NationStates Jolt Archive

Recent gun restriction proposals have deeply disturbed the FWS. We here know what happens when a government heavily restricts the right to bear arms... Usually, genocide or something similarly awful results.

Keeping with our pro-freedom policies, we will sell to anybody, (well not anybody, but almost anybody)... We will sell RPGs, mortars, rifles, machine guns, SAWs, grenades, AA, AT, SAMS, etc... Almost any citizens of any nation who have the money to purchase the items will be allowed to do so. Also, if we agree with their cause, they may be given the weapons at a great discount or possibly for free. Those wishing to purchase weapons will have to meet a few requirements...




Read my old speech on gun control (I gave this in speech and debate tournaments in high school a few years back). If I can dig up my old term paper on gun control you're really going to like it. One of the best papers I have ever written.






On Wednesday, Oct. 1, 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham went on a rampage at his Pearl Mississippi high school. After he had killed two people and wounded seven others, he tried to drive away. However, fleeing students blocked Woodham from escaping in his car. Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, who had run to his own car and retrieved his .45-caliber handgun, pointed the pistol at Woodham and made him get out of his car. Myrick held Woodham at gunpoint until police officers arrived. Woodham was reportedly on his way to his former junior high school where it was said he had more “enemies”. Fortunately, the assistant principal was able to stop this madman before he did even more damage. Imagine how much more harm Woodham could have done had the assistant principal not had his own gun in his car.

Firearms in America have been an integral part of life for many generations, where would America be now if we didn’t have firearms? For the most part, the majority of the citizens of this great nation have always been armed and ready for trouble. When pilgrims first arrived here in 1620, they brought with them several important items one of which being firearms. They needed these guns to hunt and to defend themselves from animals and in some situations hostile natives. Essentially, without firearms, they would not have survived. Later came the minutemen and militia of the revolution who achieved our freedom from England. If it weren’t for many people (people as in “common citizens”) owning guns, we would still be under British rule. Basically, we would still be part of the “common wealth” and not the super power we are today. Our country’s founding fathers were in favor of firearms ownership for the citizenry. The second amendment was written to grant everyday common people, not just states, the right to keep and bear arms. Some say the founding fathers meant only states could keep arms, but hear their words and I think you will agree with me. They spoke for the individual.
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
What was said here is common logic. If you were a criminal would you rather your victim be armed or unarmed?

Thomas Jefferson was a very intelligent and progressive thinking founding father. He knew that the every day citizen might need a firearm for protection. He wanted the people to decide whether or not to be armed, not the government to decide whether or not to let the people be armed.
There is no logic in the belief criminals will obey laws regarding weapons any more than they obey statutes against the crimes they are committing. A law to take away the rights of the people to defend themselves will have no effect with those criminals.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

What is basically said here is that it is foolish to give up liberties in an attempt to obtain safety. As seen with prohibition in the 20’s and 30’s when alcohol was banned, there was a massive black market in which crime became organized and the criminals gained hundreds of millions dollars. This money helped them to commit other criminal activities. Do we really want a black market in guns? Another question is what makes you think criminals (people who break the law) will obey yet another law (in this case a gun ban). Criminals will not be deterred from committing a murder because of some gun law. The very thought that they would is ludicrous. A National Institute of Justice survey of felons in state prisons found that 72% of felons who use handguns said they would switch to sawed-off shotguns if handguns became unavailable. Then what do you do, seeing as sawed-off weapons are already banned? If criminals are not concerned with laws, then what good are these laws if they will only affect those who will abide by them but currently commit no crimes? They are no good.
Why is that the cities of Chicago, New York city, and Washington D.C. with their handgun bans, and the state of California with all its gun laws seem to have highest crime rate nationwide? The answer is simple; criminals don’t care about gun laws.
· Then we have some people saying assault weapons and machine guns are slaughtering scores of people daily. This is nonsense, you should know that since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (not a civilian)
Then there is the myth of assault weapons. An assault weapon may have a bayonet mount, when is the last time you heard of someone being bayoneted?
An assault weapon may have a grenade launcher. When is the last time you heard of someone on the street being killed by a grenade? An assault weapon may have a pistol grip. When is the last time you heard of someone being killed by a pistol grip. There is nothing that makes these weapons evil. They merely look nasty.

Then there is the myth of the so-called “Saturday night Specials”. These are generally characterized as being the smaller, cheaper priced, and lower-powered handguns. What the anti-gunners want is for you to think is that these guns aren’t suited for anyone to own. They are wrong, if you can’t afford a $900 top of the line super brand, maybe you can afford a $100. -$200 not-so well-known brand handgun. These weapons are designed for the poorer people and the people with weaker hands who can’t hold and work a larger handgun. Eventually after all the media hype about these guns, the criminal element caught wind of the cheapness and availability of these guns and began using them as they were slightly easier to obtain. But the fact still remains that those who cannot afford a fancy-high priced gun mainly use these weapons. These guns are not used for target shooting and fun. They are there incase a person needs to defend themselves.
Then we have one of the biggest anti-gunners of them all, Rosie O’Donnell. Although she is against firearms ownership and is always speaking on behalf of the numerous anti-gun groups out there, she feels only people such as her self have the right to be protected. She is guarded by at least 1 armed bodyguard at all times, lives in a gated community, and is basically out of touch with the common person.
Another thing is that the gun control groups who slam the National Rifle Association for not making a compromise are never offering a real compromise. Then they have the audacity to claim the NRA wants criminals to have guns, for not accepting their one-sided deals.
Now a real compromise would be something such as keeping background checks and maybe another thing or two while doing away with the assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban, and putting mandatory sentencing on gun crimes. While I may be in favor of firearms ownership simply put, criminals should not have guns. It should be known that the NRA and most other gun-rights groups are in favor of mandatory sentencing, while Handgun control and their supporters in political positions are against it. Lets see, punish everyone because of a few bad people (current laws) or really throw the book at someone after they break the law (mandatory sentencing and fewer gun laws).
The following is a quote from Handgun control Inc
We Are NOT "Gun Banners"-and never have been... Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.
--- "Gun Measures We Don't Support," Handgun Control Inc. (cited March 16, 1999) [Source URL, http://www.handguncontrol.org/gunowner/dontsupport.htm, was removed. Copy of original available at http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_hci_measureswedontsupport.html.]
Ironically, handgun control doesn’t list self-defense as a legitimate reason to own a firearm
Despite the fact that Handgun Control’s name used to be the National Coalition to Ban handguns they feel they can make a statement such as that. That makes them deceitful liars. Their newest name change to the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, is yet another example of deceit and trickery. The NRA doesn’t change their name every few years so they can hide their true intent and purpose. In fact ever since being incorporated in 1871, they have never changed their name. They let the people know where they stand, in favor of the constitution not opposed to it.
The gun control advocates say the since the Brady bill was enacted, that around 500,000 felons and other prohibited people have been stopped from purchasing firearms. That sounds great but even though it is a crime to attempt to obtain a firearm if prohibited from owning one, only an extremely small number of these people were ever prosecuted.
Again, the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Some say the second amendment is outdated and that the founding fathers didn’t envision people using guns in mass killings and such. The truth is that the other 9 of the 10 original amendments are just as old as the second and the founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned computers, phones, e-mail, the Internet, or any of today’s technological advancements used to express oneself, and communicate ideas. So does this mean just because times changed that we don’t need the constitution anymore. Of course it doesn’t, that is just plain folly.
Now I close with these words, guns do not kill people, bad people do. Guns don’t impact a person’s morals either positively or negatively. Only we as human beings can choose to treat others well or poorly. We cannot blame guns or any object for our actions. Guns do not cause people to break the law, their lack of morals do. We must work together to instill some values and morals into people, instead of attacking tools who if left loaded and sitting on a table would hurt nobody unless picked up misused. Anything can be misused, however guns are used around 2 million times a year in self-defense, many more times than misused. Never take away someone’s right to defend themselves. If you can’t be free from harm or fear of harm how can you be free to exercise your other rights?

OOC:As an NRA member, I have to say this is one of the best papers I've read.

I'd like to purchase some weapons, which will be givin to individual citizens in my country for free,mainly to make sure that the already nonexistant crimerate doesn't go up. I'd also like to replace the current weapon used by my miitary, the AK74m, with a more advanced weapon of a higher caliber(my men feel the 5.45 is to weak and inaccurate) I won't be abe to totaly replace the weapon, but I'd at least wan't to get a new weapon into the hands of my infantry.

OOC: What school were you on speech and debate? By the way, good speech. I had a good one on disarming North Korea I used this year in speech.

OOC:As an NRA member, I have to say this is one of the best papers I've read.

I'd like to purchase some weapons, which will be givin to individual citizens in my country for free,mainly to make sure that the already nonexistant crimerate doesn't go up. I'd also like to replace the current weapon used by my miitary, the AK74m, with a more advanced weapon of a higher caliber(my men feel the 5.45 is to weak and inaccurate) I won't be abe to totaly replace the weapon, but I'd at least wan't to get a new weapon into the hands of my infantry.


We use the FFn-Fal... The Fascian Fn-Fal. It is basically the Fn-Fal except only slightly longer and the stock is collapsable. It is longer because the typical Fascian is a large person. The avg male height in Fascia is 6'1.

Great speech. I enjoyed reading it, and I couldn't agree more. That's definitely something that everyone should read. Where is the US do you live? You should seriously consider sending that to your state representatives. It's a very good paper.

OOC:

Meh. *Is now pissed he deleted his Civics term paper on gun control, would post it if he had it*

I'm more middle of the road. I'm for civilians owning weapons, but believe it should be more tightly regulated. The Assault Weapon Act is incredibly faulty (the bases for which guns are banned under this is determined by looks and modifications rather than what or how the gun fires), but fully automatic weapons need to remain banned, and conversion kits that turn semi-auto into full auto (available at virtually any gunshow) need to be banned. Self and property defense is poor reasoning; unless a person poses a threat to your life, shooting them is still a felony.

OOC:

Meh. *Is now pissed he deleted his Civics term paper on gun control, would post it if he had it*

I'm more middle of the road. I'm for civilians owning weapons, but believe it should be more tightly regulated. The Assault Weapon Act is incredibly faulty (the bases for which guns are banned under this is determined by looks and modifications rather than what or how the gun fires), but fully automatic weapons need to remain banned, and conversion kits that turn semi-auto into full auto (available at virtually any gunshow) need to be banned. Self and property defense is poor reasoning; unless a person poses a threat to your life, shooting them is still a felony.


I want to scrap the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968... Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, Clinton Gun Bans, Bush Sr. Gun Bans, Reagan Guns Bans..

I want to see the age for purchasing any firearm dropped to 18... Maybe 16 (With parental premission of course).

OOC:Those liberals have no good reason to take our guns away, only a moron would try to disarm the victem. A for automatic weapons, I hink they should be legal. Alot of people would like to just use them at the range, you can't take them away just because some people MIGHT commit a crime with them.

IC: Can you please show us your products so we can chose what we want?

OOC:Those liberals have no good reason to take our guns away, only a moron would try to disarm the victem. A for automatic weapons, I hink they should be legal. Alot of people would like to just use them at the range, you can't take them away just because some people MIGHT commit a crime with them.

IC: Can you please show us your products so we can chose what we want?


Check the FWS DEFENSE CORPORATION STORE.

OOC:

Meh. *Is now pissed he deleted his Civics term paper on gun control, would post it if he had it*

I'm more middle of the road. I'm for civilians owning weapons, but believe it should be more tightly regulated. The Assault Weapon Act is incredibly faulty (the bases for which guns are banned under this is determined by looks and modifications rather than what or how the gun fires), but fully automatic weapons need to remain banned, and conversion kits that turn semi-auto into full auto (available at virtually any gunshow) need to be banned. Self and property defense is poor reasoning; unless a person poses a threat to your life, shooting them is still a felony.


I want to scrap the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968... Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, Clinton Gun Bans, Bush Sr. Gun Bans, Reagan Guns Bans..

I want to see the age for purchasing any firearm dropped to 18... Maybe 16 (With parental premission of course).

And that's what I'd consider excessive abuse of a right granted in an amendment intended to guarantee militiamen had arms that was written in a time when the most advanced weapon was a 3 round per minute.

The ACLU stance (http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html) on the issue is pretty much where I stand.

