New Gun Ban for 2007!

[Stretch]

Looking through the guns the specifically want to ban, they have the M1 Carbine listed, but no M1 Garand. The Carbine was designed to be carried with a folded stock, and shot with the stock extended, its not going to be very accurate without it. If its the folded stock the are worried about, most guns you could still shoot with the stock cut off. So they really arent preventing anything here.

 

[mathogre]

I almost *always* carry something. Even when I'm not carrying, I'm always ready to protect myself and my family. I'm a pretty peaceful person, but anyone who tries breaking into my home will be looking up the business end of a .357 Magnum.

Btw, I held my first HK69 A1 last year. I want one. -_^

 

[ToddG]

I never said I was against gun ownership. I am against the ownership of assault rifles. There is no reason why anyone needs to own something capable of such devastation. I dont think that your friendly neighbor should be able to own an assault rifle capable of firing 500+ rounds per minute. It does not make sense to me, and I don't think it ever will.

Then you should do a little research into what constitutes an "assault weapon" in dictionary terms as opposed to political ones. An "assault weapon" is generally considered a select-fire (aka "full auto" meaning it shoots bullets fast as possible so long as you keep the trigger pressed) rifle in a recognized combat caliber such as 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, or 7.62x51m..

The law McCarthy wants to pass limits anything that "looks like" one of those guns.

500 rounds per minute ... do you even understand what that means? You would need a select-fire (aka full auto) gun to do that. Those have been heavily regulated in the U.S. since 1934. You need the permission of your local government as well as a federal background check and $200 tax stamp to own one. Furthermore, in 1986 new regulations were passed that further restricts private ownership of such guns. Now, they go for thousands of dollars and are owned primarily by collectors and movie prop houses.

Incidents where civilians have to use firearms to defend themselves are isolated ones.

Actually, a gun is used in self defense on average once every 13 seconds in the U.S. Here's a widget for your dashboard to keep track. Ever talk to a woman who has fended off a would-be rapist because she had a little Beretta or S&W pocket pistol in her purse? She wouldn't be too fond of your labeling her as an "isolated incident."

I can understand why you take a certain standpoint on gun ownership now, but you are in a very small minority, and I don't consider the largest advocate for gun ownership a reliable source.

Actually, every major poll I've ever seen has indicated that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of some right to own guns and some gun control. I don't know where you come up with the "very small minority" stuff. Did you know that the NRA is one of (if not the) largest membership organizations in the entire country?

Listen to a 911 call recording of a woman being raped or a child being beaten to death in front of her mother sometime ... waiting for the police to show up. The men who founded this country understood that free people have the right to defend and protect themselves against tyranny and criminals.

By the way, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently struck down the Washington DC ban on firearms as violative of the Second Amendment. I suppose you think they were all NRA lackeys, too?

 

[ToddG]

I have to disagree, the increased restrictions on firearms in the UK (and Australia come to think of it) have all been prompted by "honest upstanding citizens" going beserk and wiping out a bunch of people. In the most famous case here in the UK the perpetrator was a fully licensed gun club member with no criminal record.

A-M, you're absolutely correct. Those kind of events are what spark the debate over here, as well. The difference is that so far, the average person in the U.S. has decided that the rights of 300 million people to protect themselves outweigh the occasional madman who commits an atrocious crime. It's a horrible thing when someone kills an another (or a dozen others) without cause or justification. But that act alone isn't reason to turn the rest of us into powerless victims.

Plenty of serial murders in the U.S. use knives, ropes, or other weapons to kill. Should those be outlawed?

 

[RiDE]

Then you should do a little research into what constitutes an "assault weapon" in dictionary terms as opposed to political ones. An "assault weapon" is generally considered a select-fire (aka "full auto" meaning it shoots bullets fast as possible so long as you keep the trigger pressed) rifle in a recognized combat caliber such as 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, or 7.62x51m..

The law McCarthy wants to pass limits anything that "looks like" one of those guns.

500 rounds per minute ... do you even understand what that means? You would need a select-fire (aka full auto) gun to do that. Those have been heavily regulated in the U.S. since 1934. You need the permission of your local government as well as a federal background check and $200 tax stamp to own one. Furthermore, in 1986 new regulations were passed that further restricts private ownership of such guns. Now, they go for thousands of dollars and are owned primarily by collectors and movie prop houses.



Actually, a gun is used in self defense on average once every 13 seconds in the U.S. Here's a widget for your dashboard to keep track. Ever talk to a woman who has fended off a would-be rapist because she had a little Beretta or S&W pocket pistol in her purse? She wouldn't be too fond of your labeling her as an "isolated incident."



