Security vs. Freedom - Poll trend

[GunnyGene]

So this change is along the same lines as the whole changes of definition attributed to an "enemy combatant"? Seems like we're moving the goal posts to suit.....

Of course. Definitions are everything. Bill Clinton proved that.

 

[OhioArcher]

[quote="GunnyGene]
It's not just her. It's the echo chamber she lives in with others of the same ideology. The result of this is that over-reaction becomes the normal reaction, as we saw most recently in the Boston door to door search. That echo chamber effect also bleeds over into other areas, such as expanding the definition of WMD (which use to be solely applicable to nukes) to include any bullet launcher they don't like.

Glad you mentioned the WMD classification Gunny. I had wondered about that and then promptly let it go. What's with that? Anyone know why they classified something with just a bit more kick than a pipe bomb in the same class as nukes or massive biological or chemical weapons?

I have to admit, when I first saw it on the news I almost chuckled.

I think there was some left coast court case or something in the last few years, that ruled that anything that is capable of killing more than 3 people at a time could be considered a WMD. Personally, I think it's total BS and all about politics and hype. The anti-everything brigade loves it, since it makes everything scary scary. :x[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Then are vans capable of carrying 15-20 illegals that happen to crash in the desert considered WMDs? Why aren't they banned or cursed or cause for alarm?

 

[cmcdonald]

Then are vans capable of carrying 15-20 illegals that happen to crash in the desert considered WMDs? Why aren't they banned or cursed or cause for alarm?

+1 for that...so true but hilarious!!

 

[GunnyGene]

Then are vans capable of carrying 15-20 illegals that happen to crash in the desert considered WMDs? Why aren't they banned or cursed or cause for alarm?

Dude, you gotta keep up. Those vans don't carry "illegals". They've been redefined as Undocumented Future Democrat Redistribution Vehicles, and are therefore exempt from the WMD classification.

 

[OhioArcher]

LOL, Gunny. Never have been PC.

Undocumented Future Democrat Redistribution Vehicles

Now that IS funny...but also sadly true. More mouths on the government teat...

 

[aksavanaman]

Then are vans capable of carrying 15-20 illegals that happen to crash in the desert considered WMDs? Why aren't they banned or cursed or cause for alarm?

Dude, you gotta keep up. Those vans don't carry "illegals". They've been redefined as Undocumented Future Democrat Redistribution Vehicles, and are therefore exempt from the WMD classification.

S!#t :shock: what am I gonna do now??? My van will seat 8 comfortably... I won't mention what I could stuff

 

[oli700]

I said AK's are not allowed at all. But the look-a-like Czech Arms VZ58 is classed as an unrestricted weapon, like any hunting rifle or shotgun. So is the Kriss Super V Vector .45ACP...unrestricted. No real rhyme or reason to it, only public opinion from what I can tell. And, there's more. They're more likely to ban the Mini-14 than AR15 cuz it was used in a mass shooting 20 years ago...it's all perception dude.

that makes zero since so your government must be subbing ideas from mine.....If one were to be a psycho killer they would be well armed with a VZ58....better weapon then an AK


Security v. Freedom.......I'll take freedom. Give me enough freedom and I will create my own security.

 

[cmcdonald]

I said AK's are not allowed at all. But the look-a-like Czech Arms VZ58 is classed as an unrestricted weapon, like any hunting rifle or shotgun. So is the Kriss Super V Vector .45ACP...unrestricted. No real rhyme or reason to it, only public opinion from what I can tell. And, there's more. They're more likely to ban the Mini-14 than AR15 cuz it was used in a mass shooting 20 years ago...it's all perception dude.

that makes zero since so your government must be subbing ideas from mine.....If one were to be a psycho killer they would be well armed with a VZ58....better weapon then an AK


Security v. Freedom.......I'll take freedom. Give me enough freedom and I will create my own security.

Oli, like i said earlier in the post...it doesn't even make nonsense. The classifications are obviously based on opinion and reputation or infamy. Many weapons on the list don't actually meet the criteria of too short...as in barrel length, or full auto capable, etc. There was originally a big push to severely restrict or even ban certain kinds of concealable weapons. Arms like the Uzi, or a Mac-10 are prohibited because they can go full auto and are easily concealable. I don't have a big issue with that line of thinking. However, arbitrary banning of certain weapons due to negative notoriety is just plain stupid and unfair to responsible owners and collectors.

 

[John A.]