OOC:

Meh. *Is now pissed he deleted his Civics term paper on gun control, would post it if he had it*

I'm more middle of the road. I'm for civilians owning weapons, but believe it should be more tightly regulated. The Assault Weapon Act is incredibly faulty (the bases for which guns are banned under this is determined by looks and modifications rather than what or how the gun fires), but fully automatic weapons need to remain banned, and conversion kits that turn semi-auto into full auto (available at virtually any gunshow) need to be banned. Self and property defense is poor reasoning; unless a person poses a threat to your life, shooting them is still a felony.


I want to scrap the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968... Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, Clinton Gun Bans, Bush Sr. Gun Bans, Reagan Guns Bans..

I want to see the age for purchasing any firearm dropped to 18... Maybe 16 (With parental premission of course).

And that's what I'd consider excessive abuse of a right granted in an amendment intended to guarantee militiamen had arms that was written in a time when the most advanced weapon was a 3 round per minute.

The ACLU stance (http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html) on the issue is pretty much where I stand.


Well when they spoke of free speech, there was no internet... The founders had no idea people would want to say "bomb making materials" "jihad" "join my cult".... Well... Isn't the 1st amendment just as old as the 2nd? Does that mean we need to get rid of it?

The 1st amendment was written when the most advanced techniques got the news from Europe to the Americas after a multiple week journey... Now it is just seconds...

The basic principle and idea behind and of free speech can still be easily applied today despite the faster mediums over which information is traded. The same cannot be said of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to put a gun in every citizen's hand; rather, it was to enable the fledgling states to maintain armed militias for their defense. Militias have been replaced by the National Guard. If not for the wording chosen the Framers when trying to ensure an armed militia, the Constitution would easily be interpreted today as not allowing common citizens to possess firearms. However, they chose the wording they did, which is why I believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms to a certain extent.

Also, information is no more dangerous now than it was then. Again, the same cannot be said of guns. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the most lethal firearm a man could carry fired a small, inaccurate round and had a rate of fire of about three rounds per minute. Today, the most lethal firearms fire large, accurate rounds, and some can hit a target at more than a mile distance while others spew thousands of rounds per minute.

Thirdly, there is no purpose in a citizen owning fully automatic or extremely heavy caliber weapons. They're almost useless for legitimate and legal reasons to own a firearm (target shooting, hunting, etc), meaning the only reasons for having them would most likely be illegal.

So again, I still hold the same view as the ACLU. Sure, let people have guns, but keep the excessively dangerous ones out of civilian hands and keep regulations on them.

The basic principle and idea behind and of free speech can still be easily applied today despite the faster mediums over which information is traded. The same cannot be said of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to put a gun in every citizen's hand; rather, it was to enable the fledgling states to maintain armed militias for their defense. Militias have been replaced by the National Guard. If not for the wording chosen the Framers when trying to ensure an armed militia, the Constitution would easily be interpreted today as not allowing common citizens to possess firearms. However, they chose the wording they did, which is why I believe citizens should be allowed to possess firearms to a certain extent.

Also, information is no more dangerous now than it was then. Again, the same cannot be said of guns. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the most lethal firearm a man could carry fired a small, inaccurate round and had a rate of fire of about three rounds per minute. Today, the most lethal firearms fire large, accurate rounds, and some can hit a target at more than a mile distance while others spew thousands of rounds per minute.

Thirdly, there is no purpose in a citizen owning fully automatic or extremely heavy caliber weapons. They're almost useless for legitimate and legal reasons to own a firearm (target shooting, hunting, etc), meaning the only reasons for having them would most likely be illegal.

So again, I still hold the same view as the ACLU. Sure, let people have guns, but keep the excessively dangerous ones out of civilian hands and keep regulations on them.

The reason the people have firearms is to serve as the last resort to check a tyrannical government.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That is a two clause deal... States can have militia, people can have arms.


THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!


NOT THE RIGHT OF THE STATES OR THE RIGHT OF THE STATES GUARDS OR THE GOVERNMENT... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


You agree the people in 1st amd = citizens... How can The people in the 2nd amd = the government...

The People = The People = The People = the Citizens...

The meaning of "the people" doesn't change from amendment to amendment.

