Fine, that's you. However, the question is whether you can speak for all the other "gun control" people. That term is just an attempt at being benign for the msot part. If they did come outright to say "We want guns banned. End of story.", they won't get much traction. Therefore, they just say "We want to control it.". I have seen this tactic work before. In Singapore, guns are banned. Few things else are. Curfew? Nope. Alcohol? Nope. Public transportation shuts down around midnight. Taxis get big bucks for after midnight work. Cars? You probably can't afford it. Is there a curfew? No. Alcohol. "Persons under the age of eighteen are prohibited from consuming intoxicating beverages on the premises". What does this mean? Can my 6 yo son buy me a 6 pack? Sure. They tax the hell out of it though. Again, no ban. Just make it so difficult it becomes virtually impossible.

But they need to be committing a crime first. You can't go frisking every Tom, Dick or Harry because they wear gang colors. A cop can't ask you to go against the wall and search you for drugs or guns. So in theory, yes. Implementation is going to be difficult.

Again, can I ban it without changing the constitution? Sure. Say I put a $1000 tax on a gun sale. Did I change the constitution? No. It is simply a "user tax". Would most people be able to afford it? Probably not. Is it a ban? No. Do I make it impossible for you to do it? Sure.

Didn't you already admit that gun bans or making them plentiful won't change much? I can't stop someone from killing someone else. Might as well live in an area where the guns at least are a deterrent for the house breakers

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

That's nice, however you do realize that once a registration scheme is in place, whoever's in power after you still has access to that information. Giving the politicians power doesn't mean they will use it in the way you intend.

No, they don't. Have you seen the crime statistics for Washington, D.C. lately?

I disagree. I think taking away the means of self defense of those who are not gang members/criminals is a bad idea.

Many gang members are under 21. It is already illegal for those under 21 to have a handgun. Those gang members who have survived to age 21 often already have felony convictions. It is already illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun. Gang members almost always conceal their weapons, and even those few who might qualify don't bother getting CCW permits. In all states except Vermont and Alaska (neither of which has any major gang problems) it is illegal to carry concealed without a permit. Inner city police have lots of problems-lack of reasons to arrest gang members is not one of them.

Heller vs District of Columbia is headed for SCOTUS as we speak. And I don't find the wording of the second amendment to be the list bit vague.

That might be why I live in northern Nevada.


More guns=less crime. See Jon Lott

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

DieselAddict and Tankdriver,
You are both two peas in a pod. I have tried to explain things to you in a sane manner. I have tried to give you enough information so that you could do your own research and maybe try to understand some of my, and others points. By statements in your most recent posts you still do not have even a clue. Here you go:
-The Second Amendment is not in any way vague. The only people who think it is vague are the anti-gun crowd. Even the top law professors in this country, who are admittedly anti-gun have openly stated that yes, it means exactly what it states. Arms are guns. Period. This is not MY interpretation, its THE interpretation. If you did a bit of research you would know that.
-A 50 caliber rifle is not a crime weapon. Never has been, never will be. Too big, too expensive and not useful to any criminal. The VA snipers used a .223 which is a sub-rifle caliber round. Its not particularly powerful, actually on the very low end of rifle power relatively.
-Bans that have been enacted in Britain, Australia and Canada have been enacted on the hysteria following a very public and tragic shooting. They have also been progressive, just a few restrictions at a time, until there are no guns left. The bans have been promised to help crime, to be inexpensive to enforce, etc. They have been none of what they have been promised in every case. Gun rights groups in these countries have continued to try to reverse these laws but they have been unsuccessful, even when they have popular support. One of the problems they face is THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT! The people of these countries have rights at the permission of their governments. Not the other way around, as we are lucky enough to.

I could go on and on but you both keep proving your complete ignorance of the topic at hand.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

The only person here who doesn't have a clue seems to be you. I don't know what you're reading, but it can't be my posts.

I didn't say anything about the vagueness of the 2nd amendment. But I would like to correct you on one thing here. Arms are not guns. Guns are arms. Swords are arms. Knives are arms. I think it's pretty clear the second amendment meant and means arms available. While it may not have any qualifiers, I do think for public safety weapons like RPGs and landmines should not be allowed.

Obviously you are not reading my posts because I never wrote that the 50cal is a criminal's weapon. I merely used it as an example. I know what the snipers used, I lived in the DC area (most of the snipers' victims were shot in MD, along my route to work) when they were on the loose.


I don't know about the expensiveness of restrictions in other countries, do you have a link to that? As for crime, I think with both Bot's and Zeus's posts, it's pretty clear no one can draw any kind of meaningful conclusion regarding rates v. private ownership. Does crime go up as a result of restrictive ownership laws? No one has proven that. Does crime go down with restrictive ownerships laws? No one has proven that either. My suspicion is that crime rates are crime rates regardless of what weaponry is available to the public. I suppose it may theoretically be possible to prove mortality rates for various weapons, but not crime rates.


The only one proving ignorance here is you. No matter what I write, you assign to me the anti-gun crazy label. Tell you what, it'll be easier to have this discussion if you just tell me what my position is, so I don't waste time with discerning points.

__________________
1984 300TD

Oh well.

It has been proven that restriction on lawful ownership increases crime.

The FBI proved it, there is a big write up by two scholars that proved it by an exhastive research study.
All the articles are on the NRA wbsites.

