Smile.


So only LE and the military should have guns because they're somehow supermen whenever they jump into their uniforms making these individuals infinitely superior and smarter to the average citizen correct?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...AssumedSup.jpg

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...shua/index.jpg



And much of what you're saying amounts to nothing more than the wholesale institution of a police state. Similar to Venezuela, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Peoples Republic of China, Sudan, South Africa (most of us remember apartheid right?), Saddam Husseins' Iraq, the Taliban, and others.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/lang.jpg


http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8...mourselves.jpg

Actually, I didn't avoid anything. I was pointing out that the factor of how deadly a weapon is should be taken into account when deciding on which ones to ban.

And I actually don't know the statistics on that. Would you kindly pull some up for me?

And need I remind you how restrictions on firearms began in the United States?

It was to prevent the black populace from owning firearms much like how the Jim Crow laws prevented many blacks from voting and getting jobs.

Now you're putting words into my mouth. But seriously, a soldier is more qualified to operate one of these guns than a civilian, especially since it is the soldier who uses them and trains with them on a day to day basis.

Yes, yes. The NRA and the KKK were closely linked at a time.

And I was pointing out that the 'deadliness' of the weapon, in terms of it's raw capability, is kind of a moot point in most cases.

Nope. Had this argument one too many times, done the legwork for too many gun control advocates, and despite the numbers supporting the pro-gun side, it never convinces anyone. Hence: Look 'em up yourself.

To the M-60 vs .22 question: In many cases the .22, properly employed, may be deadlier than the M-60. In terms of sheer firepower, the M-60 is more impressive, of course...but in many cases it wouldn't be the ideal weapon.

In other words: deadliness is situational. Sure, an M-60 is more effective when you can employ one (assuming the bitch doesn't jam on you...) openly, but which would be more effective at, say, murdering your neighbor and getting away with it?

SH, please quit trying to confuse the issue. LAW rocket launchers, howitzers, cannons and nuclear weapons have NOTHING to do with automatic firearms.

Here's a dose of reality for you. In the 74 odd years that they have been regulated there has been only one murder proven to have been committed with a legally owned automatic firearm.

Once in almost 3 quarters of a century and even in that case the perpetrator was a serving police officer who could just have easily committed his crime with his issue sidearm. So what is your justification for confiscating (and ordering people to turn over their property or be arrested IS a confiscation) these weapons?

And before you answer, your argument over what we "need" or don't need is immaterial. Most people don't "need" the right to free speech or the right to peaceably assemble either. That does not mean you can just outlaw a right specifically mentioned in the constitution.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

So if these so called "Assault Weapons" are so dangerous, how come almost no crime is committed with them?

And gun crime has fallen after the expiration of the AWB in 2004.

Same goes with full-auto weapons.
(Ironic he was a cop)

Not all troopers always train with the M92 and qualify with it, does that mean he's still superior to the civilian that has more intimate knowledge, trains far more often and has better trained accuracy with the M92 than the trooper himself?

Can the same be said for a trooper who has an allotment of ammunition for training to qualify witht eh M16 as opposed to the citizen with a semi-auto AR15 that can train with as much ammunition as he can purchase and participates in rifle matches once a month as opposed to the annually qualifying trooper?

Your reasoning has alot of flaws and yes, you are insinuating and have already stated that military personnell/LE officers are "superior" simply because they received some verbal instruction and maybe a few hours of live-fire training?

Some units train enormous amounts of hours and they are very proficient with their weapons and knowledge of them. For other units though, the ones that stay in the rear and handle logistics, most of them have never moved into weapoins training beyond the 2 weeks of familiarization at boot camp. As for the average trooper, hw only handles his rifle when he has to, not because he wants to be familiar with it.

Consequently I've also seen lots of officers come to the range I work at and qualify.

Their accuracy and arms training sucks.

They are in no way superior to me in terms of accuracy, arms familiarization or live-fire training for the one and simple fact that Law Enforcement Officers treat their live-fire qualification exams as a CHORE and not as an event that they should be dedicating themselves to training for.

Really? Didn't know that. Not that it matters to me anyway.

As far as I'm concerned the NRA is a worthless sack of s**t that has accomplished virtually nothing for the rights of gun-owners.

I'm not confusing anything. The fact that a citizen has the right to own an automatic firearm and a howitzer go hand in hand. Why? Because both are extremely deadly. I think you should be able to own firearms, but you have to have a limit.

Reading FatSeas' source, I can't agree with their definition of automatic firearm murders, and the reason is automatic weapons typically come with a semi-automatic fire mode. While the person may have been killed with the semi mode, the same gun used had an auto fire mode, so the two are linked together totally.

The difference between a cop and a citizen is this: qualifications. A cop is employed in the government to protect and serve. He is expected to be a responsible official of the law. A citizen is... well, not there to do anything for the law, other than live by the law. My justification for confiscating AUTOMATIC FIREARMS is this: they're more dangerous than your average gun. People don't need them, so what is to be missed? They can still have pistols and rifles, just not machine guns and machine pistols.

You would not be drastically changing anything, either. You would still allow people to have guns, just not automatic ones.

One of the founders of the NRA was actually in the KKK at a time (William Church).

Lol, Charlton Heston with his musket...

THEY CAN TAKE MY GUN FROM ME WHEN THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!

Charlie... you only had one shot and were over 70 years old...:smug:

See subsequent posts to my last one.

Same question right back to you. Note: a Mikey Moore propaganda movie is not a valid source.

I have to call bovine feces to that. William Church was a major in the union army. Hardly material for membership in an organization made up of former confederate soldiers...

What? You realize a Full-Auto M16, AK-47 whatever hasn't been manufactured for civilians since the 86 '"ban". And a AR-15 you buy over a gun counter does not have a FA switch. Or the ability.

Full auto is tightly regulated.

ETA: I think your confusing an "Assault Weapon" with a Assault rifle.