Oli, like i said earlier in the post...it doesn't even make nonsense. The classifications are obviously based on opinion and reputation or infamy. Many weapons on the list don't actually meet the criteria of too short...as in barrel length, or full auto capable, etc. There was originally a big push to severely restrict or even ban certain kinds of concealable weapons. Arms like the Uzi, or a Mac-10 are prohibited because they can go full auto and are easily concealable. I don't have a big issue with that line of thinking. However, arbitrary banning of certain weapons due to negative notoriety is just plain stupid and unfair to responsible owners and collectors.

And that's exactly what they did with the 1986 machinegun ban.

I'll preface this post to say that I legally own 5 weapons that require a tax stamp. One of which a lawfully owned full auto Mac10 submachinegun.

There was no legitimate reason to ban future manufacturing of these items in 1986. They had already been highly regulated since the 1930's to include a hefty tax be paid per item and FBI background checks, fingerprints and frontal photo's of the legal owners. (exactly what some of them have proposed to like to do with "assualt weapons" now if some of them could get their way)

With only a handful of crimes committed with lawfully owned and manufactured NFA items from 1934 to present day, it is even less likely that you will be assualted or killed with a registered machinegun than you will a "so called" semi automatic "assualt weapon", so you may want to check your facts before you put nfa owners and "certain" firearms into any basket that they want to put all gun owners in because you're in that group too and are falling right in line with their way of thinking.

Actually, the last statistics that I saw, you are more than 2000 times more likely to be killed with a bolt of lightning than being shot with a machinegun.

There is no inanimate object capable of emotion, wrongdoing or evil by itself. Including machineguns, garden rakes, cars, or anything else that you care to bring into the conversation.

Your assessment is awry, eh.

 

[John A.]

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
---
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source).

http://members.cox.net/arporro/photos/Sh…

In Targeting Guns, Kleck cites the director of BATF testifying before Congress that he knew of less than ten crimes that were committed with legally owned machine guns (no time period was specified). Kleck says these crimes could have been nothing more than violations of gun regulations such as failure to notify BATF after moving a registered gun between states. "

All this info is good up until 1995, after which there is no record.
Source(s):
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcful…

 

[cmcdonald]

John Eh , in Canada the automatics have been on the prohibited list since the late 70's, so what I was commenting on was long past history now. As far as saying I didn't have a big issue with those type of guns not being available, it's because I've really never known anything different. I was just a kid in '77-'78.

The only people that can legally own them now are individuals that owned the same guns back when the ban came into effect. There are several legal challenges right now to allow them to take them back to the gun ranges and fire them...as of right now they can't even be fired legally. Even before the ban, they were heavily regulated.

Do I support any further erosion to our ability to own firearms? Of course not and I fully supported the push to eliminate our long gun registry up here this last year with letter writing and emails to our elected representatives, etc. After a couple years it happened, just last spring.

I can certainly understand the why you and many, many others are working hard to not lose anymore ground.

Sorry eh, if you thought my assessment was awry. I do believe we're coming at this from two different sides of the equation. Our ability to own or obtain auto's is long gone here...

 

[John A.]

While I understand you may not be allowed to own them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be owned. That is my entire point.

One thing you mentioned as being valid reasons why m10's and uzi's being easily concealable, among other things, as to why they should be prohibited are grossly incorrect though.

Just for reference, an Uzi is 3.5 kg (7.72 lb) without magazine, and 640 mm (25 in) in length (without suppressor).

The M10A1 is 2.84 kg (6.26 pounds) w/o suppressor or magazine and 798 mm (2 feet 7.4 inches) with factory suppressor.

Neither of which are easily concealable, or easy to carry around period. It would be as simple to conceal two 5 lb bags of sugar the length of a baseball bat on your person. :roll:

Since I assume your only experience with these weapons are likely on television, I suppose that I could understand where you may have thought these weapons are somehow more lethal or can somehow do things that other guns can't, but that is nothing more than misconception. Something those that have been bent to restrict or eliminate our rights and ability to own thrive on.

 

[cmcdonald]

While I understand you may not be allowed to own them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to be owned. That is my entire point.

One thing you mentioned as being valid reasons why m10's and uzi's being easily concealable, among other things, as to why they should be prohibited are grossly incorrect though.

Just for reference, an Uzi is 3.5 kg (7.72 lb) without magazine, and 640 mm (25 in) in length (without suppressor).

The M10A1 is 2.84 kg (6.26 pounds) w/o suppressor or magazine and 798 mm (2 feet 7.4 inches) with factory suppressor.