Look at Great Britain, heck, not only did violent armed crime increase due to restrictions, but the poor saps who protect their home and property are considered the criminals when they harm the bad guys and do long jail sentences while the criminals go home with a slap on the wrist.
No freaking joke.

Look the district of columbia with the highest crime rate in the nation.
The good guys are disarmed and the bad guys have free reign.

You watch how quickly that crap stops if the CCW laws ever get passed.

Go look the articles up on the NRA websites, they are very informative and written by some pretty smart guys. I don't have the time to feed you the articles myself, but you naysayers always want proof, but when presented with it, you still deny it.

Forgot to mention, regarding the 50 caliber sniper rifles, isn't that something like what those two killers in Virginia and surrounding states terrorized the population with about 5 years ago? Who the hell needs weapons like that or full automatics for self-defense at home or hunting? I fully support an outright ban on those weapons. If not, you might as well allow people to own RPG launchers, bombs and artillery.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a red-dot sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. It should be noted that this rifle is not generally considered a sniper rifle even though scoped versions of it are used in long distance shooting competitions for ranges up to 600 yards. The ability and distance of the shots do not meet the skill sets of a military sniper. None of the shots involved in the killings were particularly difficult and many professionals in the law enforcement and military communities resented the use of the term "sniper" to describe the shooters.

Who the hell needs guns like black powder for hunting too? People do shoot these guns and get a kick out of them. Is the modern gun more efficient? Sure. Why do they still dress up and shoot black powder then? Why do people hunt with them? What about bows and arrows? There are many who do shoot these guns for sport, target, etc, etc. If I wanted to play sniper, I'd use a 30-06. That cartridge has probably killed more deer than any other. Easy to get and use. 50 cal is way too big for that sort of action.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Yeah, but what's the potential for damage from a black powder gun? The reason for banning high-powered rifles and machine guns is obvious. I understand some may want these toys to play with innocently, but I think the risk to the public is just too great. Already in some places the police are being out-gunned by criminals. Is that really in the public's interest?

If our democracy mostly works as most of us believe, then it will ultimately be the people deciding the fate of guns. While a $1000 sales tax on guns might not require a constitutional change, it would still be extremely hard to pass in congress and even if congress passed it, those who voted for it would soon be voted out of office and the law would be reversed if the public didn't support it.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

What is in the public's best interest is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We already have laws in place to do just that...we just need to enforce those laws. Banning guns only serves to disarm the law abiding citizen making them easier targets for the bad guys. History shows us that prohibition does not work, it has never worked, and it is reasonable to say that it will never work.

That's inaccurate. Criminals get plenty of guns through legal purchase. NY had a huge problem with the gun shows in the Southern states. People would go down and buy car loads of guns legally and sell them on the street back in NY.
Not to mention the ease of private sales. It's silly to think that limiting legal availability doesn't limit illegal availability. Of course, black market weapons would still exist, but with the .50 cal rifle as an example, where would a criminal get one if they were banned nationally? From warehouse and/or shipment theft, corrupt employees of said warehousing/shipping, and guns smuggled into the country from abroad. That would by nature limit supply vs. going to any store or gun show or private sale to obtain one.

The 'only disarms the law abiding' is a bad argument. Aside from the fact that it obviously limits supply, as evidenced by some posts already, some law abiding would switch to not law abiding if the rules changed.

That's not to say I think the .50 cal should or shouldn't be banned. I'm on the fence on where to draw the lines. I don't think people should be allowed to RPGs or claymore mines or M1 Abrams. A .50 cal, I don't know.

__________________
1984 300TD

How so? Are they being used to commit crimes? How many 50 BMGs do you see floating around in Chevy Caprices? Those guns are hard to shoot and expensive too. Now, if I were to rob a bank, what would I use? My 357 Mag or my 500 S&W Mag? One of them I can get ammo at Wal*Mart. The other, I have to go to a larger gun store. Otherwise, what do you expect me to do with an empty gun? Hit you on the head with it as a club? Go "Bang" and expect you to drop dead?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I agree with what tankdriver said, but again to clarify I'm not for banning all guns (I'm not saying tankdriver said so either). I also agree that we need to enforce the laws we already have, and that goes beyond guns (immigration comes to mind), but a few extra laws wouldn't hurt, like having to register and thus undergo background checks even when buying used guns.

aklim, yes high-powered/automatic weapons do get used in crimes. The Beltway "sniping" is just one example. Another one is the 1997 L.A. bank robbery with AK47's if I remember correctly. I just don't see the need for ordinary citizens to own such powerful weapons, but that's just my opinion.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

That's semi-automatic weapons with the infamous bayonet lug, right? Has restricting the bayonet lug issue resulted in a change in criminal utilization or lethality of the weapons?

B

An AK-47 is powerful? Really? I'd take a 30-06 over an AK any day of the week. BTW, you do know that an AK uses a 7.62 bullet, right? Somewheres in the range of a 30 caliber. More power and more versatility in the 30-06 cartridge. Lets not even talk accuracy. Now if you are talking about a 375H&H or a 416 Rigby that is used for say Cape Buffalo, would I be nervous if you had one? Absolutely not. Those are exotic weapons. Kinda like if you had a H&K G11.

What is your definition of "Powerful"?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow