PDA

View Full Version : The new AWB--Your Semi-auto Shotguns WILL be Banned TO!!


Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 02:33 PM
This is an Edit due to the over whelming negative response to my original post
Thus: this will now be a social representation of why petitions so often never meet their goals. This is not a response to any one nor is it any longer advocating the petition, it is simply what it is. For as long as this post exists on the Server of the Firing it will be a representation to all who seek to meet a numerical goal when it comes to their petitions (of any subject). Read and observe . . .
_____________________________________________________________________________





This is absolutely ludicrous and insane. This is no joke people. Under the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban already in congress your Semi-auto shot gun is considered an assault weapon WHETHER IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP OR NOT! And stands to be all out BANNED, not regulated, BANNED if someone doesn't do something about it!

Here is a link for a petition against this ludicrous proposal.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348

The guy is a honorably discharged marine so it ligament. I am petition signer 42,082. 42,086 have signed so far and in all reality that's not a very high number at all--the goal is at least 1,000,000. It is our responsibility not too let this happen. This new law has NO sunset, which means it will NEVER expire, and if it passes semi-auto shotguns will very simply be a thing of the past for civilian hands. I cannot stress enough how utterly insane this is! HELP! Sign this petition, google other petitions like it and sign them. If there is any hope at all to stop this from happening we have to ACT now. So take five seconds and type in your name or your beloved semi-auto shotgun is about to become the next endangered species on this planet.

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 03:05 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Yes, act now! Its really picking up steam!
You do know that there has been no action on this bill in almost a year right?

Chris Phelps
February 1, 2008, 03:47 PM
This was posted a tad bit over a year ago on Sniper Central. A great deal of the people over there actually took the time to write their representatives. I got a letter back from mine that stated VERY clearly that he was in support of tightening the background checks to purchase certain firearms (The checks that we are supposed to already have)... but he would never, in his entire term, sign any bill that limits or bans the type of firearms people could purchase or own. He went on to state that the 2nd amendment never specified the right to own certain firearms, so in his opinion, that means we should have the right to own any and all types of firearms. (Including FA).

Everyone else that wrote their rep that took the time to respond... they had the same type of feedback as I did. I think the reps that would actually vote for this bill are FAR outnumbered. ... For now.

If Hitlarly Clinton makes it in, who knows where we will end up, though.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 03:53 PM
Funny . . .

With Democrats making a good play for the white house, and add to that the amount of time it actually takes to get together an actual petition with enough names to make a difference when the time eventually arises, AND IT WILL your complacency and unwillingness to just click your mouse and type in your name is going to cost you in the long run. Be it the first term, or reelection, this is going to happen, It already has once and this time its going to be worse. So what if its maybe a year away, so what if its four years away WE WOULD HAVE FOUR YEARS OF SIGNATURES instead of four years of nothing! And we will either have something that we can work with or not. A petition doesn't hurt, it doesn't cost money, it will not give you spam, and it is the only means that we have to speak to our government when the time arises. So you don't want to type your name and empower your opinion . . . well I'm sorry I just don't understand people like that.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 03:59 PM
Good to know. And good to know that people are actually trying to doing something.

But like you said for now . . . In the very foreseeable future WE ARE GOING to be in a place where we wished we had gotten started ahead of time! And by then it will really be to late. Just point and click . . . I don't understand the problem?

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 04:04 PM
The problem is that it has gone NOWHERE in almost a year, and that you have posted this thread across several boards.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 04:26 PM
Its not like there used to be a ban or anything right? Oh wait it's sun had set. This one won't. And as for posting on a number of boards, I put one post on each board originally, so it could be seen by everyone of VARYING INTERESTS that it would effect and of whom may not be interested in pages of legal dribble.

I then received a private message from the administrator to cease repeat posts. I did, and I messaged him back as to the content of forum rules and he stated that such posting would be acceptable if it was in a manner that did not repeat and was to the point. Right now their are 3 threads of mine on three different boards. Each one pertaining to the individual type of fire arm that this proposed law would be stepping on. I don't understand the resistance to sign a petition.

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 04:32 PM
Whatever.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 04:36 PM
Whatever . . . The mother of all responses. Your right, you beat me, lets not sign. Whatever . . .:rolleyes:

In all actuality peoples complacency always amazes me . . .