Neither of which are easily concealable, or easy to carry around period. It would be as simple to conceal two 5 lb bags of sugar the length of a baseball bat on your person. :roll:

Since I assume your only experience with these weapons are likely on television, I suppose that I could understand where you may have thought these weapons are somehow more lethal or can somehow do things that other guns can't, but that is nothing more than misconception. Something those that have been bent to restrict or eliminate our rights and ability to own thrive on.

I think understand now why we're having an impasse here...those aren't my reasonings John. They belong to those who would seek to ban and did ban those weapons. I was simply stating what had been thrown around as reasons for it. I should have been clearer in my explanation but I guess I'm trying to shorten things up cuz my posts seem so lengthy compared to others....

Yes, you are correct in your assertion that I have never had experience with these weapons. I am far from and never claimed to be an expert. Not having ever had those type of weapons available to me, I don't miss them. There in lies some of the tragedy I suppose. In the overall, I'm just trying to understand how Americans feel with regard to these huge issues you are all facing and humbly offering a perspective from a slightly different viewpoint. Didn't mean to ruffle feathers or enter a debate on gun control which I believe we have too much of up here already. If I mistakenly hit a sore spot, that wasn't my intent. I am far from being a believer in the erosion of any further liberties...be that on my side of the border or yours.

Let me also be clear that I respect your knowledge and thoughtfulness on these issues. Your obvious concern for liberty and the maintaining of your constitutional rights is commendable. I know you may not see it that way but rather as your duty and that too is admirable.

Cheers my friend.

 

[John A.]

My replies in red

I think understand now why we're having an impasse here...those aren't my reasonings John. They belong to those who would seek to ban and did ban those weapons. I was simply stating what had been thrown around as reasons for it.

OK then, thank you for clarifying. I need to start this reply with an apology to you. I thought you were implying those were reasons they shouldn't be allowed.


Yes, you are correct in your assertion that I have never had experience with these weapons. I am far from and never claimed to be an expert. Not having ever had those type of weapons available to me, I don't miss them. There in lies some of the tragedy I suppose.

You are correct. In my eyes, that is a terrible injustice.

And you also brought up a very valid point that many here have been facing (and fighting).

There are several elected officials who have been wording bills that determine certain firearms or accessories or magazines, etc, that could not be transferred.

While none of these have gained any traction on a federal level, one of the reasons that I am so vocal and determined to fight these laws is because I have children, and soon a grandchild.

I am not just fighting for my freedoms and rights. I am also fighting for theirs because they cannot yet, while some politicians are writing laws that infringe them even before they can do anything about it.

To me, that would be the ultimate tragedy.

In the overall, I'm just trying to understand how Americans feel with regard to these huge issues you are all facing and humbly offering a perspective from a slightly different viewpoint.

Many of us are pissed. Straight up. And if you look around even on this forum, you will see many who have marched upon our capitals and wrote letters and made phone calls to our elected officials.

Mainly because we (as gun owners) do not condone violence, nor breaking laws, or anything else.

But the politicians are writing laws that further restrict those of us who are not the problem, nor inclined to be a part of the problem.

The laws they are writing, have been carried over from failed past legislation and does not address the real problem(s).

Didn't mean to ruffle feathers or enter a debate on gun control which I believe we have too much of up here already. If I mistakenly hit a sore spot, that wasn't my intent. I am far from being a believer in the erosion of any further liberties...be that on my side of the border or yours.

And is why I apologized earlier for misunderstanding where you were coming from.

Let me also be clear that I respect your knowledge and thoughtfulness on these issues. Your obvious concern for liberty and the maintaining of your constitutional rights is commendable. I know you may not see it that way but rather as your duty and that too is admirable.

Cheers my friend.

Absolutely. I'm proud to call you friend.

And if I sit idly by and just accept whatever some politicians would do to us, then I would deserve whatever that would be.

Our founders recognized that we have certain unalienable God given rights and added that to our primary legal document (Constitution and Bill of Rights) so I am exersizing that against those who would otherwise restrict us for whatever their agenda's may be.

What I'm doing isn't really extraordinary at all. I'm just doing what's right. Like so many others here that feel the same way that I am proud to call friends too.

 

[aksavanaman]

Anyone see what's happening? The nay-sayers call us right wing, gun toting crazies and that we're few and far between. But through a simple discussion, I can see friendships and alliances built regardless of borders! Always appreciate your guy's views on things!

