# Dean as head of Dem Party



## Plainsman

With the appointment of Dean to head the Democratic party they have shown us they learned nothing in the last election. This means the conservatives have an excellent opportunity. The opportunity is, we have many people who can serve as a winning candidate if the Democrats are going to stay far left. In turn this means we can pick a candidate that fits our conservative values. We need to start now to think about which candidates stand for what. We need to think about the fair tax, the flat tax, and any other popular form of taxation that would improve (hard not to) upon what we have now.

The problems like Korea that Bush faces now will not be gone in four years. They have been a problem since the Korean war and do not intend to be anything but a problem for some time to come. Who do we have that will have good foreign relations, good economic programs, fair taxation, and ethical values that match ours. Now is the time to think of these things not November 1 2008. Conservative who would be your favorite candidate?

I have not heard for some time what people think of the fair tax that Bobm advocates. I only have one reservation and it may be in the FAQ somewhere. People are fickle and a little scare that causes a recession could slow buying. What happens with a sales tax then? Would it lead to insufficient funds to support the government? Bob reading through the web sight for fair tax have you come across that question, and how the address it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> With the appointment of Dean to head the Democratic party they have shown us they learned nothing in the last election.


What exactly was this lesson?


----------



## Storm

The lesson was that extreme Liberal Democrats do not appeal to anyone but extreme liberals. Howard Dean doesn't do anything for the moderate Democrat. And he will pull the Democratic party to the left away from mainstream America, which is where they have been for the last 8 years. why do you think Hillary is moving to the center. She know that she will more than likely win her parties nomination, so she is now trying to win over middle America.


----------



## Plainsman

Have you noticed how Militant Tiger derails every serious discussion we try to have. It is my guess he is doing this intentionally. I would suggest that no matter how ludicrous he becomes we ignore him. He is just an internet stalker of sorts that disrupts anything we try to discuss. He knows exactly what we are talking about, but wishes to suck us into an argument that has no relation to the original subject. After all if many of us come to agreement that endangers politicians that share his extreme position. Bobm, was right, we are sucked into bickering when we should be talking about alternative taxation etc. We can't do that if we are sucked into MT's childish arguments.

So what conservative people would you like to see run in 2008 and why?


----------



## zogman

This would be one peson I'd like to know more of. John Cassik (sp) of Ohio
I'd vote for Shawn Hannety, oh dear let the war begin.
And I refuse to answer MT on politics. He is a whole group of trolls with left wing wacko staff.


----------



## mr.trooper

The only person i cant think of is...RICHARD LUGAR! Why? Why not! hes got it in the bag:

* Moderate Repub, willing to work with democrats
* Good track record
* HE IS CLEANER THAN A BRAND NEW WHISTLE! Seriously, peole have been trying to find soemthing on him...and even his political enemys cant find anything bad to say about this guy. i think he has the potential to make for a decent president...

The only bad thing is, that he probably wouldnt be interested in the job; but were he to run, i would probably vote for him.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The lesson was that extreme Liberal Democrats do not appeal to anyone but extreme liberals.


Either do the extreme conservatives, unless it is well disguised. I suppose that we will have to learn how to use the media to put a positive spin on all of our decisions/actions no matter absurd they really are.



> Have you noticed how Militant Tiger derails every serious discussion we try to have.


I really wanted to know what said lesson was. What exactly was your pre conception of what this discussion (minus one tiger) would be?



> It is my guess he is doing this intentionally. I would suggest that no matter how ludicrous he becomes we ignore him.


The silencing of the opposition, and you say you don't like fascism.


----------



## Plainsman

I like Cassik, but don't know much about Luger. I will have to pay more attention. With the democrats staying far left we are free to pick the best man, not just the most popular man. I think that leaves pseudo conservative John McCain out of the running in my book. I guess I don't know who I prefer yet, but I know which ones I do not want.

Zogman, I like Hannity also. Talked to him for a short time in Fargo a couple years ago. Our daughter-in-law purchased Let Freedom Ring for my wife. Then she drove from Bismarck at 3:30 am to Jamestown so we could all go see him in Fargo at 6:00am. He was a hoot in person. He had some comical things to say about people that he would not say on the TV.