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 04:53 PM
Complacency? Dude, you're a year late to the fight. I'm not trying to beat you, just trying to get you to stop beating a dead horse.
In comparison, this would be like Paul Revere riding through Boston in 1835 warning us that the British are coming. You're a little behind the times.
1022 has been stagnant for 10 months. Just like the previous measures.
Furthermore, in this "call to action" I don't know that an online petition matters one single bit to anyone except those that sign it. You want to take action? Then go vote.
But hey, keep fighting the good fight!

parrothead2581
February 1, 2008, 05:33 PM
Rather than taking the time to sign an online petition that may or may not actually go to someone of consequence, write and call your Congressman.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 06:37 PM
You know what, your right. I digress. But ten months isn't really that long. It is my thinking that the real fireworks will begin after this next election and I am huge on preparation. As of right now their are 14 more names added to the petition and 142 views on two threads; and that pretty much explains your point. I have seen a number of petitions and so often they never reach there intended goal in terms of numbers. I had always thought that it was because not enough people knew, or perhaps, there are just so many petitions that names are divided to such an extreme that the intended numbers aren't reached. I figured take a petition to the source, a forum where people loved the second amendment and loved their firearms and maybe people would be united under a common cause . . . obviously not. A letter to my congressmen would be allot more interesting if it was accompanied by a petition a million names strong would it not?

This is an interesting social experiment . . . not even the people on the firing line are willing to point click and sign a petition to save there second amendment rights. Why? I'm not sure exactly, but it is interesting. All I know is that this venture has been pretty much pointless, though I will keep on fighting a good fight as you suggested. As for the future only time will tell, but I think the outcome of the next five years is pretty obvious. I am not so behind in the times if you consider that this same prepossessed law though now stagnate will be revised and rewritten until it finally passes. And until that happens, or until a law is past preserving our rights their is no behind in the times regarding this issue. (and Paul Revere riding through Boston in 1835 would be the first recorded case of senility in American history . . .)

If given the option I would right everyone you can imagine and enclose a petition 2,000,000 strong if I could but to the best of my knowledge non exists. And their must be at least 2,000,000 million people in the U.S. that love the second amendment. And if one did exist I would gladly add my name and that would have been the link that I would have put here. A proper petition can stand the test of time if worded correctly and be applied to any future revision of this proposed and now temporarily stagnated ban. THE ONLY REASON that this ban has stagnated is because that NO ONE right now is going to chance ruining their shot for the white house. Congress's majority is shifting and everyone knows that you don't touch gun control right now. Its a facade that will be short lived, and if I am wrong I will be ecstatic and quite pleased. And that, pretty much is that . . . maybe I'd be better off contacting all of the people who have these petitions and get them to combine all of them into one main stream petition . . .

I will no longer be posting information regarding this issue on this forum . . .

Sportdog
February 1, 2008, 07:12 PM
I'm not going to belabor the point but I agree with your posts. As with so many things, apathy will be the downfall of many of our freedoms that are ever so slowly eroding away. "The squeeky wheel gets the grease" If we don't squeek, we will not be heard and it will be our own fault.:(

oletymer
February 1, 2008, 07:29 PM
I see no where that sporting semi auto shotguns would be banned. It would ban shotguns with detachable magazines etc.

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 07:34 PM
Come on guys, drop the apathy junk.
Not signing a useless internet petition covering something that most of us that were paying attention wrote our representatives and senators about a year ago is not apathetic.
The only poll/petition that really counts is the first Tuesday in November.
If you want to be proactive, great. Start by knowing which bills need to be fought and which ones are already DOA.
The bill you are harping over so much has gone where since Feb/Mar07? Nowhere. Oh, but wait you say: it could still be brought back! All it would take is a high-profile shooting!
Like after the Virginia Tech (32 victims) shooting? Or the Omaha (9 victims) shooting? Or the Trolley Square (5 victims) shooting? Even Harry Reid said not to "rush" into any new gun control laws following these events.
Call me apathetic if you want, but you probably ought to watch out for that falling sky.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 07:34 PM
Thank God for the refreshing breeze of a rational and intelligent mind when one finally happens your way! Everyone on the petition thanks you: that's 42,101 gestures of gratitude.

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 07:36 PM
Proof of the belief that intelligence is judged by the degree to which someone agrees with you.

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 07:42 PM
Proof that lifting a finger and clicking a mouse is just to much to ask for someone of a hopelessly willful demeanor . . .

The fact is a petition of a massive number WOULD be a strong case in Washington WHEN the time arises. Any petition of proper wording can be applied to ANY gun control law at ANY time. The fact of that matter is, unfortunately, that as far as I know NO such petition exists . . . However I do agree with most of what you said, and quite plainly you feel that you have done all that you could and that was necessary at this present juncture in time; some of us are willing to do more even in the lull in the storm.

And eventually if given enough time every now and again the sky does fall, civilization and governments fail at the worst possible moment, and God reminds us that we are very small and at the whim of violent forces that we cannot possible hope to temper . . . We should always hope and strive for the best, but in turn, be well aware that one day the sky will fall.

Hence preparation . . .

"Never underestimate the man in power who has ample time to plan your demise. In the end all you'll have to show for it is your apathy . . ."

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 07:47 PM
The law would allow for any shotgun to be banned at any point in the future. The law opens doors that cannot be closed.

m24shooter
February 1, 2008, 07:56 PM
To repeat:
Whatever.

joerockt
February 1, 2008, 08:04 PM
Sorry to burst the bubble, but internet petitions are worthless:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 08:06 PM
And I believe that concludes our exchange . . .

Aqeous
February 1, 2008, 08:15 PM
That was very informative. I wasn't aware of the fact that petition names could be so easily faked. I guess its time to start writing . . .

However Read this:
http://www.stateofsunshine.com/2007/08/13/how-to-write-your-congressman/

Its looking hopeless both ways so are we to do nothing at all?

YukonKid
February 1, 2008, 08:57 PM
dude...chill. England still has its "smooth bore sporting pieces" and their country sucks for gun ownership. Its not going to happen here, they wont take away the second amendment.

I love to shoot and hunt, but i dont see the issue with people taking away fully automatic weapons, civilians have no use for them.

I like my shotguns, rifles revolvers and semis but maybe our country does need to cut back a little.

That being said, i like my Browning A-5, its 45 years old is part of me, its not going anywhere. But if semis were to be banned, i would make do with my citori or 870...life goes on.

If you like to shoot so much then go serve our country, they give you weapons and all the ammo you want for 4 years of your life and possible death.

Yukonkid

parrothead2581
February 1, 2008, 09:17 PM
I don't need to sign a web-based petition to feel that I'm doing something to assist in the preservation of the 2nd Amendment. And not signing it certainly doesn't mean I'm apathetic. I don't forward the e-mails that say "if you don't forward this, you don't love Jesus."

I agree with the cause, just not the application. The resources and time of individuals could be better spent. Supporting the NRA and electing pro-2nd Amendment politicians is a good start.

match308
February 2, 2008, 08:55 AM
Signed

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 09:53 AM
Respectfully the law has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons. Semi-autos that have a detachable magazine (that means one shot with every pull of the trigger).

Most anyone who has served in the armed forces have come to resent whats happening here in the U.S. if you ask them. Including the founder of the petition in question.

Its not about loving to shoot so much, because yes we would all make do. I happen love bolt actions. I would state that with regards to semi-automatic weapons we do need stricter guidelines for people to acquire and own them but a full out ban is not the answer.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 10:03 AM
Who could disagree? I sure don't. If EVERYONE did that that would be
much better . . . So maybe I should change the original post of this thread?

Except . . . many people say, but they don't actually do. That's not at all to say that you don't, but you must known that many people say a thing and yet are unwilling to actually implement that thing for whatever reason. They become a kind of silent voice that nobody hears, If you are doing what you say you are then you certainly are not apathetic in my mind, your a tremendous asset to the cause.

However I still don't see how clicking a mouse and signing your name could hurt anything at all?
And I believe strongly in the separation of church and state meaning that petition and Jesus should never go together . . . if they did something would be very wrong. A mouse click and a typing of a name is no more an extension of personal resources then posting on this thread . .

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 10:26 AM
At present their are 502 views on two threads and 30 names above my own? :confused: People don't seem to like this thread very much.

This would now be a social experiment as to why petitions don't get signed. It has amazed the heck out of me. I bow out . . .

parrothead2581
February 2, 2008, 11:24 AM
Aqeous,

I never said signing the petition was wrong. If folks want to sign it, more power to them. There probably isn't any harm in it. I'm just arguing that instead of signing your name to a list on the net, fully visible to everyone (paranoids would argue that's just asking for trouble), that may or may not reach it's intended recipient and may or may not be headed by who it says is heading it, you should take the time to write your elected officials, support the NRA, etc, etc.

And the Jesus comment, that was simply addressing the argument I've heard from others that "if you don't sign this, you don't support the cause" just like the e-mail forwards "if you love Jesus, you'll pass this along".

