Most people believe we're discussing small arms specifically.PlayboyPenguin said:
- small arms, firearms designed primarily to be carried and fired by one person and, generally, held in the hands, as distinguished from heavy arms, or artillery.
Need versus Want In America
- Thread starter Plumber576
- Start date
- Status
- small arms, firearms designed primarily to be carried and fired by one person and, generally, held in the hands, as distinguished from heavy arms, or artillery.
Twycross
Member
Because hunting can be regulated, or banned. And certain types of weapons banned from hunting (first explosives, then full-auto, then semiauto with more than so many rounds in the mag, then rifles, etc).
What? You've never had a secret desire to nuke the moon?
Brother in Arms
Member
The 2nd ammendment of the United state constitution reads:
"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."
bear Arms, and shall not infringed does not limit only small arms. Is a cannon not an arm? Indeed in the Revolutionary war period and later private cititzens did own Cannons particulary those who owned sailing vessels. So arms does not mean exclusively small arms.
Zen21Dao said it very well:
"Keep in mind. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t GIVE people the right to keep and bear arms. This is a right the founding fathers felt was a natural God given right. What the 2nd Amendment does is forbid the Government from limiting this right. And at that time the intention was keep it where each citizen could own the same weapons used by the military."
The idea is to protect the people from the government getting to powerful. Many of the founding fathers hated the idea of a standing army(We have one now) or even a Select Militia(like the National guard).
And of course now they want to protect us from "dangerous assualt weapons" my question is dangerous to whom? Perhaps its because they are dangerous to tyrants.
Even Niccolo Machiavelli thought disarming the people was a bad idea, and he wrote several works most notably the Prince, which is more or less a handbook for dictators.
"It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will not obey willingly one who is unarmed;or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants."
Our government is supposed to serve us, and if they are armed and we are not we will not remain safe.
Brother in Arms
"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."
bear Arms, and shall not infringed does not limit only small arms. Is a cannon not an arm? Indeed in the Revolutionary war period and later private cititzens did own Cannons particulary those who owned sailing vessels. So arms does not mean exclusively small arms.
Zen21Dao said it very well:
"Keep in mind. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t GIVE people the right to keep and bear arms. This is a right the founding fathers felt was a natural God given right. What the 2nd Amendment does is forbid the Government from limiting this right. And at that time the intention was keep it where each citizen could own the same weapons used by the military."
The idea is to protect the people from the government getting to powerful. Many of the founding fathers hated the idea of a standing army(We have one now) or even a Select Militia(like the National guard).
And of course now they want to protect us from "dangerous assualt weapons" my question is dangerous to whom? Perhaps its because they are dangerous to tyrants.
Even Niccolo Machiavelli thought disarming the people was a bad idea, and he wrote several works most notably the Prince, which is more or less a handbook for dictators.
"It is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will not obey willingly one who is unarmed;or that any unarmed man will remain safe among armed servants."
Our government is supposed to serve us, and if they are armed and we are not we will not remain safe.
Brother in Arms
Why do I need a Ferrari Enzo? So I can crash it of course!
Check this out!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=3927255
Check this out!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=3927255
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Quote:
>I don't believe the use of a nuclear bomb is ever justifiable.<
********************
A couple hundred thousand GIs who were staging to invade Japan in 1945 would probably have argued that one down.
Another:
>Why do hoplophobic spittle flying antigun control freak morons always make 'hunting' a prerequisite for firearms ownership?<
***********************
The standard response to this type could/should be:
2A doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods,
and it doesn't have anything to do with hunting.
And Twycross probably nailed it with:
>Because hunting can be regulated, or banned. And certain types of weapons banned from hunting.<
*******************
The power to tax (substitute regulate) is the power to destroy...and that is the ultimate end-game for these people. Don't buy into that "Sporting Purposes" rhetoric. It's a feint to draw our attention away from the true agenda.
Cheers!