----------



## mr.trooper

Well Plains, here is what the Dirt Diggers have to say about Lugar: http://www.realchange.org/lugar.htm

The only think this guy has ever done wrong is suport the Assault weapons ban. but that long gone, so its all good.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> With the appointment of Dean to head the Democratic party they have shown us they learned nothing in the last election.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly was this lesson?
Click to expand...

o.k. i can't resist this one........the lesson was .....drum roll..... they lost.

heheheheheheheheheh.

pointer


----------



## Longshot

mr.trooper, thanks for the info on Lugar. Was not familiar with him. I'm not sure who I would really like to see in 2008 but I know it's not John McCain. I lived in AZ for a few years and at first liked the guy, but as time has gone by I dislike him more and more.


----------



## Plainsman

Yes, thanks trooper. I would really like to educate myself on the upcoming possible candidates. I will need to spend some time to search, but has anyone found information on these people concerning foreign policy, taxation, family values? Things I would like to know about now not at the last minute. It is good to know now, but I hope no one looks like they are on top until the primaries. If they do the liberal media will began their attack, in hopes of creating an advantage for the liberal candidate by demonizing the conservative candidate.


----------



## mr.trooper

Good ideas Plainsman. i to would like to fnd out about some more possible canidates. We need to get a good idea of who is out there and start mulling them over.

You mentioned wondering about Lugars Policies? more information can be had at his web site: http://lugar.senate.gov/. one thing that i found particularly interesting is that he was chairman of the senate foriegn relations commitee from 85-86, and again in 03 to, i believe, the present.

Does anyone else have some good potential canidates?


----------



## zogman

What was the famous Jefferson guote ( I believe) was in regards to throwing all the incumbents into the Potomac River. Thats my preference and I'll buy the first round :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## indsport

I, for one, am happy to see Dean as DNC chair. he is a strong supporter of second amendment so much so that the dems in Massachusettes are quite ****** off at his pro gun position and hillary and others hate his guts over his strong stand on the issue. He is a fiscal conservative who put Vermont's budget in order after being left a big hole by the previous tax cut and spend anyway republicans (much like the current US administrations). He supports basic health care for low income people at or below the poverty line, including immunizations, regular preventive health care, which has since been shown, by real research and real dollars to be cheaper than no health insurance and pay massive bills later for not finding a problem later (seems to be a recurring conservative thread here somewhere). He is very strong on environment issues including fighting the republicans in the vermont legislature that wanted to change the tresspass law just like our current republican legislature in North Dakota. Vermont has the same law as North Dakota, open to hunting unless otherwise posted. If I was a single issue voter (like NRA or the like), Dean's positions on guns, hunting and finances are much like what the republican party used to be 20 years ago.


----------



## zogman

Can you lead me to a site or facts to back this up???



> he is a strong supporter of second amendment so much so that the dems in Massachusettes are quite ticked off at his pro gun position and hillary and others hate his guts over his strong stand on the issue.


Not that I doubt you I just like facts over opinions :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

I would be extremely happy to hear him say that. Indsport, can you steer us to a web site? I don't doubt what you say, it's just that it is so different than what I heard that I may have to pinch myself even if I heard it from him across the table. I don't have any problems with his helping the truly needy either. Thanks for the comments, and looking forward to reading some of that. Perhaps we will be able to go into the next election without such extreme foreboding.


----------



## ej4prmc

Let's look at Mr. Dean's work history:
State Representative, 1983-87; 
Lieutenant Governor, 1987-91 (elected in 1986, re-elected in 1988, 1990); Governor, 1991-2003 (elected in 1992, re-elected in 1994, 1996, 1998 & 2000); 
Chair, National Governors Association, 1994-95; 
Chair, Democratic Governors Association, 1997

I count 9 or ten campaigns alone, that makes him experienced at raising monies. As Governor, look at how many times the people of Vermont had the chance to send him "down the road" and choose to "stay the course" His job is just to get out there and raise money and design strategy , not to choose our next presidential candidate, or run for president. :lol:


----------



## indsport

plainsman and others, here we go:

Dean has some faults, he supports gun show background checks only if doesn't cost gun show dealers and only if it is as fast as the existing system. He supports an assault weapons ban but only if a state wants to pass one, rather than a federal ban. So if Feinstein from California or Schumer from New York wants a ban, pass it in the state not do it at a federal level. He was ****** at the wording of the previous federal ban because as he rightly pointed out, most shotguns have the dreaded "pistol grip". What follows are the quotes, with references, and a quick view of how much the Mass. democrats dislike his gun politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor, 
John Kerry criticized Dean's 1992 statement to the National Rifle Association that he opposed any restriction on private ownership of assault weapons. "Howard Dean's opposition to sensible gun safety measures is indefensible," Kerry said. "It explains why he has been endorsed by the NRA eight times. I believe we must put the safety of our children and families ahead of special interests like the NRA." 
Dean responded, "I come from a rural state with a very low homicide rate. We had five homicides one year. It's a state where hunting is a part of our life. I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position." Dean said "when you're running for governor, they ask you what you would do in your state." Dean aides said the opposition to restrictions on assault weapons that Dean expressed on the signed 1992 NRA questionnaire applied only to a state ban, defined broadly enough to also apply to shotguns commonly used by hunters in Vermont.

Source: Associated Press in Minneapolis Star-Tribune Oct 31, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/article115.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy attacked Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's gun record at a Capitol Hill congressional event, according to a October 6, 2003 article in the Washington Post. Speaking at the rally called to generate support for a federal ban on assault weapons, Kennedy said he was "saddened" by Dean's unwillingness to support tougher gun laws. Kennedy, who has endorsed Richard Gephardt for president, complained that Dean was "pro-NRA" and that Dean had "compromised his principles" as a medical doctor.

Speaking with a reporter after the event, Kennedy explained, "this is a personal issue with me, and I'm very disturbed at the fact that people are not paying attention to Dr. Dean's record".


----------



## ej4prmc

INDSPORT,
I think we shut Dem(ha ha) up :beer: :beer:


----------



## tail chaser

Zogman said


> Not that I doubt you I just like facts over opinions.


If only more conservatives thought like this!

The truth is Dean is conservative with alot of things its just that most have heard he is a wacko liberal and they believe it. Think about where they get it?

I consider myself liberal but I son't preach the word of Air America they are a bunch of crackpots, but so are the Foxcons.

TC


----------



## jamartinmg2

Here is a link were you can look at Howard Dean's viewpoints as well as other popular politicians:

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm


----------



## Plainsman

Please, please, tell me you guys are joking. You can't possibly equate not approving of a federal ban on assault weapons but giving your ok for a state ban as pro second amendment. I can hear Dean and Kennedy planning their strategy now. Kennedy says: Dean you come out against the federal ban on assault weapons but approving of states being able to ban them and I will call you a radical NRA gun lover. We should be able to pull the wool over the eyes of 10% of the naive gun owners. Judging from what you guys think they did better than 10%. God save us. What a back door, back stabbing, sabotage to the second amendment.

Oh, I just went to the site you provided jamartinmg2, now that is the Dean I remember. For the AWB and Brady bill in 2003. If he says anything else he is pulling a Hillary and trying to make us think he is moving towards the center. I guess he is ok for those who have no memory.


----------



## ej4prmc

AWB and gun control are things we need. I see NO need to shot a deer with an assualt weapon. You have to register a car,why not something meant to KILL. :sniper: Registering gun's doesn't take anything away from you, don't limit the number of guns you own. You are all ready "in the system" just by filling out a background check, why not just fill in the make, model, and serial #(haven't bought a gun in 15 years so I don't know what is on the background check) It just makes common sense.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> We should be able to pull the wool over the eyes of 10% of the naive gun owners. Judging from what you guys think they did better than 10%. God save us. What a back door, back stabbing, sabotage to the second amendment.


Sounds a lot like the strategy that got us into Iraq, but that one actually happened.