Just a little bit of light hearted disagreement in the execution of 2nd Amendment support :)

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 11:54 AM
I love light hearted disagreement . . . that's my favorite kind. :) Thanks.

FYI: There is an Anonymous button on the petition link so your name will not be made public.

Bill DeShivs
February 2, 2008, 01:54 PM
I can't comprehend why people would get so worked up over this, and say "But we need stronger laws about semiautomatic weapons!"
Where are your brains? Or, perhaps you are trolls........

m24shooter
February 2, 2008, 03:46 PM
That was interesting that the chest-beating petition hawker wants stronger limits on semiautomatic weapons.
But I'm the apathetic and uncaring one.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 06:40 PM
Just call me King Kong then . . .

I don't want just some random whoever walking into a pawn shop and purchasing (very cheaply mind you) a soviet designed AK-47. Many people have no appreciation for its power, capabilities and range. Many hunters for instance grow up side by side with their families rifles and shotguns their entire lives and so their firearms capabilities are learned from experience from childhood to adult hood. They KNOW not to fire off a high powered rifle in a residential area for instance.
Now in retrospect: I have encounter so many instances where some moron has fired their AK or Ar at the ground for example, intended as a warning, and big surprise a deadly ricochet occurred and killed some innocent bystander. (And yes I know any bullet can ricochet at any time but I have never heard of anyone so far who has done this with a hunting rifle) ---This is only ONE example so don't harp on the dynamics of shooting at the ground, my point is that the appreciation and understanding of the weapon just is not their when people do stupid stuff like this. The likes of the .223 and 7.62 will fly farther and penetrate deeper then handgun bullets thats simple physics, MY POINT IS people IGNORANTLY sport these types of firearms like they are pistol caliber carbines! They are not!

Most every hunter can tell you the range of his our her rifle or shotgun when hunting. Can your average AK owner do the same? Sometimes yes, many times no. I'm not saying its the norm, but it certainly is common enough. And every now and again a maniac or just a plain idiot pulls one out and does something stupid with it and we all end up paying for it. One last thing, the .223 and the 7.62 possess the penetration and range of hunting rounds (obviously because they are hunting and varminting calibers) WE DON'T here about people answering a confrontation by sporting a .308 in a residential neighborhood, if they did people would die, and I don't mean the people that the person may have intended. Its like "Look an AK-47, COOL MAN!" Is the norm, their is to often no appreciation for the fact that it is comparable to HUNTING TYPE firearms in range and penetrative power.

So yes, SPECIFICALLY I believe that there should be at least as much regulation concerning semiautomatics as HANDGUNS but I DO NOT support a ban I believe it is unconstitutional NOR do believe it is necessary. A ban is going way to far!

Your either reading things into my statement that aren't there or your just not aware of the facts concerning the subject as a whole outside of simply owning a semi-auto or banning ALL semi-autos. :rolleyes: A ban is NOT a LAW it's a BAN . . .

m24shooter
February 2, 2008, 07:08 PM
Oh, well that clears it all up.

Bill DeShivs
February 2, 2008, 07:34 PM
Aqueous-
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed."
You don't mind others giving up a right, because YOU don't happen to like "AK 47s (a misnomer, BTW.) As long as your "hunting" rifle isn't regulated everything is OK.
I'll bet you got you a big, honkin' 4 wheel drive huntin' truck that gets 12 MPG. Well, I think you don't NEED anything more than my 40 MPG Toyota Yaris. Maybe we need to REGULATE (read, "ban") those gas guzzlers. Besides, those big trucks could run right over my little Yaris........

TargetTerror
February 2, 2008, 07:53 PM
Aqueous,

Your argument can be summed up as: semi-automatic guns are extremely dangerous, and stupid gun owners will use them negligently and cause harm to society. Thus, they should be heavily regulated.

That is an anti-argument. Loud and clear. It is a miniscule step from your position to support of an outright ban. The real threat is not the proposed law your petition relates to (that is stalled in committee, from what I gather) but the continued fostering of these anti-gun biases and views. If you want to truly serve the gun community, you need to realize why regulation of any semi-automatic firearm is pointless and counterproductive, and then work to show others why that is the case.

YukonKid
February 2, 2008, 07:54 PM
Does anyone here hunt with a fully automatic anything? ----glock 19, Ak, AR...common, i want to here some hunting stories.

Im not a troll, i am rational person

It is true that when the amendment was written there were muskets, but the men that wrote it were some of the smartest people in the world at that time, they knew that modern weapons would come around.