AK

 

[cmcdonald]

Anyone see what's happening? The nay-sayers call us right wing, gun toting crazies and that we're few and far between. But through a simple discussion, I can see friendships and alliances built regardless of borders! Always appreciate your guy's views on things!

AK

Thanks AK.

Like John said, everyone has a right and a responsibility to do what is right. That is first and foremost to protect our liberty and freedoms; without them we (read North America) will soon become like any other 3rd world country led by dictatorships or military governments in the thin guise of democracy. Already, we all feel the birth pangs of the unraveling of our own democracies and is the very reason for our charged discussions here. So, John...no apologies necessary my brother.

If Canadians think that their fate is not directly tied to the events unfolding in the US they are terribly mistaken and living in a dream and soon to be nightmare. I pray that I am wrong...but fear that I am not. We like to think we are sovereign; but our dependance on the US for our security should speak volumes to any thinking individual. Those that downgrade their American cousins and criticize should pull their heads from their a**es and come up for air...the lack of oxygen is making them stupid.

Look no further than Mexico and South America...its a dangerous journey, but we can drive there my friends. No oceans to cross...true freedom ends at the border of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Poverty, crime and oppression rule those lands below...no question.

 

[cmcdonald]

Please note: Where I live, is one of the most liberal minded, God hating and tree huggingest places on the planet...I can't take it sometimes. It makes me crazy. Yuppies (read women and the effeminate) sitting in Starbucks, wearing yoga outfits, paying inflated prices for an IMHO crappy cuppa joe. I'd take a glass of tea with Si, all dressed in camo any day over the aforementioned alternative.

So, what does this have to do with the above discussion? IMHO, everything. That embodies so much of what I fear is wrong with our apathetic and self-absorbed population.

**steps down from soapbox**

 

[aksavanaman]

Please note: Where I live, is one of the most liberal minded, God hating and tree huggingest places on the planet...I can't take it sometimes. It makes me crazy. Yuppies (read women and the effeminate) sitting in Starbucks, wearing yoga outfits, paying inflated prices for an IMHO crappy cuppa joe. I'd take a glass of tea with Si, all dressed in camo any day over the aforementioned alternative.

So, what does this have to do with the above discussion? IMHO, everything. That embodies so much of what I fear is wrong with our apathetic and self-absorbed population.

**steps down from soapbox**

You're taking the words out of my mind... crazy... how do you do it???

You are absolutely correct cmc, no question about it. While it has been argued and analyzed, discussed and picked through... the societal breakdown to a state of idiocrazy has been in the making for a VERY LONG TIME. When our younger generations, yes... those that will eventually become future leaders of our nations, are growing up idolizing Snooky on Jersey Shore (not my first crack at that!), buying Justin Beibers cut hair on ebay for $40,000 and sitting in Starbucks drinking their frappaccino mocha late venti iced blend-a-crap wondering why their a$$'s are too big... it is no wonder that we are having problems with paying national debts and letting twitter make our life decisions for us.

I have a sliver of hope, that there are enough like minded people like you guys here that are teaching your kids right, teaching them responsibilities, self worth and aspirations. Raising them with morals and respect, so that when it's time for them to make the hard decisions and we're all shriveled up in the corner with our 500's across our laps wondering where the time went, they will be MILES ahead of their peers and inspire others to make good decisions when it comes to them selves, family and country.

I drink my coffee black, made from a $10 coffee machine that's been cleaned twice in it's lifetime, that has the color and consistency of crude oil. Will it give me cancer one day, probably... but you bet your a$$ I've grown a few extra hairs in the right places that give me that common sense and wherewithal to navigate this broken world.

 

[cmcdonald]

^^Amen!^^

 

[OhioArcher]

Interesting article from the UK. 1.7 billion electronic communications a day? That's a lot of eavesdropping...

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:


BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

"All of that stuff" - meaning every telephone conversation Americans have with one another on US soil, with or without a search warrant - "is being captured as we speak".

On Thursday night, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored:

Let's repeat that last part: "no digital communication is secure", by which he means not that any communication is susceptible to government interception as it happens (although that is true), but far beyond that: all digital communications - meaning telephone calls, emails, online chats and the like - are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. To describe that is to define what a ubiquitous, limitless Surveillance State is.

Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... fbi-boston

I do not believe this is to make us safer but to use to gather info AFTER the fact. No way they can monitor 1.7 billion a day and actually get ahead of the game.