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." PATRICK
HENRY AND GEORGE MASON, Elliot, Debates at 185

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." THOMAS
JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which
must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people
are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of
the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym
"A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,
1789.

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower
house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." Sen. WILLIAM
GRAYSON of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are
left in full possession of them." ZACHARIA JOHNSON, 3 Elliot,
Debates at 646.

"A free people ought...to be armed..." GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech
of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14,
1790.




"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they be properly armed." ALEXANDER HAMILTON, The Federalist
Papers at 184-8.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is
able might have a gun." PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise
to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to
the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature,
are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed.,
1967)

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while
on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader
and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will
not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would
ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion... in private self defense..." JOHN ADAMS, A Defense
of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people
themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from
the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep.
ELBRIDGE GERRY of Massachusetts, I annals of Congress at 750
(August 17, 1789).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except
for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates
at 425-426.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people,
trained to arms is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..." JAMES MADISON, 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8,
1789).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation...
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms." JAMES MADISON, Federalist Papers, #46.

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only
defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?" PATRICK
HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates at 48.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are
not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots
and tyrants." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith,
1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people." TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our
possession and under our own direction, and having them under the
management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of
having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hand?" PATRICK
HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

So again, I still hold the same view as the ACLU. Sure, let people have guns, but keep the excessively dangerous ones out of civilian hands and keep regulations on them.


There are 200,000 private citizens (non-law enforcement, non-government, non-army) in the USA who have the permit to own a machine gun. Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun was ever used in a crime... It was committed by a Dayton, Ohio police officer in 1986 when he used a fully automatic legally owned Mac-10 to gun down an informant... Motives remain unclear.

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

Exactly. Out of those 200,000, how many actually do or can own a full fledged machine gun, rather than an automatic pistol?

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

Exactly. Out of those 200,000, how many actually do or can own a full fledged machine gun, rather than an automatic pistol?


There are 200,000 people in this nation who have a Machine Gun... Some others have other various Class III weapons (RPGS, hand grenades, mortar, flame thrower, sawed-off weapons, sub-machine guns, silencers etc)

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

So you're a purist that believes in it as is. Well, let's blow that to hell. Nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannons all classify as arms. Should citizens be able to have these? No. Oops, violates 2nd Amendment, that's infringing on citizens' right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment as is can no longer be reasonably applied, and is need of a serious overhaul.

Also, name one legitimate reason for citizens to be allowed to own heavy caliber, full auto weapons that smaller firearms would not be better suited for.

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

So you're a purist that believes in it as is. Well, let's blow that to hell. Nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannons all classify as arms. Should citizens be able to have these? No. Oops, violates 2nd Amendment, that's infringing on citizens' right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment as is can no longer be reasonably applied, and is need of a serious overhaul.

Also, name one legitimate reason for citizens to be allowed to own heavy caliber, full auto weapons that smaller firearms would not be better suited for.

Actually, I think citizens should be able to own anything the government has... If I can afford to buy an SAM, I should be able to get one... I know people (civilians) who have Anti-Tank missiles.

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...


Also, name one legitimate reason for citizens to be allowed to own heavy caliber, full auto weapons that smaller firearms would not be better suited for.


Serving as the last check / balance against a government that attempts to impose a tyrannical system on THE PEOPLE.

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

Exactly. Out of those 200,000, how many actually do or can own a full fledged machine gun, rather than an automatic pistol?


There are 200,000 people in this nation who have a Machine Gun... Some others have other various Class III weapons (RPGS, hand grenades, mortar, flame thrower, sawed-off weapons, sub-machine guns, silencers etc)

See, that contradicts your earlier statement though which made it seem as if sub-machine guns were included in that total.

...since 1934 only one legally owned machine gun was ever used in a crime...it was committed by a Dayton, Ohio police officer in 1986 when he used a fully automatic legally owned MAC-10

So which is it, really? 200,000 including sub-machine guns or just machine guns? Sub-machine guns are little more than automatic pistols and can't really be counted as true machine guns, so it would be wrong to group them with their big brothers.

Sub-machine gun:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Lg9WmtBZVjUJ:www.hanjaco.co.kr/gun/mp5.jpg

Machine gun:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60mg-sa-s.jpg

See the difference? Out of that 200,000, how many actually can or do own the latter as opposed to the former?

