View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #1
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Jimmy Carter:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/op...r=2&ref=global

    THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

    When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

    I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

    But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

    An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

    A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

    Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

    Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

    What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

    Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

    The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
    So:
    Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-27-09 at 03:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,976

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    no. carter and anyone who buys into this nonsense is a hoplophobic buffoon.


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  3. #3
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Lets look at Carter's Op-ed:

    THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994
    .
    This is supposed to present the fascade of bi-partisan agreement on the issue.
    All it really means is he, Reagan, GHWB and WJBC were all wrong.

    When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation...
    Did any of these organziations provide concrete evidence that their officers, in terms of their safety while on duty, drew a direct benefit from the 'awb'?
    If so... what was it?
    If not... then why did they support the continuation of the ban?

    ...called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
    This is, of course, fiction.
    GWB publicly endorsed the continuation of the 'awb':
    USATODAY.com - Federal ban on assault weapons expires
    Congress, however, flatly refused to take up the issue.

    I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
    This is designed to protray JC as a pro-gun American, living in the best traditions of same. This is designed to add credibility to the next para...

    (Ever notice how the anti-gun side always does this? "I support the 2nd amandment, but...")

    But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.
    Really, do I need to comment here?
    Yes, I suppose I do.
    1: What guns YOU want do not in any way create a sound argument regarding what guns I have a right to own;
    2: False premise, that the ONLY reason someone might want to own an ;assault weapon' is to kill policemen;
    3: False premise, that the ONLY reason someone might want to own an 'assault weapon' is to shoot up a school;
    4: False premise, that 'assault weapons' are commonly used to kill police officers;
    5: False premise, that 'assault weapons' are commonly used to shoot up schools

    That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
    Obviously, if the argument, above, is why 'assault weapons' "must" be banned, then there's no sound reason ti ban them.

    I wonder:
    What does JC think of politcians that refuse to try to ban 'assault weapons' because they know it will cost them personal and partisan political power?
    After all, if it "must" be done, then doesn't their retention of power take a back seat in importance?

    An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons
    This has been addressed.

    but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
    So what?
    If the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the abridgement of the right to the free exercise of religion, would that make it OK?

    A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.
    See above.

    Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban
    Its no suprise that he is dismayed by the people that oppose his desire to infringe on the rights of law abiding Americans.

    ...and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
    I agree - if you REALLY believe that 'assault weapons' MUST be banned, then you should go after the ban regardless of what it will do to you politically.
    However, those that support this ban are more concerned with their own personal and partisan political power to do what "must" be done.

    Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us....
    Wait...
    He's arguing FOR a ban on firearms, and then arging that gun owners dont need to worry about their guns being banned..?

    and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
    How does bannng 'assault weapons' --not-- illustrate a threat to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

    Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty
    This is, of course, completely unsupprtable.
    JC knows this, and so, this means his statement to this effect is a bald-faced loe.

    In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows
    .
    Ah, the gun show 'loophole'. Still trying to sell this one.
    "Private gun dealers" do not exist -- you are a licensed dealer or a private citizen.

    What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people?
    What guns are "designed to kill people"?
    If you use one of these guns and do NOT kill someone, have you used it incorrectly?

    In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
    What % of guns does that 30k represent?
    0.01%? So, 99.99% of guns are NOT used to kill someone.
    Where's the problem?

    Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
    "Advanced weaponry"...like the 60-yr old AK47 and the 45-yr old AR-15?
    And, how does crime in Mexico create an argument for infringing on the riughts of law-abiding Americans?

    Never mind that the "imports" wee illegal in the first place...

    The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons...
    This is the same lame argument WR keeps making, one that has been thoroughly trounced -- it is based on the false dichotomy and false premise that the only "responible" actions in this regard are those that he/they think are responsible.

    We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
    Two things:
    1) I agree: if you REALLY believe that 'assault weapons' MUST be banned, then you should go after the ban regardless of what it will do to you politically.
    However, those that support this ban are more concerned with their own personal and partisan political power to do what "must" be done.
    2) that 'assault weapons' are 'designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend' is an outright lie.

    Thus:
    This is nothing more than the old, tired, re-hashed and demonstarbly false anti-gun dreck that we always hear.

    I wonder if the people that think this makes a "strong case for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban" will address these issues with Carter's piece...
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-27-09 at 03:33 PM.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Engagement!
    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,945

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Not in the least. Its nothing but gross over exaggerations or obvious misrepresentation of things in hopes of appealing to emotion and paranoia instead of logic and reason.

    Whoever acts like its only republicans that use the "politics of fear" are kidding themselves.
    You down with TPP?

  5. #5
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    No, because... Jimmy Carter said it.
    I am for banning certain assault weapons but can't come to take anything this guy says seriously.
    And the idea that the NRA or the "gun lobby" somehow controlls Congress is simply ridiculous.

  6. #6
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    No, because... Jimmy Carter said it.
    I am for banning certain assault weapons....
    Like...?
    Why those and not the others?

  7. #7
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Like...?
    Why those and not the others?
    Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.

  8. #8
    Another day in paradise..
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    67,976

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.


    so by that logic you are for banning:


    cigarettes
    suv's
    motorcycles
    excessivly large tv's
    buffets
    fatty foods


    i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.

    Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.

    If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?


    Matthew 10:34
    Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    No. Because it violates the Second Amendment.

    Also,

    No. Because Carter is an idiot.

  10. #10
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
    I'm not trying to be difficult here - understand that I am genuinely curious.
    Which specific 'assault weapons' do you believe should be banned?
    Can you name one or more?

Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •