Burglar Wasn’t Expecting This 70 Year Old Couple To Be Armed

[1965hawks]

To: D2D

in re: Replies # 29 and #30

When I saw President Clinton's image appear on my computer screen, I thought you had provided evidence to support your and sweetwater5s9's claim that Clinton had actually said "only the police should have handguns." But instead, in actuality, the videos you provided were eloquent and logical reasons for the United States to adopt strict and common-sense gun laws like those in effect in the world's other developed countries. Thanks for providing us more evidence in support of gun control, D2D. Your insightfulness is noted and appreciated.

[jst-the-fax]

I wonder if hd realizes this kid was deranged...and stole each of the weapons used in his murderist rampage? Secondly...what kind of damage could this very same deranged liberal killer, have wrought with a properly devised chemical bomb?

[1965hawks]

jst-the-fax: The old adage-- "[W]hen guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"--will become reality, with liberal policies to blame[.]

jst-the-fax,

You're not citing an adage; you're parroting a shopworn NRA myth.

The gun lobby’s refrain is, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” conveying the idea that gun control will never be effective in preventing criminal access to guns.  Leaving aside the red herring of “outlawing guns,” the one category of guns that has long been subject to a strict federal licensing and registration system – machine guns – is an insignificant crime problem, even though machine guns have an obvious appeal to criminals.  The National Rifle Association has admitted that, after over 50 years of strict federal regulation, possession of machine guns “has never been a crime problem.”  According to federal data, machine guns account for around 0.1% of guns traced to crime.

Oh, by the way, "old adage" is redundant; an adage, by definition, is old.

adage: an old familiar saying.

And, furthermore, an adage is also defined as an old and well-known saying that expresses a general truth. But, as I pointed out above, the NRA's bumper sticker slogan is not truthworthy.

[jst-the-fax]

hawk,

You certainly are an amusing little gal...and we're glad you keep posting here, just for the psychotic humor you provide.   

[D2D]

Indeed, 1965hawks seems to think so long as one person has a gun in a given nation,  state or city guns are not banned!

His totalitarian views are un-American!

[HK91-762mm]

He is useful in that he makes a prime example of why we need to get out the gun vote

[1965hawks]

jst-the-fax: How do you propose we stop baned [LOL] handguns from coming across the Mexican boarder, when we cannot stop mexicans and drugs from crossing the boarder.

jst-the-fax,

Explain how gun bans and smuggling is relevant in this discussion about an armed, elderly couple confronting a burglar.

[D2D]

How is it not relevant?

Gun bans only strip the law abiding of their rights!

Criminals can get as many guns as they want at any time they want!

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: The semi-auto rifle ban The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was dumb.

Indeed it was, sweetwater5s9. And here are the major reasons why it was dumb:

The federal assault weapons ban was implemented in 1994 and ended in 2004, when Congress allowed it to expire. There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives. A more stringent or longer-lasting ban might well have been more effective.


The law [ formally titled the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act ] is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement Act of 1994. It banned the introduction of new assault weapons into commerce, and also banned new large capacity magazines that could accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The assault weapons ban was directed at semiautomatic firearms that adopt design features from infantry weapons that are useless in traditional civilian environments. Such weapons are in fact rarely used in routine criminal violence. The ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) had greater potential to make a difference; such magazines, which hold 30, 50, or even 100 rounds of ammunition, can be used with a wide variety of semiautomatic firearms (not just assault weapons) and allow the shooter to fire many times without pausing to reload. That is a real advantage to rampage shooters bent on killing as many people as possible. There were 12 incidents between 2007 and 2012 with eight or more casualties where the shooter used a large-capacity magazine--including the infamous massacres at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown.

The details of the 1994 ban undercut its effectiveness. Assault weapons and LCMs already manufactured were "grandfathered," so they could continue to be bought and sold. There were something like 25 million LCMs available for import from Europe. Eventually the ban on newly produced LCMs would have reduced their availability but 10 years was not enough o dry up the available supply.

Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss, The Gun Debate: what everyone need t know, Oxford Press (2014), p. 135.


You're absolutely correct, sweetwater5s9, the assault weapons ban of 1994 was dumb. It really wasn't a ban at all.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-15/news/0409150052_1_gun-ban-weapons-under-new-names-assault-weapons-ban


 

[wxzyw]

How is it not relevant?

Gun bans only strip the law abiding of their rights!

Criminals can get as many guns as they want at any time they want!

As we saw what happened in France a gun-ban country!

[Local5th]

You're absolutely correct, sweetwater5s9, the assault weapons ban of 1994 was dumb. It really wasn't a ban at all.

When you ban the weapons used least in murders you are dumb.

A common liberal flaw. You go after the wrong thing. You go after honest gun owners when you should be going after criminals.

But since your goal is not really to save lives, that's understandable. And that's why you are opposed.

[1965hawks]

Local5th: When you ban the weapons used least in murders you are dumb.


That's not what was dumb about the  assault weapons ban, Local5th. It didn't last long enough and was riddled with loopholes. For example, after the ban, gun makers marketed "legalized" versions of the AR-15
semiautomatic rifle
, which was exactly the same as the outlawed version, except for a few minor alterations..


http://www.businessinsider.com/us-assault-weapons-ban-had-flaws-2012-12




A common liberal flaw. You go after the wrong thing.


I'll agree with you there. A handgun ban would had been more logical.


You go after honest gun owners when you should be going after criminals.

That's a common (and illogical) argument used by gun nuts, Local5th: There's no way of guaranteeing a person will remain  "honest" or "law-abiding." Therefore, laws--including gun laws--must apply to every body. Self-proclaiming yourself as being honest and law-abiding is not a guarantee that you'll never  use a firearm to commit a crime. Isn't that right, Local5th? 

But since your goal is not really to save lives, that's understandable. And that's why you are opposed.

Truth is, Local5th, saving lives isn't really your goal. In actuality, your goal is to rid yourself of governmental authority. In actually, you're opposed to gun control. You're opposed to the idea that the mean old federal government has power and authority to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms. And that's anathema to you gun fetishists. Isn't that right, Local5th?