The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I would in all probability (in the following order):

- give the perp your address and tell him that you're filthy rich and you have some great stuff

- pray

- poop my granny bloomers

- show him my 2011 tax return, and ask him if he REALLY thinks I have anything of worth in this old house

- go into my raving lunatic persona so he fears for his life

- sic my 4 ninja attack cats on the perp

Glad to be of help, Nacho.

So whole debate comes down to:

I need a gun because some nogoodnik MIGHT break into my home and I will need it to defend myself-family-property;

OR

I don't want a gun in my home because one of us MIGHT accidentally off one of ourselves.

OR

is there more to it?

What is an assault riffle?

Is it like the 'assault rifle' that the politicians that know nothing about guns talk about to scare everybody? It is a nonsense term, a made-up term.

Machine guns (automatics) are already very highly regulated so that only a few collectors with special permits can own them.

Give me a definition of assault weapons. Somebody.

This entire debate is based on emotions. While all the mass shootings are tragic, the solutions being proposed will do nothing to stop deranged people from getting weapons to commit their heinous acts.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about the right of the American people to be able to protect themselves against their own government, should it turn tyrannical. Read some history.


Don't be one of the dopes that think tyranny can't happen here in America.

The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) 1994

Quote:In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Grenade launcher
Flash suppressor

For shotguns:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A capacity to hold more than five rounds

For handguns:

Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

pre 1994

Quote:The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.

Fully-automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully-automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

(01-17-2013 07:14 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  What is an assault riffle?

Is it like the 'assault rifle' that the politicians that know nothing about guns talk about to scare everybody? It is a nonsense term, a made-up term.

Machine guns (automatics) are already very highly regulated so that only a few collectors with special permits can own them.

Give me a definition of assault weapons. Somebody.

This entire debate is based on emotions. While all the mass shootings are tragic, the solutions being proposed will do nothing to stop deranged people from getting weapons to commit their heinous acts.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about the right of the American people to be able to protect themselves against their own government, should it turn tyrannical. Read some history.


Don't be one of the dopes that think tyranny can't happen here in America.

Milehigh...if you show up to a fight against Uncle Sam with a machine gun you still aren't going to like the outcome.

Under that train of thought, we should remove any restrictions on you owning nuclear weapons, and battleships.

(01-17-2013 11:04 AM)Nacho Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 10:37 AM)Tommyboy Wrote:  I'm not saying you should try to shoot them in the leg or something, aim for chest and center of mass, but is the point to kill them or is killing a side effect of defending self/family? In the latter case incapacitating or getting them to flee are equally successful outcomes, in the former the only success comes if they are dead on the floor.

Like many have said, you don't pull out a weapon unless you plan to use it.

Yes I know that, but what is the point, the intent, the goal, purpose etc. is it to kill the intruder or to defend self and family? Not what they are willing to do, but purpose of doing it.

Is the only successful outcome the intruder dead on the floor, or would the homeowner be equally successful if the intruder sees the gun drawn and flees, flees after getting shot, or is incapacitated and unable to do the harm they intended?

In the case in Georgia, was what the woman did a success? She didn't kill the guy, but she protected her kids, is that a success?

If in the case of the Georgia woman, I'd say it was a success in terms of self defense. None of her family was harmed and the intruder had a few more holes in him than before. Whether or not the intruder lived or died is not the metric.

Quote:Milehigh...if you show up to a fight against Uncle Sam with a machine gun you still aren't going to like the outcome.

Just who is going to fight the citizens? Soldiers swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to an administration. Doubtful many would be OK with following an unlawful order to turn their weapons on lawful American citizens. Plus, soldiers and LE personnel are people too, with families that they would like to return home to. They are not stupid enough to think that others won't turn on them if they become the local extension of tryants. Most would pass on that.

If the administration could not get our own military to take on this task and invited in, say, UN troops it would get really ugly. Think of how many tens of millions of ex-military are in this country, many very highly trained and skilled. You think that they would stand down?

Some people have a hard time imagining what things would look like in a confrontation. Remember that this country came into being due to being able to prevail over the Brits by using guerilla warfare. If untrained, poorly equipped Syrians can hold off a dictator's armed forces (albeit with heavy casualties) what would it look like in this country with the people having 300+ million firearms?

Any politician (National, state or local) that supported a gun grab would become an instant target and they know this. If they don't, they are dumber than we thought - and that's pretty dumb. Most people, even evil criminals have a well developed sense of self preservation and prefer to face the unarmed when perpetrating their crimes.

An honest statesman does not fear an armed population. A corrupt politician rightly does.

(01-18-2013 12:17 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If in the case of the Georgia woman, I'd say it was a success in terms of self defense. None of her family was harmed and the intruder had a few more holes in him than before. Whether or not the intruder lived or died is not the metric.

Quote:Milehigh...if you show up to a fight against Uncle Sam with a machine gun you still aren't going to like the outcome.

Just who is going to fight the citizens? Soldiers swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to an administration. Doubtful many would be OK with following an unlawful order to turn their weapons on lawful American citizens. Plus, soldiers and LE personnel are people too, with families that they would like to return home to. They are not stupid enough to think that others won't turn on them if they become the local extension of tryants. Most would pass on that.

If the administration could not get our own military to take on this task and invited in, say, UN troops it would get really ugly. Think of how many tens of millions of ex-military are in this country, many very highly trained and skilled. You think that they would stand down?

Some people have a hard time imagining what things would look like in a confrontation. Remember that this country came into being due to being able to prevail over the Brits by using guerilla warfare. If untrained, poorly equipped Syrians can hold off a dictator's armed forces (albeit with heavy casualties) what would it look like in this country with the people having 300+ million firearms?

Any politician (National, state or local) that supported a gun grab would become an instant target and they know this. If they don't, they are dumber than we thought - and that's pretty dumb. Most people, even evil criminals have a well developed sense of self preservation and prefer to face the unarmed when perpetrating their crimes.

An honest statesman does not fear an armed population. A corrupt politician rightly does.

Exactly my point. If it got to a point where the country in masses, the immense size you speak of, decided to rebel. Then it wouldn't matter what weapons we posses.

However, I can guarantee you though that a crazed man who enters a school, who can get off 50+ shots in a minute will kill more kids than a guy who can get off 15.

(01-18-2013 12:30 PM)fbgab Wrote:  However, I can guarantee you though that a crazed man who enters a school, who can get off 50+ shots in a minute will kill more kids than a guy who can get off 15.

Then, quit advertising that there are NO GUNS on the premises. Get rid of the "Gun Free Zone" signs. Perhaps have armed security rotate between schools, so nuts wouldn't know if they would face any opposition. It seems that most of these mass shootings occur in these gun free zones and the perps almost always kill themselves when the police finally arrive. Give them uncertainty.

None of these proposals will eliminate gun violence, which has been going down along with most all violent crime stats for almost a decade. Mass shootings are rare. The REAL gun violence is black on black gang homicides in our cities. You would think that Chicago would be the safest place in the nation with the most stringent gun laws yet it had over 500 murders this year. The good, lawful folks of Chicago follow the law that doesn't allow them to defend themselves, even in their own home. But the criminal element never follows the law and could care less and THEY do far more killing than mass shooters. So, our solution should be to punish the law abiding?

Why is inner city gun violence never addressed or talked about? Political correctness? Or because politicians and LE has no real way to handle it and stop it? Or is it because that liberal democrats have run that city for forever?

If we could break out the stats for inner city gun violence, the picture of America's gun culture would be much different. We'd be Canada without the accent. Or Sweden.

If this is really about guns, target the inner cities and the unregistered or stolen guns in the hands of gangbangers. They kill far more than mass shooters do. Some people might be offended by that statement. The Newtown murders were horrible. I agree.

We should not be basing pubic policy on emotion, but on rationality. But as Rahm said, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Quote:Machine guns (automatics) are already very highly regulated so that only a few collectors with special permits can own them.

It doesn't take much to make an AR-15 automatic, couple hundred bucks since you're already in the business of breaking the law. You know that.

I'm for regulating the clips and the ammunition. If someone makes a big purchase of ammo online or retail, it should raise a flag. Going after the guns won't do it now. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

Quote:The REAL gun violence is black on black gang homicides in our cities.

The most immediate problem that is prompting this are the mass shootings, WHICH AREN'T THAT RARE NOW and guess which race the shooters were each time? I'm thinking we're a little hypocritical, when it was really isolated to urban areas, and MHB's statement was a true one at one time we were content with reciting the 2nd Amendment, pretending that we could take on whole armies with AK-47's, RPG's and cite that as our justification. Now that it's permeated out into white suburbia, in the form of mass shootings, we're aghast and HAVE TO HAVE SOME ACTION!!!

I just want to be able to go to a theatre or dinner, have my kids go to school and not worry about the whack job bo weasel of the day coming and unloading a huge magazine in our direction. Is that asking too much? Any proposal to solution the problem should be accepted and not dismissed, it's real and it's going to get worse. We're going to be wearing full gear in public soon...like that's going to help.

Quote:But the criminal element never follows the law and could care less and THEY do far more killing than mass shooters. So, our solution should be to punish the law abiding?

That argument is so stale, you could say that for any law, rule or regulation. I can't believe we as a society have been bamboozled by "if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" for all these generations. Please.

DB we are just going to have to disagree. We could focus on while males and ignore the fact that more people died from gun violence in Chicago last year than our military lost in Afghanistan.

Whack jobs who are bent on killing will always be able to find a weapon. One group used box cutters and hijacked airplanes. Another used cyclon gas to kill millions. The shooter in a recent NY case had just gotten out of prison for killing his mom with a hammer. A few recently have pushed others off NY subway platforms in front of trains.

There are lots of ways to kill people if you are so disposed. Let's not panic that we are going to get mowed down in a restaurant just because it has happened before. The odds are still comparable to getting hit by lightning. I know that doesn't help the families who have lost loved ones to gun violence and it may sound cold but I don't believe that public policy should be decided on emotional grounds but rather discussed and decided based on reason and rational debate. Is that asking too much?

Ignoring THE FACT that the mass killings of late which are driving this discussion were conducted with those types of weapons is too much to ask. That and crazy white suburban types did it isnt going to get ignored when you NRA types try to shade this as a "black thing" ignoring it is not going to happen, and I like your "we'll just disagree" and then go on to justify. Wrong order.

Like I said, clips, magazines and ammo is the way to go.

Obama is secretly on the payroll of the gun distribution cartel and created this hysteria in order to artificially boost early year economic numbers. Gunners are maxing out their Discover cards on 15's, clips, caseloads of ammo etc.

Similar, the flu hysteria is exaggerated to get rid of excess inventory from last years production. The shots are ineffective, being last years strain, thus improving pharm profit qtr 4 and 1 in a dog-chasing- its-own-tail scenario.

All Chicago Main Street style shenanigans. And more to come as the second term is mainly used to cash in and feather the nest for retirement.

(01-19-2013 07:56 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  Obama is secretly on the payroll of the gun distribution cartel and created this hysteria in order to artificially boost early year economic numbers. Gunners are maxing out their Discover cards on 15's, clips, caseloads of ammo etc.

Similar, the flu hysteria is exaggerated to get rid of excess inventory from last years production. The shots are ineffective, being last years strain, thus improving pharm profit qtr 4 and 1 in a dog-chasing- its-own-tail scenario.

All Chicago Main Street style shenanigans. And more to come as the second term is mainly used to cash in and feather the nest for retirement.

I think Hannity presented that very diatribe as real the other day.

Another cynical view is the Democratic team is using this device to stimulate Republican's to move back to their far right base, and away from any ability to reinvent themselves in broader, more centrist tems, thus ensuring they can not win either better poll numbers or ultimately the next election.

CD has a good grasp on this. Dems have a grip on 52 or 53% of the vote, and Republicans really need to get more centrist in here. If they just stick with the hard core NRA bunch, they have zero chance of getting that done. Their supporters will be passionate, but they will be a minority.

Pushing the gun issue is a very suble but effective move in the game of politics.

The GOP can't move to the middle because they can't win their own primaries and in this age of "everything electronic", pivoting to the middle come general election time doesn't work, their own words are used against them.

Quite the conundrum.