Quote:
>I don't believe the use of a nuclear bomb is ever justifiable.<
********************
A couple hundred thousand GIs who were staging to invade Japan in 1945 would probably have argued that one down.
Another:
>Why do hoplophobic spittle flying antigun control freak morons always make 'hunting' a prerequisite for firearms ownership?<
***********************
The standard response to this type could/should be:
2A doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods,
and it doesn't have anything to do with hunting.
And Twycross probably nailed it with:
>Because hunting can be regulated, or banned. And certain types of weapons banned from hunting.<
*******************
The power to tax (substitute regulate) is the power to destroy...and that is the ultimate end-game for these people. Don't buy into that "Sporting Purposes" rhetoric. It's a feint to draw our attention away from the true agenda.
Cheers!
Whirlwind06
Member
purple hearts
The US military has just used up the supply of purple hearts. That it ordered in advance for the planned invasion on Japan.
1911Tuner said:
The US military has just used up the supply of purple hearts. That it ordered in advance for the planned invasion on Japan.
'Card
I'm glad this example has worked for you, but this tact can backfire. You have just described a "high powered sniper rifle" to an anti.
If the anti's are ever successful in banning handguns and semi-auto "assault" rifles, they will then turn to "sniper" rifles and eventually to shotguns.
Thank goodness Cheney didn't hit his friend point blank with a 12ga. blast. There is a reason that a scatter gun makes a good HD firearm.
Another thing that we in the gun culture have to be diligent about is to keep the terminology straight. You and I don't buy assault rifles, we buy semi-auto rifles. Most modern military assault rifles are either full auto or select fire. What was the original point again? poppy
I'm glad this example has worked for you, but this tact can backfire. You have just described a "high powered sniper rifle" to an anti.
If the anti's are ever successful in banning handguns and semi-auto "assault" rifles, they will then turn to "sniper" rifles and eventually to shotguns.
Thank goodness Cheney didn't hit his friend point blank with a 12ga. blast. There is a reason that a scatter gun makes a good HD firearm.
Another thing that we in the gun culture have to be diligent about is to keep the terminology straight. You and I don't buy assault rifles, we buy semi-auto rifles. Most modern military assault rifles are either full auto or select fire. What was the original point again? poppy
Randy in Arizona
Member
[QUOTE='Card]That's a common error. Automatic weapons are already illegal for the average citizen. Assault rifles are semi-automatics. There's a huge difference, but one the media and the non-shooting public never seem to get a grasp on.[/QUOTE]
Wrong! Some states that have not been blessed with acute nannyism do not restrict the right to own NFA firearms.:
[QUOTE='Card]We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.[/QUOTE]
I do not accept YOUR limits!!:
[QUOTE='Card]- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.[/QUOTE]
I own and enjoy shooting registered NFA firearms, 'Nuf said!:
You obviously have never dealt with bindweed! (wild morning glory)
Wrong! Some states that have not been blessed with acute nannyism do not restrict the right to own NFA firearms.:
[QUOTE='Card]We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.[/QUOTE]
I do not accept YOUR limits!!:
[QUOTE='Card]- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.[/QUOTE]
I own and enjoy shooting registered NFA firearms, 'Nuf said!:
Hellenistic Riot said:
You obviously have never dealt with bindweed! (wild morning glory)
HankB
Member
Some people just like the idea of telling other people what to do.
I don't need a .50 BMG rifle, and don't see why anyone else would.
I don't particularly want a .50 BMG rifle.
But I absolutely support YOUR right to have one if you WANT one, with very few caveats. (If you're not an illegal alien, convicted pedophile, dope addict, etc., you're good to go.)
I don't need a .50 BMG rifle, and don't see why anyone else would.
I don't particularly want a .50 BMG rifle.
But I absolutely support YOUR right to have one if you WANT one, with very few caveats. (If you're not an illegal alien, convicted pedophile, dope addict, etc., you're good to go.)
M.E.Eldridge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 367
In my experience the needs vs. wants argument is often used to justify anti-gun types who assume that guns can only be used for hunting unless they're in the hands of law-enforcement types who then can use them for protection.
I also find that the whole needs vs. wants is almost exclusively used by some of the most frivolous types and that people especially use it against gun ownership. American consumers buy most often in line with their wants.
For example no one really needs designer clothing or 50 pairs of shoes.
No one really needs a fancy car either and the typical soccer mom doesn't really need an SUV to take the kid to practice or go shopping at the mall
I also find that the whole needs vs. wants is almost exclusively used by some of the most frivolous types and that people especially use it against gun ownership. American consumers buy most often in line with their wants.
For example no one really needs designer clothing or 50 pairs of shoes.
No one really needs a fancy car either and the typical soccer mom doesn't really need an SUV to take the kid to practice or go shopping at the mall
Okay, I'll play. Need versus want.
What firearms do I NEED? Not sure, because life is uncertain. If I am absolutely never, ever going to need to protect myself, my family, or others or never, ever going to shoot an animal for food (play along with me, please), then I don't need a firearm.
But, human beings and society as they are, cause me to entertain "what if scenarios," so I say I need the following firearms to potentially protect or feed:
1 high-caliber long rifle (at least)
1 medium-high caliber semi-auto carbine
1 high caliber revolver
1 high-caliber pistol
1 .22 firearm (long, short, revolver, pistol, whatever)
The rest of the firearms I own are perhaps best described as "wants." Want to have more, want to practice, want a few for family or friends to use, want to show off, want to collect, want to accumulate, want to have an addiction, want to go broke."
Should I lay on my deathbed having never, ever required any of these to defend or feed, then my dying words might be, "Honey, I love you and all my family, and all those wonderful friends we have. Oh, and the guns. I didn't need them. But I sure did want them."
A related quotation from Machiavelli:
"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."
What firearms do I NEED? Not sure, because life is uncertain. If I am absolutely never, ever going to need to protect myself, my family, or others or never, ever going to shoot an animal for food (play along with me, please), then I don't need a firearm.
But, human beings and society as they are, cause me to entertain "what if scenarios," so I say I need the following firearms to potentially protect or feed:
1 high-caliber long rifle (at least)
1 medium-high caliber semi-auto carbine
1 high caliber revolver
1 high-caliber pistol
1 .22 firearm (long, short, revolver, pistol, whatever)
The rest of the firearms I own are perhaps best described as "wants." Want to have more, want to practice, want a few for family or friends to use, want to show off, want to collect, want to accumulate, want to have an addiction, want to go broke."
Should I lay on my deathbed having never, ever required any of these to defend or feed, then my dying words might be, "Honey, I love you and all my family, and all those wonderful friends we have. Oh, and the guns. I didn't need them. But I sure did want them."
A related quotation from Machiavelli:
"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."
ctdonath
Member
Seems the "no need" argument is ignorant of the future, and focuses exclusively on the right-now.
A: "You don't need that!"
B: "If I do need that in the future, there surely won't be time to run down to the store, buy one, wait 3 days for a background check, bring it back, and THEN use it!"
Like fire extinguishers, I have several despite desperately hoping I never need them.
A: "You don't need that!"
B: "If I do need that in the future, there surely won't be time to run down to the store, buy one, wait 3 days for a background check, bring it back, and THEN use it!"
Like fire extinguishers, I have several despite desperately hoping I never need them.
Being allowed only what you "need" in life conjures up images of 1984 or the "...from each according to ability, to each according to need..." kind of thinking.
Rights, needs and wants are all entirely different things, but it isn't the job of government to decide any of them.
Life is pretty bland if you can only have what you need.
Rights, needs and wants are all entirely different things, but it isn't the job of government to decide any of them.
Life is pretty bland if you can only have what you need.
White Horseradish
Member
Randy in Arizona said:
States do not, yet the feds do.
Have you considered the idea that you might not be average? NFA firearms are restricted to many people by their price and availability.
Carl N. Brown
Member
All one needs is a nice cell in a dungeon, a hole in the floor for sanitation,
bread and water through the hole in the door twice a day, some straw
to sleep on.
That's needs. Part of being human is just wanting stuff without a need.
I don't need three hundred books, two hundred VHs and DVDs, several
dozen CDs or tape casettes, or more than one gun. I want them and
that's that. And all it should be.
bread and water through the hole in the door twice a day, some straw
to sleep on.
That's needs. Part of being human is just wanting stuff without a need.
I don't need three hundred books, two hundred VHs and DVDs, several
dozen CDs or tape casettes, or more than one gun. I want them and
that's that. And all it should be.
I guess I could hunt with an enzo ferrari. My 88 BMW seemed like it was a deer attractor...
I think a mistake we make when we argue against limiting the 2nd amendment is trying to justify ownership and use of guns as opposed to asking why the person demanding justification doesn't also demand justification for our right to vote.
We certainly don't NEED the right to vote, do we? We have the government to tell us what's best for us...just as we have the government to protect us and feed us, so we don't need guns.
For that matter, we certainly don't NEED privacy...unless of course we have something to hide.
We don't NEED the right to not billet federal troops in our homes...i mean, the soldiers need roofs too.
There are all sorts of constitutionally protected rights we don't really need. Europe does just fine without them, right?
BULLroar.
I think we need to attack the crux of the problem. Need for hunting is not the issue. Personal freedom as protected by our Constitution is the issue. If there is no $200 tax to vote for Senate seats, then I have trouble understanding the $200 tax on transfers of automatic weapons. Yet, suggest a $200 tax on each vote cast to elect a Senator to someone who thinks all automatic weapons should be banned...their faces tend to turn red and their eyes explode.
Conniptions are funny.
I think a mistake we make when we argue against limiting the 2nd amendment is trying to justify ownership and use of guns as opposed to asking why the person demanding justification doesn't also demand justification for our right to vote.
We certainly don't NEED the right to vote, do we? We have the government to tell us what's best for us...just as we have the government to protect us and feed us, so we don't need guns.
For that matter, we certainly don't NEED privacy...unless of course we have something to hide.
We don't NEED the right to not billet federal troops in our homes...i mean, the soldiers need roofs too.
There are all sorts of constitutionally protected rights we don't really need. Europe does just fine without them, right?
BULLroar.
I think we need to attack the crux of the problem. Need for hunting is not the issue. Personal freedom as protected by our Constitution is the issue. If there is no $200 tax to vote for Senate seats, then I have trouble understanding the $200 tax on transfers of automatic weapons. Yet, suggest a $200 tax on each vote cast to elect a Senator to someone who thinks all automatic weapons should be banned...their faces tend to turn red and their eyes explode.
Conniptions are funny.
[QUOTE='Card]That's a common error. Automatic weapons are already illegal for the average citizen. Assault rifles are semi-automatics. There's a huge difference, but one the media and the non-shooting public never seem to get a grasp on.
We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.
- You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even though you have a right to free speech.
- You can't engage in human sacrifice, even though you have a right to freedom of religion.
- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.
Most of us would agree that most of those restrictions and limits are pretty reasonable and fair. The discussion is about where you draw the line and having a consistent policy behind it. Pointing out the absurdity in 'assault weapon'-hype is not the same as saying I should be allowed to have a basement full of nerve gas if I want to.[/QUOTE]
First, it is perfectly legal for me to own a full-auto weapon. My state doesn't prohibit it, and neither AFAIK does NC. What the 86 law did was make the selection of available full-auto weapons smaller every year. The costs have gone up significantly. An FFL, it seems, can buy a full auto dealer sample non transferable full-auto weapon for about one tenth the cost of a pre 86 (transferable) full-auto weapon...at least in the case of an AR15.
So while it may be perfectly legal, it is not economically feasible for most americans to own a full-auto AK...as much as some of us might like them. I live far enough from civilization that I need to be able to protect myself from rabid animals and armed and dangerous interlopers. It would be a significant while before cops could get here to protect me and my family, so it falls to me. Do I really think I'll need a full-auto weapon this week?
Nope. But if I *do* need one and I don't have one, then I'm kinda screwed. Thanks congress! For screwing me!
We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.
- You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even though you have a right to free speech.
- You can't engage in human sacrifice, even though you have a right to freedom of religion.
- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.
Most of us would agree that most of those restrictions and limits are pretty reasonable and fair. The discussion is about where you draw the line and having a consistent policy behind it. Pointing out the absurdity in 'assault weapon'-hype is not the same as saying I should be allowed to have a basement full of nerve gas if I want to.[/QUOTE]
First, it is perfectly legal for me to own a full-auto weapon. My state doesn't prohibit it, and neither AFAIK does NC. What the 86 law did was make the selection of available full-auto weapons smaller every year. The costs have gone up significantly. An FFL, it seems, can buy a full auto dealer sample non transferable full-auto weapon for about one tenth the cost of a pre 86 (transferable) full-auto weapon...at least in the case of an AR15.
So while it may be perfectly legal, it is not economically feasible for most americans to own a full-auto AK...as much as some of us might like them. I live far enough from civilization that I need to be able to protect myself from rabid animals and armed and dangerous interlopers. It would be a significant while before cops could get here to protect me and my family, so it falls to me. Do I really think I'll need a full-auto weapon this week?
Nope. But if I *do* need one and I don't have one, then I'm kinda screwed. Thanks congress! For screwing me!
NineseveN
member
[QUOTE='Card]
We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.
- You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even though you have a right to free speech.
- You can't engage in human sacrifice, even though you have a right to freedom of religion.
- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.
Most of us would agree that most of those restrictions and limits are pretty reasonable and fair. The discussion is about where you draw the line and having a consistent policy behind it. Pointing out the absurdity in 'assault weapon'-hype is not the same as saying I should be allowed to have a basement full of nerve gas if I want to.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is no such thing as a reasonable or fair restriction on a right that is inalienable and shall not be infringed.
You can say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control, that is not a fair or reasonable restriction; misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as a tool for treason against the government.
Furthermore, the limit to the right of expressing one's religion without interference from the government in regards t human sacrifice is also a flawed argument. The first amendment does not prohibit human sacrifices, however, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Being the victim of a ritual killing goes against the right to life, liberty and obviously the pursuit of happiness as declared in the Declaration of Independence...the constitution did not negate the validity of that document...in fact, it validated it with the following text in the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Your heart is sorta in the right place, but you're just not there yet.
Which is the problem, the RKBA was intended as a means for the common citizen to arm themselves with military arms in order to be able to defend against or rise up and conquer governmental tyranny. Simply having arms or other weapons is to enable one to engage in the human right of self-defense..
We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.
- You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even though you have a right to free speech.
- You can't engage in human sacrifice, even though you have a right to freedom of religion.
- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.
Most of us would agree that most of those restrictions and limits are pretty reasonable and fair. The discussion is about where you draw the line and having a consistent policy behind it. Pointing out the absurdity in 'assault weapon'-hype is not the same as saying I should be allowed to have a basement full of nerve gas if I want to.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is no such thing as a reasonable or fair restriction on a right that is inalienable and shall not be infringed.
You can say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control, that is not a fair or reasonable restriction; misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as a tool for treason against the government.
Furthermore, the limit to the right of expressing one's religion without interference from the government in regards t human sacrifice is also a flawed argument. The first amendment does not prohibit human sacrifices, however, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Being the victim of a ritual killing goes against the right to life, liberty and obviously the pursuit of happiness as declared in the Declaration of Independence...the constitution did not negate the validity of that document...in fact, it validated it with the following text in the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Your heart is sorta in the right place, but you're just not there yet.
Which is the problem, the RKBA was intended as a means for the common citizen to arm themselves with military arms in order to be able to defend against or rise up and conquer governmental tyranny. Simply having arms or other weapons is to enable one to engage in the human right of self-defense..
NineseveN
member
Hellenistic Riot said:
The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "sporting purposes". Much like Card, your heart seems to be in the right place, you're just not quite there yet.
M.E.Eldridge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 367
I've long understood that an average citizen can own a full-auto weapon and have always heard that its not an economic reality for many, but what is the actual cost of a class three weapon. I've seen many reviews for custom rifles in the $3-4,000 in gun rags but never anything about full-auto. Hell, I've seen info on .50 BMGs that cost 10 grand.
Manedwolf
member
I find it sadly amusing that the same people who will say "Well, you don't NEED an assault rifle" will then go out and blow their credit cards on a 42" plasma TV.
Of course, they don't NEED it...but try to get them to equate that.
Of course, they don't NEED it...but try to get them to equate that.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
One thing to keep in mind is that the anti-gun lobby WANT you to get sidetracked by that bait-and-switch into discussing the civilian ownership of automatic weapons.
Most people who bring up M16's and AK-47's do so because they think that's what the "assault weapons ban" covered--and that's what the prohibitionist lobby wants them to think. Getting sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not civilians should own NFA Title 2 automatic weapons is why the VPC invented the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch in the first place.
The best way to address this is to meet the bait-and-switch head-on, by pointing out that to own an M16 or an AK-47, you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance, sans only the polygraph, and that you can NOT buy M16's and military AK-47's at your local gun store. And oh, if you can pass the clearance process and get your form 4, prices range from $15,000 to $75,000. Then point out that the "assault weapon" issue is a bait-and-switch tactic by the anti-gun lobby, who talks about military guns while pushing to ban CIVILIAN firearms holding more than 10 rounds, or CIVILIAN rifles with the stock shaped a certain way.
I've been able to change quite a few minds over on Democratic Underground by pointing out that fact. There are a lot of people who support the AWB because they think any 18-year-old can stroll into a gun store with $350 and buy a machine gun, and informing them of the National Firearms Act often brings them around to an anti-AWB position.
One of the reasons people read magazines is to read about stuff that they themselves could never afford to own. Car and Driver regularly runs articles on Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and AMG-tweaked Mercedes, which most of us peons could never hope to own unless we had no family and were comfortable living in the trunk (assuming that the car in question actually has one).
I've seen a few NFA Title 2 automatic weapons under $5,000, but they are invariably cheaply made pistol-caliber subguns with little practical use (no offense to any subgun owners meant). A transferable Chinese AK-47 goes for around $15,000, which seems to be the starting point for most M16 type rifles. I recently saw an ad on Gunbroker or Guns America for an M16A2--for $75,000. That's nearly as much as we paid for our house.
I drove an '87 Toyota Camry for years until it was totaled a few weeks ago, with 235,000 miles on the clock. With the $900 or so I got from the insurance settlement and selling the car for salvage, I made a down payment on a nice nine-year-old car with only 131,000 miles on it, which for me is moving way up in the world. But given fiscal realities, I can't afford a NON-automatic AR-15, never mind a $15,000 M16.
I could afford a suppressed firearm or an SBR, and would have no trouble passing the background check, but the 1986 McClure-Volkmer act priced most Americans completely out of the Class III auto market forever.
Manedwolf said:
OH! Sir, I have a 60inch LCD projection screen HDTV.
I defy anyone into sports to watch a football game in HD on mine and then go back to regular TV...and then tell me he doesn't *need* such a TV.
And that TV is far cheaper than a full-auto except, perhaps, a mac.
...course there's no 3-6 month waiting period and I don't need my local sherrif's permission to own a 60 inch TV.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Hold!
RH Lee...PM sent. Ya'll play nice, now...
RH Lee...PM sent. Ya'll play nice, now...
- Status
