Thread: Petition Against Proposed US Automatic Weapons Ban!

But it clearly doesn't prevent you from making snide remarks all the same.

Well if my remarks came off as snide I apologize, perhaps my sarcasm was poorly used.

Is this your killer punch in the argument? Sark was an amusing anachronism. The people weren't serfs, clad in sacking and subject to cruel and unjust laws for heavens sake!

No it is my idea of a joke as evident by my smiley face. It was just amusing, or so I thought.

Well sunshine, every form of politics you know about came from backward old Europe. Included are democracy, republicanism, socialism and communism. Tell me what America came up with that's so different or superior to what anyone else has?

Ahh but we made ours work. It wasn’t without bumps in the road; slavery, civil war, etc. But the longest sustained democratic government in the world belongs to the US. Others came after us and we owe much to British common law of course, but American political development was still unique to that of Europe’s and even Britain.

Why are you echoing all this mindless drivel about your corrupt American governments propensity to take all your freedoms away? Most people who try this on me seem to be brain-washed. The rest only needed the briefest of rinses.

Drivel heh? From our Founding Fathers, they didn’t like nor trust government. A healthy distrust of authority is always necessary.

That is the saddest remark of all. What other 'possibility' do you wish to go paranoid about? Is there any end to them?

Look, you don’t see me advocating armed revolution. I don’t hide in my bunker waiting for the end of the world. But a healthy distrust of power and authority is necessary in my view. Power is a corrupter, and if I don’t have power I am not going to trust those fallible humans who do. This is the reason for the second amendment, it’s a just in case clause.

Hunting and personal protection are nice reasons to own guns, but ultimately those arguments have limitations, since not everyone hunts (I don’t) and the state can say it will guarantee personal protection by taking away guns.

Having no government simply equals anarchy and this is the time you are proposing to hand your weapons in?

Anarchy is not the same thing as disorder. I am paraphrasing some lightweight named James Madison that if men were angels (as in perfect infallible beings) there would be no need for government, since there would be no violence, etc. If there is no need for government then there really is no reason for an armed citizenry (since we would all be perfect infallible beings). My point being, government will always be with us, and imperfect and sometimes power hungry men (women) will want control, which may devolve into tyranny. Hence guns, personal arms, will always be with us to prevent that from happening.

See you in Area 51 then. Quite surprising just how much land is 'off limits'.

Again, my government is being repressive.

According to you the Magna Carta is a feudal document? We can safely assume that history isn't your strongest subject.

Feudal in the sense that the rights were only retained by the barons initially. Freemen would eventually retain the rights inherit in the document, but only some time later. There are different interpretations; Whig, Coke, feudal.

Feudalism was still retained in England for several more centuries, even fighting a long hundred years’ war over feudal claims, after the Charter was adopted.

Thank you, professor for that illuminating insight into your reasoning. Time to return to your gated community and avoid all the nastiness that abounds outside.

Now see why do you have to be insulting. I am just trying to have a reasoned debate with you and you have to go and make it personal. For the record I live in a not so safe neighborhood in DC, I am prohibited by law from owning a handgun, and have never fired an automatic weapon. I just want my right to own and fire said weapons to not be infringed upon.

[QUOTE=Herodotus;506553
See you in Area 51 then. Quite surprising just how much land is 'off limits'.

Again, my government is being repressive.
[/QUOTE]

Main Entry: re·press

1 a: to check by or as if by pressure : curb <injustice was repressed> b: to put down by force : subdue <repress a disturbance>
2 a: to hold in by self-control <repressed a laugh> b: to prevent the natural or normal expression, activity, or development of <repressed her anger>
3: to exclude from consciousness <repressed the memory of abuse>
4: to inactivate (a gene or formation of a gene product) by allosteric combination at a DNA binding site.

Exactly which of those definitions do you feel applies to Area-51? The government is not repressing you they are restricting your access due to national security.

Exactly which of those definitions do you feel applies to Area-51? The government is not repressing you they are restricting your access due to national security

Being oppressive then, whatever. Who's national security? Or are they controlling access to keep power. If they are trying to keep power, there is the propensity of corruption, hence I worry about my government keeping secrets from me for my own good. The social contract has its limitations.

Black Hawk helicopters rattle downtown
'Routine' activity part of training for war on terror
By Tillie Fong, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 12:05 a.m., June 17, 2008
Updated 09:55 a.m., June 17, 2008

Black Hawk helicopters buzzed downtown Denver and other neighborhoods Monday evening in a training exercise to prepare for a possible terrorist attack.

The flights had people all over town calling authorities to find out what was going on.

"It's nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities," said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military.

Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver.

The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said.

"It's routine preparation for the global war on terrorism," he said.

Several Black Hawk helicopters were seen flying low near Coors Field during a home game of the Colorado Rockies.

Denver police received a number of calls about the helicopters.

"We've gotten quite a few calls, but it's a training exercise that the DPD is involved in, and there's nothing going on," said a Denver police dispatcher. "The vast majority of people, after we tell them what's going on, they say, 'Oh, OK.' "

Potter said the exercise will be taking place off and on in the city for the rest of the week.

The exercises will be conducted in the afternoon to evening hours, but he could not reveal any other details about the training due to its sensitive nature.

"The media will not be allowed to cover this training or conduct any interviews with those involved in the exercise," said Potter.

He said that Special Operations Command has been conducting similar exercises in other cities as well.


If you have photos or videos of the helicopters in action Monday night, please e-mail to photoed@rockymountainnews.com

I found this story on Drudge quickly. It illustrates some of what I am trying to get across. Our citizens could live in a constant unwarranted state of fear, forced to give up some rights, all in the name of "national security". There are no US Army bases in Denver. The closest one is in my hometown of Colorado Springs to the south. Yet we have military training exercises there just in case of a terrorist attack?

Parnoid? Perhaps, there is a long way from helicopters buzzing homes to the suspension of habeaus corpus or other rights. However there is precedent in this country of that happening (Lincoln, Sedition Acts during WWI, FDR and the internment of American citizens) and always it is justified because of war/national security. This sort of thing puts citizens on edge, makes them fearful.

Terrorist attack in Denver? Possible, but if that's the case let me arm myself, I'll take my chances on my own, protect me and mine. Better that than let the state infringe on rights; if it comes to that.

Here is a map of the land owned by the government; disgusting.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...s_the_west.jpg

291 - Federal Lands in the US « Strange Maps

[QUOTE=Herodotus;506553]

Well if my remarks came off as snide I apologize, perhaps my sarcasm was poorly used.

Now see why do you have to be insulting.

I wasn't intending to insult, and I apologise for that. Perhaps we were talking past each other, unintentionally. My service background where robust argument was the norm may have influenced my behaviour more than I realise. Civilians (of which I am now one) tend to see things differently.

[QUOTE=glyn;506609]

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Well if my remarks came off as snide I apologize, perhaps my sarcasm was poorly used.

Now see why do you have to be insulting.

I wasn't intending to insult, and I apologise for that. Perhaps we were talking past each other, unintentionally. My service background where robust argument was the norm may have influenced my behaviour more than I realise. Civilians (of which I am now one) tend to see things differently.

No problem, it was not my intent to disparage your country. I love the UK. But yes we civilians tend to not be as intense on message boards.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Here is a map of the land owned by the government; disgusting.

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.c...s_the_west.jpg

291 - Federal Lands in the US « Strange Maps

Dang, Fed could've sold some of their properties in CA during the boom and could've made easy money and balance the budget )

Originally Posted by omon

there sure is according to atf.

any semi auto rifle that has at least one of these options is an assult rifle.

removable mag with capacity of higher than 5 rd.
pistol grip,
folding or callapsable stock,
bayonet mount,
flash hider,
granade luncher.

my sks was an assult rifle, untill i removed fixed 10 rd mag, and installed 5 round mag,
cut off bayonet lug.
and a gunsmith wrote a letter to nyc rifle and shotgun section, to confirm that it is no longer an assult rifle, after that i was allowed to regester it.

Which goes to show that the definition of an assault weapon is all cosmetic.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Being oppressive then, whatever. Who's national security? Or are they controlling access to keep power. If they are trying to keep power, there is the propensity of corruption, hence I worry about my government keeping secrets from me for my own good. The social contract has its limitations.

Well oppressive does not fit either.
op·pres·sive
1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.

The National Security of the United States if access was not restricted to Area-51 then all new technology developed would be up for grabs. Access is not controlled to keep power it is to ensure that the US military is technologically advanced over any potential enemies so that they can defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
BTW most civilian corporations also restrict access to different areas of property do you think they are oppressing you also?

Originally Posted by BadKharma

Well oppressive does not fit either.
op·pres·sive
1. burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical: an oppressive king; oppressive laws.
2. causing discomfort by being excessive, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat.
3. distressing or grievous: oppressive sorrows.

The National Security of the United States if access was not restricted to Area-51 then all new technology developed would be up for grabs. Access is not controlled to keep power it is to ensure that the US military is technologically advanced over any potential enemies so that they can defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
BTW most civilian corporations also restrict access to different areas of property do you think they are oppressing you also?

So you're just being pedtantic and giving me a semantical argument? I am a libertarian, I believe all federal government held lands should be privatized, and the federal government shrunk to almost nothing. And yes that includes the Defense function. 75% of all federal government employees fall under the Postal, Defense, Homeland Security or Administration of Justice functions.

Corporations are private entities and if they own the property, patents, or whatever, they have the right to restrict access to them. Corporations don't force me to pay taxes. I can choose to buy their goods and services or not. With the federal government I am not given that choice. I realize my views are in the minority, but yes I feel I am being oppressed since money that I earn is taken from me against my will to pay for something I did not ask for, all in the name of the greater good.

Technology exists, you cannot hide it away forever, spread it around and let everyone have it, then everyone is even. For example, here is an article from Kenneth Waltz on the spread of nuclear weapons. If every state had the same number of nuclear weapons would they be used?

Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers, Number 171 (London: International Institute f



We can make a separate thread on this topic in the political discussion page, however as this is about the proposed assualt weapons ban this thread is getting off-topic.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which goes to show that the definition of an assault weapon is all cosmetic.

true, very true, however rifles based on ak, ar, actions are assult and no modifications can turn it in legal sa rifle.
even saiga, not an assult rifle in any way is illegal in nyc, thou in long island they are legal.

Originally Posted by omon

there sure is according to atf.

any semi auto rifle that has at least one of these options is an assult rifle.

removable mag with capacity of higher than 5 rd.
pistol grip,
folding or callapsable stock,
bayonet mount,
flash hider,
granade luncher.

my sks was an assult rifle, untill i removed fixed 10 rd mag, and installed 5 round mag,
cut off bayonet lug.
and a gunsmith wrote a letter to nyc rifle and shotgun section, to confirm that it is no longer an assult rifle, after that i was allowed to regester it.

I'm sorry, sir, you have conflated two distinct and different terms.

"Assault weapon" is the term appended by anti-gun zealots to semi-auto firearms with certain features which you have delineated.

"Assault rifle" is a specific type of firearm, whose definition excludes the SKS (on two of three counts), or any other semi-auto.

An assault rifle:
1) fires an intermediate cartridge
2) is loaded from a detachable box magazine
3) is selective fire

I signed it.