Actually, every major poll I've ever seen has indicated that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of some right to own guns and some gun control. I don't know where you come up with the "very small minority" stuff. Did you know that the NRA is one of (if not the) largest membership organizations in the entire country?

Listen to a 911 call recording of a woman being raped or a child being beaten to death in front of her mother sometime ... waiting for the police to show up. The men who founded this country understood that free people have the right to defend and protect themselves against tyranny and criminals.

By the way, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently struck down the Washington DC ban on firearms as violative of the Second Amendment. I suppose you think they were all NRA lackeys, too?

GREAT POST ToddG!!!!!

In honor of your post.. and my Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, I will be purchasing a S&W 642 within 3 hours!

 

[ToddG]

In honor of your post.. and my Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, I will be purchasing a S&W 642 within 3 hours!

Noooooooo! Buy a SIG! Buy a SIG!
(actually, I have a 442 on order myself)

 

[RiDE]

Noooooooo! Buy a SIG! Buy a SIG!
(actually, I have a 442 on order myself)

Oooh.. black. I like the 442, but all of my guns are black.

 

[RiDE]

Noooooooo! Buy a SIG! Buy a SIG!

I'll take a 556 if you have one sitting around.

 

[walmartconnect]

I'll keep my M240g

 

[BIG D 04]

I'll keep my M240g

Don't tell me you need it for Hunting...:blind: lol

 

[ToddG]

I'll take a 556 if you have one sitting around.

I should be getting my 556 within the next week or so. I already have a 552 and two 551's (though only one of the 551's is select fire).

 

[RiDE]

Don't tell me you need it for Hunting...:blind: lol

How many times must we say... The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting... nothing whatsoever.

It is our RIGHT to bear arms, giving to us by those that spilled there blood 235 years ago, and protected by those that are willing to spill their own blood today, and the many that will do it in the years to come.

 

[viridian]

A little off topic here, but am I the only person who has been getting a ton of spam from the NRA? Recently they have been sending me a ton of emails. The only thing that is odd about it is that its the same marketing company as the .DirecTV spam I get

 

[Tak]

Personally I just carry a little CZ 70

http://www.keepshooting.com/productimages/firearms/handguns/cz70-pistolbig.jpg

Thats plenty for me, I'm not out ot fight a war, just not get mugged.

 

[RiDE]

Noooooooo! Buy a SIG! Buy a SIG!
(actually, I have a 442 on order myself)

ARGHHH!! I went to the sporting goods store.. the price went up!!! (Still Cheap) I KNOW they were like $329 or $349.... now they're $420. I was too irritated by the rate increase to "pull the trigger" (a little pun for ya) on the purchase!


RIDE
<needing a good deal on a 556>

 

[ToddG]

ARGHHH!! I went to the sporting goods store.. the price went up!!! (Still Cheap) I KNOW they were like $329 or $349.... now they're $420. I was too irritated by the rate increase to "pull the trigger" (a little pun for ya) on the purchase!

I don't remember the last time I saw a j-frame for $329, and the 642 is more expensive than a 442.

Mine was $280 ... benefit of having a buddy who's a director at Smith.

 

[RiDE]

Does your buddy have a phone number

 

[ToddG]

Yes, and it's unlisted for a reason.

 

[RiDE]

Yes, and it's unlisted for a reason.

I figured I'd try. neye: <---for now, this means I'm sad.. please disregard the wounded eye and bandage.

 

[eric]

Absolutely! Banning violence in games and on tv/films is no substitute for education and good parenting.

my original post about this may have been a bit of vague hyperbole for the sake of making a point.

in the u.s. it is very common to see real nasty violence on even broadcast television, and in places you wouldn't necessarily expect (football, the news, commercials - especially movie trailers, etc).
it is also very common to see rudeness, thoughtlessness, and selfishness in all its glory on the idiot box and in movies.
it is however not as acceptable to show people with few or no clothes on, which is a lot more natural than being shot. you are also not very likely to see normal intimate contact and sex as easily as you would see violence.

the math should be pretty easy to do.

even if you do have pretty vigilant parents, the reality of the world through that box is so skewed that it's difficult to regulate or even really understand the effects of the stuff our kids (and adults) are watching and what it's really doing to our collective conscience.
as generations have grown with television, they have become increasingly more self-centered, rude, violent, less intimate, and seem to have felt more of a sense of entitlement.

i understand, as a parent, this is a mighty and treacherous foe, not only for my kid, but for me as well. as a child of the 70s, raised on television i know for a fact that i too often see the world through that filter. it's very easy to just emulate what you see on tv and not understand you are part of a bigger whole that really needs community and civility to function correctly and be truly healthy.

i may have wandered a bit, but i'm working on about 4 hrs sleep here...