Serving as the last check / balance against a government that attempts to impose a tyrannical system on THE PEOPLE.

:roll:

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

Exactly. Out of those 200,000, how many actually do or can own a full fledged machine gun, rather than an automatic pistol?


There are 200,000 people in this nation who have a Machine Gun... Some others have other various Class III weapons (RPGS, hand grenades, mortar, flame thrower, sawed-off weapons, sub-machine guns, silencers etc)

See, that contradicts your earlier statement though which made it seem as if sub-machine guns were included in that total.

...since 1934 only one legally owned machine gun was ever used in a crime...it was committed by a Dayton, Ohio police officer in 1986 when he used a fully automatic legally owned MAC-10

So which is it, really? 200,000 including sub-machine guns or just machine guns? Sub-machine guns are little more than automatic pistols and can't really be counted as true machine guns, so it would be wrong to group them with their big brothers.

Sub-machine gun:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Lg9WmtBZVjUJ:www.hanjaco.co.kr/gun/mp5.jpg

Machine gun:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60mg-sa-s.jpg

See the difference? Out of that 200,000, how many actually can or do own the latter as opposed to the former?

I know what the difference is... I have a double digit amount of firearms.

Also I do believe the figure of 200,000 is for Machine Guns... Ie. M-16, M-60, AK-47 full auto, RPK, PK, etc.

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

So you're a purist that believes in it as is. Well, let's blow that to hell. Nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannons all classify as arms. Should citizens be able to have these? No. Oops, violates 2nd Amendment, that's infringing on citizens' right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment as is can no longer be reasonably applied, and is need of a serious overhaul.

Also, name one legitimate reason for citizens to be allowed to own heavy caliber, full auto weapons that smaller firearms would not be better suited for.

Actually, I think citizens should be able to own anything the government has... If I can afford to buy an SAM, I should be able to get one... I know people (civilians) who have Anti-Tank missiles.

Yes, there's absolutely no harm that could come in allowing people access to missiles, high explosive warheads, anti-aircraft weaponry, and the like. </sarcastic> Even with extensive background checks, which would probably be your come back, what happens when something emotionally damaging occurs to a citizen and they decide to go on a rampage? Everyone is screwed, unless you want them to fire back with their own weapons, thus creating a war inside our own borders.

Also, that fails to be a legitimate reason for heavy weapons (referring to last check on the government). In the 214 years since ratification was completed, how many times did the government or a member of the government attempt to strip rights without being slapped down? Creating massive civilian armies does nothing but leave us open to more turbulence and destruction within our own borders.

It was a poor choice of wording while trying to express their ideal. They couldn't have possibly anticipated the situation that would arise from that choice of wording.

Also, neither the Constitution nor the amendments are set in stone. As times change, they can be changed to more properly fit the current situation. The 2nd Amendment is an area I believe this needs to be applied to. My reasons for such have already been stated.

There's no sound argument that can be made against a complete lack of weapons control in the United States.


I'm for age limits and background checks... Not a single thing more...

So you're a purist that believes in it as is. Well, let's blow that to hell. Nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and GAU-8 Avenger 30mm cannons all classify as arms. Should citizens be able to have these? No. Oops, violates 2nd Amendment, that's infringing on citizens' right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment as is can no longer be reasonably applied, and is need of a serious overhaul.

Also, name one legitimate reason for citizens to be allowed to own heavy caliber, full auto weapons that smaller firearms would not be better suited for.

Actually, I think citizens should be able to own anything the government has... If I can afford to buy an SAM, I should be able to get one... I know people (civilians) who have Anti-Tank missiles.



Also, that fails to be a legitimate reason for heavy weapons (referring to last check on the government). In the 214 years since ratification was completed, how many times did the government or a member of the government attempt to strip rights without being slapped down? Creating massive civilian armies does nothing but leave us open to more turbulence and destruction within our own borders.


MONTANA FREEMEN, RUBY RIDGE, WACO,
BRADY ACT, "PATRIOT" ACT I, "PATRIOT" ACT II,
THE UN SOLDIERS IN THE USA, THE BLACK HELICOPTERS,
THE NEW WORLD ORDER ...