But seriously, why do we need AK's, AR's ect in the hands of civilians. There should be a block ban on automatics, i dont know of any shotguns that are practical with drop out mags, what are they?

i need help clearing this up

Yukonkid

Ps, my truck get 8mpg it should be taxed, but i can afford it so why the hell not. My motorcycle gets around 45 so it evens out :cool:

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 07:58 PM
That was genuinely funny I am still laughing a bit. Respectfully, and I say respectfully because I believe you misunderstand. I do not dislike the AK-47 I was merely using one of the more common Semi-automatic types as an example for the sake of an explanation that would be speedy and succinct. I in fact appreciate the AK a great deal it has proved itself as one of the most durable and long lived firearms in the world.

"Shall not be infringed" is the letter of the law that our government should abide by but sadly is not. An the main reason is a handful of psychopaths combined with some peoples ignorance. I Posted this thread in the hopes that many would sign a petition that would have hopefully someday helped uphold the second amendment to the full letter of its law word for word. (Sadly that's not going to happen today---hundreds have viewed this thread and few have saw fit to sign their name for varying individual reasons)

BUT if a personally held opinion of mine like "stupid people shouldn't own guns" makes me a rootin-tootin, pickup-truck-riding, environment poisoning country boy then I should let you now that my ridding preference is a Ram 1500 that gets just short of 20 MPG due to its Hemi that goes from 8 cylinders to 4 when no load is put on the engine and next year dodge is said to be adding a hybrid option to its line up as well. An estimated 30 MPG is pretty darn good for a ride that could pull you out of the deep snow and ice due to our worlds changing climate conditions, weather the aftermath of high winds to ferry water and essential to my friends and loved ones, and lets not forget run over your Toyota Yaris like the gravedigger . . . (And PLEASE people no pickup truck wars on this thread :):):))

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 08:01 PM
YukonKid this is your second post, we are NOT talking about fully automatic weapons.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 08:04 PM
I totally understand what your saying. I was attempting to clear up a misunderstanding from the two other posts. But I didn't say "heavily" regulated you did. I said I think (as in my own personal opinion) that regulations similar to handguns would suit Semi-automatic rifles. Any gun can be argued as dangerous if that person has that kind of single minded view on the subject. The anti-guners will adhere to the fact that any and all guns are dangerous all the time and should be in the hands of no one, I'm certain that all of us here disagree . . .

m24shooter
February 2, 2008, 08:08 PM
And that is what is so ridiculous about your whole chain of posts: you aren't even talking about restricting automatic weapons, you want stricter limits placed on semiautos.
The fact that you did this in one of your threads urging people to defend their assault weapons is even more hypocritical.

Csspecs
February 2, 2008, 08:08 PM
Been on this already, I'm on that petition. I also wrote to several local reps and talked over the phone with one that said he understood after talking that the bill was useless.

But that was 10 months ago when it was active..... I feel pretty comfortable saying that we killed it almost a year ago, just keep an eye on it.

TargetTerror
February 2, 2008, 08:12 PM
But seriously, why do we need AK's, AR's ect in the hands of civilians. There should be a block ban on automatics, i dont know of any shotguns that are practical with drop out mags, what are they?

i need help clearing this up

You are asking the wrong question. Whenever you seek to limit someone's rights (including the right to own something, ANYTHING), the onus is he who seeks to limit to show why it is overwhelmingly in society's interest to limit said rights, not on the person's whose rights are to be limited to prove otherwise. Otherwise, taken to the extreme, I could say "Why do people need tea? We don't. Therefore there it is acceptable to ban it.

Ultimately, your question boils down to the fundamental issues of gun control. Do people need guns at all? Is society better off/safer if guns are banned? Most importantly, your answers to these questions can be applied to ANY gun - from my 22lr target rifle to my AK 47. The reason is that ALL guns are deadly weapons, and ALL guns can kill in the wrong hands. The rules of gun safety are the same for an air pistol as they are for a 50 bmg for precisely that reason.

Then of course there is the issue that "assault rifles" make it easier to kill more people, and thus they should be banned/regulated. This is false logic, and goes back to the issue that gun control only affects legal gun owners, not criminals. Someone suing an "assault rifle" to kill someone is already breaking a myriad of laws, including MURDER. Think about that: if someone is unpersuaded by society's laws against MURDER, do you really think they will give a rats *ss about the legality of an AK47, or how many rounds the magazine for their gun holds?

