Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- From: ToddP <todd.prickett@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:04:52 -0700
On Aug 1, 2:01 am, swamp <swampmu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:01:26 -0500, "Herb Martin"
<n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"swamp" <swampmu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5lkfa3pd7rckmsgn1a6p54dvrqkomt8db0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:24:21 -0500, "Herb Martin"
<n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"swamp" <swampmu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cs2o93hn59slcd6v7eb0dnf50afjqhtkai@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:23:40 -0500, Jeff Dege <jd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:44:14 -0700, swamp wrote:
Now let's establish "fire control."
That would be to diminish the effectiveness of incoming ordnance, yes?
No. It's to increase the effectiveness of outgoing ordnance. To
_control_ your fire. To make it more likely that every target is hit.
Hmm.. never would've guessed that. But okay...
You guesses are almost invariably wrong -- some people (not I) would
suggest you first decide on your guess and then pick anything else as it
would likely have a higher probability of being right in your case.
BTW: Here's something that came up about Underground Manufacture
of guns in quantity which you earlier thought was impossible.
Interestingly
this happened in Australia which has instituted draconian gun control laws
which function as near bans in many cases, and the specific weapons are
fully automatic where are clearly illegal both now and even before the
most recent gun bans were enacted.
Is there such thing as a non-draconian gun law, iyo?
Perhaps but there are none that a Constitution, that can pass strict
strutiny.
"These are very powerful weapons, tailor-made for criminals and serious
criminals."
...
"The silencer is a sinister element," he said. "That is very, very
serious...."
Silencers should be banned. Pro-gun can make a reasonable argument
that guns aren't strictly for killing people, but a silencer has only
one purpose.
Like the way they use it in Europe where it is considered RUDE to show
up at the range with a sound suppressor, just like it is rude to let your
dog bark all night or play your stereo too loud etc.
I don't like dogs barking all night, or loud stereos after midnight
either, but none has ever threatened my life.
Really -- the purpose of a silencer is to reduce unwanted noise, prevent
damage to your hearing, and it can be abused but seldom is except on
TV by criminals.
If one is defending one's country, home, or self, one doesn't want to
be quiet.
I'll let the military know so they can unload their stock of silencers
(wow, those SEALs and Delta guys are real idiots).
I'll let those folks at the range know so they can continue wearing
hearing protection.
I'll let hunters know so anytime they fire and scare away all game
within a square mile that they are better off without silencers.
I'll let the person defending his home against multiple assailants
that firing a gun won't pinpoint your location to those assailants.
btw - I'm not denying these weapons can be manufactured by a skilled
machinist w/ a fully equipped shop; I'm saying it's easier and cheaper
for the maniac to go to the local gun shop. Probably get a better
weapon as well.
You did earlier because you claimed that when such gun shops were closed
there would be no practical way to produce firearms.
No, I claimed there would be no way to cheaply mass produce said
firearms.
No, the argument was that you'd ban guns to prevent handgun murders.
We argued back that that would simply disarm the law abiding. The
criminals would have guns because:
* they'd get them from the black market
* they could make them
* they could steal them from the police/military
Next you were shown that guns don't have to be massed produced. Just
enough to equip the criminals - doable in any locale.
You denied that by simply waving your arms and declaring it couldn't
be done, contrary to evidence given you showing the opposite.
You have just admitted (what we already knew): Gun bans don't work and
they CANNOT work.
What are your feelings on nuclear arms restrictions?
For GOD SAKE drop that idiotic question. You've been told multiple
times we are limiting this debate to individual arms. Nobody is
biting on your attempted misdirection.
.
- References:
- Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- From: swamp
- Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Prev by Date: Re: __ Why Gun-loons will always lose -- D.C. Court Case Puts All American Gun Laws in Danger? __
- Next by Date: Re: Dave Kopel's Second Amendment Newsletter
- Previous by thread: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
