in Canada so all we get are shotguns/ hunting rifles) God he is a dumb ass. You can hide a hand gun on you, but yo can't hide a freaking shot gun.
I admit that assault rifles are only useful in supreme worst case scenarios, like when we get hit with a nuclear bomb or a civil war takes place, but for many people, like me, it is a constitution interpretation issue. Side note, I do not believe that Obama is an at all effective administrator, so I don't think that he will get what he wants for long or get a second term.
I really hope he does there are just to many people who don't know how to properly use a weapen like that, wich makes it very dangerous.
Yep. I mean, what's up with all the people who think the fallacious label of "assault weapon" makes the gun worthy of banning? By that logic, anything could be banned as long as it was capable of firing projectiles fast enough to kill a person and had a scary enough name.sneakypenguin said:
People, please, PLEASE read up on what this ban actually does. It is NOT a ban on full-auto weapons, it's not even a ban on SEMI-auto weapons (and there is a HUGE difference between the two). The fully-automatic guns that you all are saying should be banned ARE ALREADY BANNED! This ban is based on cosmetic reasons. It doesn't prohibit semi-auto weapons from being purchased, only certain models (man, I'm sounding like a broken record, but it seems like nobody's listening.) A civvy AK-47 is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle that exists, and possibly less dangerous than a great many so-called "hunting" rifles.
The name of a weapon (especially when given by a group that hates said weapons) is not an accurate way of telling whether or not that weapon should be banned.
The difference between full and semi auto is the difference between an Uzi and a Colt Government.