But the best part about the argument that more "dangerous" guns should be regulated is that precisely b/c of this utility, they SHOULD be allowed to be owned by civilians. In the US, there is no legal or constitutional guarantee of protection by the police or the State in general. None. Think about that until it sinks in. When you call 911, you are putting in a request for assistance. There is no duty by anyone on the receiving end, right down to the officer dispatched to your home, if any, to do anything to help you. This effectively leaves you completely unprotected save for any protection you can provide yourself, which is precisely why civilians should have whatever firearm they can best protect themself with.

Here are a couple of cases underscoring the lack of duty to protect:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales (US Supreme court) Holding: restraining orders do not provide people with entitlements to protection by the police. Gonzales tried to get police to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. They did not, and her 3 children were killed.

Bowers v. DeVito (Federal appeals court, stemming from an incident in Illinois 1982) “… there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Hartzler v. City of San Jose (California Appeals Court, 1975) Wrongful death suit stemming from Police’s refusal to render immediate aid to a victim in fear for her life. Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening, Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help.

Warren v. District of Columbia (DC 1981) Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen"

Riss v. New York (State Court NY 1968) A young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened: "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. The court ruled that the city had no obligation to protect her. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self defense.
All of these cases are still good law.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 08:18 PM
Are you people even reading what I am saying anymore? What the heck are you talking about. First of all all this began with a single sentence that was taken way out of context so I explained a PERSONAL notion to my fellow members of the FIREING LINE forum. There are no anti-gun activists among us.

I am posting to petition against any ban. NO BAN! Laws will come and change with time, but NO BAN! There is no hypocrisy here, and I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is if the people of the Firing Line have so many strongly felt reasons why they shouldn't point and click a petition than no one is ever going to change the mind of someone that is deathly afraid of guns or who thinks they are evil. AT best we will have to coexist in this great democracy of ours as our forefathers intended it to be.

TargetTerror
February 2, 2008, 08:19 PM
I totally understand what your saying. I was attempting to clear up a misunderstanding from the two other posts. But I didn't say "heavily" regulated you did. I said I think (as in my own personal opinion) that regulations similar to handguns would suit Semi-automatic rifles. Any gun can be argued as dangerous if that person has that kind of single minded view on the subject. The anti-guners will adhere to the fact that any and all guns are dangerous all the time and should be in the hands of no one, I'm certain that all of us here disagree . . .

I see your point, but you seem to be getting too hung up on the term "heavily." My arguments against the regulation of semi-auto rifles apply equally to handguns, or any gun for that matter. You can remove "heavily" from my response, and my point remains the same.

Ask yourself this: how does regulation OF ANY KIND ACTUALLY make society safer? As I've studied gun control, I am drawn more and more to the opinion that gun control does absolutely NOTHING to protect society while actually making society less safe. Disarming legal civilians only shifts the power of force to criminals, giving them greater incentive to continue their crimes.

I understand your intentions are good, but I maintain that your "'personally held opinion of ... "stupid people shouldn't own guns'" will ultimately erode everyone's gun rights - including yours. Some here have resorted to personal attack on you - I won't, as that won't solve anything. IMHO only facts and arguments are relevant to this discussion, so I've kept it at that.

See my response to YukonKid for a more complete answer.

m24shooter
February 2, 2008, 08:28 PM
I read exactly what you said:

"Its not about loving to shoot so much, because yes we would all make do. I happen love bolt actions. I would state that with regards to semi-automatic weapons we do need stricter guidelines for people to acquire and own them but a full out ban is not the answer."

Bill DeShivs
February 2, 2008, 08:28 PM
And, to further confuse the matter......
The second amendment has NOTHING to do with crime or self-protection.
2A is about the control of government-something all too easily overlooked in today's politically correct world.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 08:43 PM
I have studied in length and in great depth many aspects of caliber, ballistics, wound channels ex. of firearms of every imaginable variety---however it is true I have not studied gun control effectiveness in any real degree. Which in hindsight makes me an optimist unqualified to begin a "movement" all on I my own. :) Please by all means school me. I am very interested in learning new things and I am not beyond changing my stance or opinion should new information come to light. Post some websites and I will read everysingle one.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 08:44 PM
And please explain if you would . . . Please describe in clear and succinct terms my hypocrisy and the secretly held anti-gun beliefs that that sentence displays.:confused:

m24shooter
February 2, 2008, 08:53 PM
Well if you can't understand what you wrote I really can't help you.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 09:19 PM
Good job . . . :rolleyes:

By Yukonkid:
"I love to shoot and hunt, but i dont see the issue with people taking away fully automatic weapons, civilians have no use for them. "
"If you like to shoot so much then go serve our country, they give you weapons and all the ammo you want for 4 years of your life and possible death."

By Aqeous:
"Its not about loving to shoot so much, because yes we would all make do. I happen love bolt actions. I would state that with regards to semi-automatic weapons we do need stricter guidelines for people to acquire and own them but a full out ban is not the answer.

If you are referring to the usage of the word "state" in my post as oppose to "might say" or "I might think" than I resend the word and insert the latter. I was agreeing with and sympathizing with his view on his own terms while at the same time conveying my own perspective on the subject: you know diplomatic, respectful, human communication . . . ever heard of it? Maybe you should google it? People, all people have the right to their opinions period, this is America. And blatantly disagreeing with them without sympathetically considering their view will only lead to post after post of pointless bickering . . . observe this thread for instance. :rolleyes:

I don't see the hypocrisy but you are welcomed to try and blast me if you can explain what your talking about. Until then I leave you with this :p Enjoy . . .

TargetTerror
February 2, 2008, 10:03 PM
I have studied in length and in great depth many aspects of caliber, ballistics, wound channels ex. of firearms of every imaginable variety---however it is true I have not studied gun control effectiveness in any real degree. Which in hindsight makes me an optimist unqualified to begin a "movement" all on I my own. Please by all means school me. I am very interested in learning new things and I am not beyond changing my stance or opinion should new information come to light. Post some websites and I will read everysingle one.

Good man. Start with this study done by Don B. Kates And Gary Mauser, and published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Click on this link:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

That article cites just about every published statistic on crime as it relates to guns, as well as some other articles both pro and anti-gun control. Your best bet for further reading is to read the articles/statistics that are cited. If you want anything further, PM me and I'll try and get some more info.

kurthun
February 2, 2008, 10:05 PM
i sgned and have gotten several friends to do so also

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 11:08 PM
Will do.

Aqeous
February 2, 2008, 11:09 PM
Awesome . . . I wish there were more like you around.

DaveBeal
February 2, 2008, 11:13 PM
Under the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban already in congress your Semi-auto shot gun is considered an assault weapon WHETHER IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP OR NOT!

Let's look at what the bill says. It would ban
A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

The law would allow for any shotgun to be banned at any point in the future.

Congress could vote to ban anything at any time, with or without this bill.

Aqeous
February 3, 2008, 09:59 AM
"Let's look at what the bill says. It would ban"

A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.


If that doesn't bother you don't sign . . .

"Congress could vote to ban anything at any time, with or without this bill."

Your absolutely right . . . and something like this would be the first step. We have to atleast try to catch it everytime before it happens. AND fight it after it does.

m24shooter
February 3, 2008, 12:04 PM
I assume (because following your logic is difficult at best) that this response was meant for me:
By Aqeous:
"Its not about loving to shoot so much, because yes we would all make do. I happen love bolt actions. I would state that with regards to semi-automatic weapons we do need stricter guidelines for people to acquire and own them but a full out ban is not the answer.

If you are referring to the usage of the word "state" in my post as oppose to "might say" or "I might think" than I resend the word and insert the latter. I was agreeing with and sympathizing with his view on his own terms while at the same time conveying my own perspective on the subject: you know diplomatic, respectful, human communication . . . ever heard of it? Maybe you should google it? People, all people have the right to their opinions period, this is America. And blatantly disagreeing with them without sympathetically considering their view will only lead to post after post of pointless bickering . . . observe this thread for instance.

I don't see the hypocrisy but you are welcomed to try and blast me if you can explain what your talking about. Until then I leave you with this Enjoy . . .
I don't know why you're hung up on what "state" means. I am more than familiar with respectful communication. Could you please point out to me where I have been less than respectful?
Maybe you should Google logic, consistency, and critical thinking. Maybe then you would understand how it is a little disingenuous to on one hand claim to be fighting for 2A rights and then IN THE SAME THREAD claim how more restrictions should be placed on semiautomatic firearms, all while portraying others who don't follow mindlessly behind you as being apathetic.
I have at no time said anything about your right to have your opinion or said that you can't state your position. But stating that opinion also means you get to hear feedback on that opinion. If you can't handle that, then maybe you should think a little more carefully about what you post or not post at all. I don't have to sympathetically (I think you meant empathetically, but you're the smart guy here) consider your opinion on this when you are contradicting yourself.
This is not a new concept that I have tried to get through to you:
Part 1: You are agitated about a stagnant bill from 10 months ago.
Part 2: You make several threads about the same issue, using a perceived threat against "assault weapons" to try to drum up support in one of them.
Part 3: You try to get people to sign a rather futile online petition.
Part 4: You whine about apathy when others don't see it your way even though they dealt with the issue through more effective means 10 months ago when the time to fight the bill actually came up.
Part 5: You advocate stronger restrictions on the ownership of semiautomatic firearms while declaring your love for all things bolt action.
Part 6: You fail to understand how Part 5 conflicts with your previous efforts to portray yourself as a defender of the Second Amendment on a repeated basis.
That's as simple as it gets, and as I said before if you can't understand your own writings I really can't help you. But you've shown that to be the case already.
ETA: I'm done with this. Either you see it or you don't.

Aqeous
February 3, 2008, 07:19 PM
finally . . .

That is if you really do stop posting on this thread. Not having a response from you for a while made me think you got suspended from the firing line under the new posting of rules on the legal and politics thread for continuous bickering, flyby postings, and generally just being argumentative.

You don't seem to be actually hearing anything that I said, and so I see no further need to respond to you. But for the sake of argument:

1.) I am agitated about what the bill is fermenting into as we speak. You keep saying its been gone for ten months, you seem to have very little understanding of politics.
2.) As I explained before I have ONE post in THREE different threads for the sake of those of varying interests that wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Legal dribble is boring to read through.
3.) All online petitions are apparently futile, but apparently so are normal petitions and writing our congressmen cause mostly they don't even read their mail . . . so lets do nothing then . . .
4.) Theirs that 10 months again. The heart of the bill is not GONE. I have said a GOOD petition can be translated to any future version of this dormant (like a volcano) bill. As far as I know none exists and now I know why.
5.) I was sympathizing with his position on smooth bores. I also happen to be extremely fond of my new and prized, suppressed M468 in 6.8 spc.
6.) Not sure what your talking about what's part 5? (No response required)
Let me add one more:
7.) Its not my cause, its not my petition, but it is everyones second amendment. But like I said I now understand what this whole petition business is really all about and I will not be posting anything like this again.

As for my statement of "more restrictions", due to Targeterrors respectful and informative additions to this debate I now resend that statement. He really knows his stuff. And he also knows how to communicate in a human and respectful manner, a Quality that you have not exhibited since your first post on this thread. In regards to my faulty logic . . . I really don't blame you for that one I have found that it is often very hard for some people to wrap their minds around how and why someone would want to see things from another persons shoes. I seem to be disagreeing with myself in your eyes over and over again because I am demonstrating: favor, agreement, interest, compassion and approval--you know "sympathizing" with other peoples intelligent, rational and well thought out views that differ from my own. It helps me grow in both knowledge and wisdom, thats how I operate, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

"Hypocrisy" is the quality of those who do not practice what they preach. Like to say that they are one for respectful communication but seem to have no capacity to practice it from the get go . . .

Nnobby45
February 3, 2008, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Under the new proposed Assault Weapons Ban already in congress your Semi-auto shot gun is considered an assault weapon WHETHER IT HAS A PISTOL GRIP OR NOT!

Sometimes we lose sight of the big picture--- along with gun control basics 101.

1- Those who would ban shotguns don't think you should own any firearem at all, or, if they do, your choice would be extremely limited with numerous restrictions. There are numerous bills being proposed to be introduced INCREMENTALLY. If they could take our guns in one swoop, they would.

2- Every time Sarah Brady gets up in the morning and gets rid of a little gas to clear her brain, there's a new firearm that she'd like to add to the "AW" list.

3- Firearms aren't part of the political agenda of the European style socialist state or those in our government who would install that system here.

4- Their agenda is to make people dependent on government, not independent enough to own firearms, hang on to the money that you earned, or expect government to serve rather than rule.

5- It's good to be aware of what's happening with re: to specific legislation, but don't forget it's just a probing assault while they're trying to enciricle and destroy us all in good time:cool:.

Aqeous
February 4, 2008, 08:48 AM
I will remember that . . .

saman
March 5, 2008, 02:14 AM
I was just doing a little web surfing when I came across this thread. I only have one thing to say.

The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution to ensure that the people would always have the means to deal with an oppressive government.

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

That is it. It really is that simple.