One Marine Corps General ( I will dig up his name and the article) suggested hiring 20,000 cubans into the US marines because "They'd make an effective internal security division because they'd have less quarrels shooting americans."

Yes thus creating a war inside our own borders.



We aren't somalians here... We can be trusted with heavy weaponry.

Mac-10s aren't machine guns though. They're Sub-Machine Guns. Machine guns use rifle cartridges whilst SMGs use pistol caliber.

Exactly. Out of those 200,000, how many actually do or can own a full fledged machine gun, rather than an automatic pistol?


There are 200,000 people in this nation who have a Machine Gun... Some others have other various Class III weapons (RPGS, hand grenades, mortar, flame thrower, sawed-off weapons, sub-machine guns, silencers etc)

See, that contradicts your earlier statement though which made it seem as if sub-machine guns were included in that total.

...since 1934 only one legally owned machine gun was ever used in a crime...it was committed by a Dayton, Ohio police officer in 1986 when he used a fully automatic legally owned MAC-10

So which is it, really? 200,000 including sub-machine guns or just machine guns? Sub-machine guns are little more than automatic pistols and can't really be counted as true machine guns, so it would be wrong to group them with their big brothers.

Sub-machine gun:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Lg9WmtBZVjUJ:www.hanjaco.co.kr/gun/mp5.jpg

Machine gun:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m60mg-sa-s.jpg

See the difference? Out of that 200,000, how many actually can or do own the latter as opposed to the former?

I know what the difference is... I have a double digit amount of firearms.

Also I do believe the figure of 200,000 is for Machine Guns... Ie. M-16, M-60, AK-47 full auto, RPK, RPK, etc.


You do realize that M-16s and AK-47s are assault rifles and it's the RPK right?

Yes thus creating a war inside our own borders.



We aren't somalians here... We can be trusted with heavy weaponry.

If that's not a rash stereotype and generalization, I don't know what is. At this point I'm seriously hoping this is a large joke. Your arguments so far are mainly support by opinion and generalization. You sound like a nut job Libertarian Party member.

Also, too bad the majority of Patriot Act I was declared unconstitutional and repealed, Patriot Act II is constitutional and has no reason to be repealed, Ruby Ridge was warranted, and Waco was most definitely warranted, and the Brady Act couldn't even be argued against if the needed changes were made to the 2nd Amendment.

Yes thus creating a war inside our own borders.



We aren't somalians here... We can be trusted with heavy weaponry.

If that's not a rash stereotype and generalization, I don't know what is. At this point I'm seriously hoping this is a large joke. Your arguments so far are mainly support by opinion and generalization. You sound like a nut job Libertarian Party member.

Also, too bad the majority of Patriot Act I was declared unconstitutional and repealed, Patriot Act II is constitutional and has no reason to be repealed, Ruby Ridge was warranted, and Waco was most definitely warranted, and the Brady Act couldn't even be argued against if the needed changes were made to the 2nd Amendment.


Firstly, both PK and RPK are machine guns... Also, Ruby Ridge... A trained FBI Sniper shot an unarmed woman who was holding her baby in her arms, in the face... A trained sniper...

It was ruled that when Weaver's friend shot and killed a Federal Marshal it was self-defense because the government agents had created the situation and had acted illegally with unwarranted aggression... He shot dead a federal agent and he got off because it was ruled self-defense... The Federal agent had just got done shooting a 14 year old boy in the back... They shot the boys dog, he returned fire, turned to run, boom, right in the back...

Waco was warranted, but they botched it... A doomsday cult who thinks the armies of satan will crush them... DO NOT BRING IN APACHES AND ABRAMS TO SCARE THEM.... It played right into their fears that they were going to die...

Also, you don't gun down people as they're fleeing a burning building...

Put remember as the ATF says "We didn't start the fire, it was always burning..."

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147487


Everything I offer in that store should be legal for civilians to own... Except the chemical weapons and the resident evil stuff (Because resident evil stuff is not real... yet).

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147487


Everything I offer in that store should be legal for civilians to own... Except the chemical weapons and the resident evil stuff (Because resident evil stuff is not real... yet).

Again, your reasoning for this is that we can be trusted with heavy weaponry, which if applied would be one of the most dangerous generalizations ever made, period.