----------



## Plainsman

ej4prmc

Owning a gun is a right under the second amendment to the constitution. Driving a car is a privilege. As for the background check the FBI has been violating the rules by retaining information. I don't need an assault weapon for a deer, but some politicians identify common deer rifles as assault weapons. If they call semi auto deer rifles and rifles that simply have thumb holes in their stalks assault rifles they are getting very close to the average persons rifles. Did you know (I don't remember off hand who) that one senator was thinking maybe we shouldn't have scopes. The cop killer bullet was a scam, there is no Teflon bullet that shoots right through bullet proof vests. These are simply scams to convinced the stupid.


----------



## mr.trooper

ej4prmc said:


> AWB and gun control are things we need. I see NO need to shot a deer with an assualt weapon. You have to register a car,why not something meant to KILL. :sniper: Registering gun's doesn't take anything away from you, don't limit the number of guns you own. You are all ready "in the system" just by filling out a background check, why not just fill in the make, model, and serial #(haven't bought a gun in 15 years so I don't know what is on the background check) It just makes common sense.


 i see no reason for you to shoot a deer with an NEF or H&R single shot either. after all, you can just go down to the store. Why shouldnt you have to register this horrid weapon ment to kill? why not ban them also? after all, you dont realy NEED to hunt at all.

The problem with gun registration is what alwase follows gun registration: gun seasure. why would they need to know who has what? if something bad happens they can figure out who the guns belong to withought a database of who owns what.

Should the 10/22 be banned? the remington 7400? what about the tompson center .22? Marlins 7000 and SSK? The BAR? the Henery survival .22? the Savage 64 series? Browning Gold Shotguns? Winchester SX2's? the remington 1100? what about the Speed master? These are NO different than the weapons you wish to ban...except that they cost more to do the same thing, thus limiting some people from hunting.

Gun controll is nothing we need. Respect, courtasy and self controll are things we need; they canot be legislated. its too bad that modern society says that "its all about me". if people had an ounce of decency like they used too (be tought at home, school and church...), then we wouldnt have such problems.


----------



## Plainsman

Trooper

I don't know if there is some way to clap on the internet or not, but if I could that is what I am doing right now. Great point, and I totally agree with you. :thumb:


----------



## ej4prmc

YES BAN THE SKS, AR15, If it holds more than 6 shells (not a 22 cal.) it has NO REASON TO BE IN THE PUPLIC'S HAND. Are all you RIGHT WING REPUPLICANS whacked out?

Again I will state, I am a *REPUPLICRATE* I lean mostly to the rep. side of things BUT a Dem. can come up with some GREAT ideas. Bill Clinton was the GREATEST REP. PRES. this country ever had AND HE RAN ON THE DEM. TICKET!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

I had an SKS for a couple years, it was fun, but I got rid of it when the prices went up. It was not that bad of a rifle. It looks anemic as far as energy at the muzzle but the spire point bullet holds its energy better than a flat point and at 100 yards it is equal to the old 30-30. You have to put a magazine block into it to make it legal to hunt deer in North Dakota.

It's amazing how easily swayed people are. A maniac in Wisconsin kills some people and liberals start to blame the gun. You guys should be careful your baseball bat may sneak up on you while your sleeping and bonk you. They are evil little pieces of wood you know. Hey, after all no one would get hurt with one if they were not there to hit someone with.

Don't you think it's a little arrogant to think that people who can only afford a cheap SKS should not be allowed to have one or to hunt.

I would expect a reaction like yours from Rosie Odonnel, but not from a sportsman, much less a sportsman from a rural state like North Dakota. You didn't move here from the peoples RepubliK of Kalifornia did you?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Gun controll is nothing we need. Respect, courtasy and self controll are things we need; they canot be legislated. its too bad that modern society says that "its all about me"


Isin't that precisely what the conservative motto is? I made it, why do you need any programs?



> YES BAN THE SKS, AR15, If it holds more than 6 shells (not a 22 cal.) it has NO REASON TO BE IN THE PUPLIC'S HAND. Are all you RIGHT WING REPUPLICANS whacked out?


Frankly I am very liberal and I just find that to be stupid. It doesn't matter how many shells something holds or what it looks like, if someone wants someone else dead they will kill them. Now that being said, you cannot remove all of the guns because it is one of the founding principles. This is not to mention that the criminals well get the guns anyhow (anything they want) and you are only banning them to generally law abiding people.



> A maniac in Wisconsin kills some people and liberals start to blame the gun.


Ahem.


----------



## Plainsman

Some liberals start to blame guns?


----------



## indsport

Plainsman, as I usually do on this site, I just point out that not all Dem's (ioncluding this libertarian), are not ardent gun control, AWB nuts. As you and I are well aware, NRA endorsement is likely to sway most 2nd amendment voters and the NRA backed Dean 8 times. In addition, there are a large number of Dem's elected from the rural states that oppose gun control. Dean is trying to find a compromise for the coastal and big cities that do have gun problems (and why the voters there are all for a gun ban and elect people based on their position on gun bans and a conservative does not have a chance) and other states that do not have a gun problem. As to the current administration, what about the national ID that they are pushing down our throats along with the patriot act and all its fallout? I am much more concerned with the current admin and their actual legiislation than I am about Democrats and their gun control. Your own quote from your post matches my thoughts exactly about how I view the current administration and their deeds

"We should be able to pull the wool over the eyes of 10% of the naive gun owners. Judging from what you guys think they did better than 10%. God save us. What a back door, back stabbing, sabotage to the second amendment. "

The national id and all the rest to me, is just another slippery slope down which the conservatives will lead us to surrender our guns in the name of law and order. just like the democrats AWB is the same slippery slope. 
I see no difference between doing it one way or doing it another.


----------



## mr.trooper

Nope, im not wacked out. sorry.

BTW: there are VERRY good reasons why assault weapons should be in the hands of the public. This isnt the time or the place to get into those facts however. perhaps another day on a post that is more appropriate. :thumb:

P.S- dont base all your oppinions on wheather the NRA backs someon or someting...they are not all they used to be cracked up to be, if you get my drift. Personaly, GOA (gun owners of america) is a better place to pur your money. The NRA just doesnt handle their members money verry well. look into all the things they do with it...you wont be happy.


----------



## Plainsman

Indsport and Trooper, I find myself agreeing with both of you somewhat. Indsport , some of this national id junk is of concern, and yes I don't want either party messing with my firearms. I guess I would rather be called a conservative, not a republican, because it makes little difference to me if a man is democrat or republican, what makes the difference is if he supports things I believe in. Thanks for the response. I know you and I want the same thing in the end, but see different ways to get there. I imagine that is as frustrating to you as I.

Trooper your right about the NRA, they spend much of their time and money foolishly. Sometimes it's as if they want the conflict so that they can continue to raise money. I belong to the organization, but am not very happy at all with their stupidity. If they really are trying to fight for us they do a poor job at times. When the assault weapon ban came up the first time an NRA spokesman was on a major network saying that it was all fluff, and then demonstrated what he could do with his semi auto handgun. For the wacked out gun control people he didn't convince them to let us have our (pseudo) assault weapons he convinced them that we should not be allowed to have guns like the one he just demonstrated. What a fool.

I like Gun Owners of America also, and contribute money to Tom Delaney (spelling) for his second amendment work.

Later. The dentist is waiting.


----------



## Storm

On social issues Dean is a Flaming Liberal. He pushed the homosexual agenda big time, and if I'm not mistaken Vermont was the first state to allow same sex marriages. He is for abortion on demand, and it doesn't matter if the baby is 5 weeks old or nine months old Dean thinks a women should have the right to commit genocide. If a politicain can't figure out that we all have the right to *LIFE*, liberty, and justice, including the most helpless in out society (the unborn), then how are we to place our confidence in their judgement? I can't and we shouldn't. I would say the same thing about a pro-baby killing Republican.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> If a politicain can't figure out that we all have the right to LIFE, liberty, and justice, including the most helpless in out society (the unborn), then how are we to place our confidence in their judgement?


Well I have already explained why I think that line of thinking is wrong, but the conservatives are the real ones chipping away at our most basic rights. The right to free speech is being diminished by the day under false and unnecissary pretences, people who have been hurt by corporations are having the right to justice stripped from them with the class action bill and others. As well the conservatives break away the programs that help the homeless, poor, and the old leaving them to fend for themselves. If they cannot, they are left to die. How can you place your confidence in a group who degrades all of our basic rights?


----------



## Gohon

ej4prmc said:


> AWB and gun control are things we need. I see NO need to shot a deer with an assualt weapon. You have to register a car,why not something meant to KILL.


Oh please ................. show me where the Second Admendent has anything to do with hunting.



ej4prmc said:


> Registering gun's doesn't take anything away from you, don't limit the number of guns you own.


Really, what do you think every dictator in history did as soon as they gained control ........... yep thats right, took the gun registeration list and confiscated all guns from the population. Yes, it takes a lot away from you.


----------



## ej4prmc

Gohon,
ej4prmc wrote: 
*Registering* gun's doesn't take anything away from you, don't limit the number of guns you own.

Really, what do you think every dictator in history did as soon as they gained control ........... yep thats right, took the gun registeration list and confiscated all guns from the population. Yes, it takes a lot away from you.

*REGISTERING* Doesn't take anything away from you(READ SSSSLLLOOOWWWWLLLYYYYY) The last time I checked I live in the USA where THERE IS *NO* DICTATORSHIP!


----------



## mr.trooper

No, but eveory single president since Washington has had an ajenda they push across, and one of those issues could verry easily be gun controll. All they have to do is make some excuse why we need to ban all guns, and rally the Soccer moms behind them. then its strait tot he "registration" list to find out who has what.

No dictator required.


----------



## Gohon

ej4prmc said:


> Doesn't take anything away from you(READ SSSSLLLOOOWWWWLLLYYYYY) The last time I checked I live in the USA where THERE IS *NO* DICTATORSHIP![/color]


That's what the Germans thought ............ you want to argue Hitler wasn't a dictator? Now I know you thought you were cute and colorful but why not try supporting facts instead of left wing spin. You understood very well what point I was making but instead choose to be childish in your response, so I won't be surprised if I have to rewrite this in crayon for you. Registering guns is nothing more than the first step to confiscation.


----------



## the_duckinator

Left wing spin my a**. Anyways, Bush could turn into a dictator just as quickly as Kerry could. The chances of that happening are infinetesimal, so it's really a non issue.

ej4prmc is right, registering guns doesn't take away anything. He's also right in asking why we shouldn't register things meant to kill when we have to register cars and boats. I'm curious to hear your reply to that, which you have completely ignored.



> I see NO need to shot a deer with an assualt weapon


I don't either, assualt weapons were made to kill people, not deer. They're less accurate, but have a large magazine and a high rate of fire for those who can't shoot, all they have to do is spray the area with bullets and they can hit the deer. I agree, there is absolutely no reason to hunt with an assualt rifle.


----------



## Plainsman

I would agree there is no need to hunt with an assault rifle. However, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Anyone who thinks that registering your firearm is perfectly reasonable is extremely naive. Look at history and you will find that is how confiscation begin every time. If you don't see the difference in a car and a gun show me the constitutional amendment that guarantees you the right to an automobile or a drivers license. You are not comparing apples and oranges, you even further off than that. It's more like comparing puppies and cauliflower.


----------



## ej4prmc

Plainsman If I remember right I don't think there was cars in 1776. Try again.


----------



## Plainsman

Thank you, you proved my point. However, you evidently didn't understand the idea I was trying to convey.


----------



## mr.trooper

Exactly...WHAT was that?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I don't either, assualt weapons were made to kill people, not deer. They're less accurate, but have a large magazine and a high rate of fire for those who can't shoot, all they have to do is spray the area with bullets and they can hit the deer. I agree, there is absolutely no reason to hunt with an assualt rifle.


Define assault weapon for me.


----------



## Plainsman

Trooper

Duckinator wrote:


> ej4prmc is right, registering guns doesn't take away anything. He's also right in asking why we shouldn't register things meant to kill when we have to register cars and boats.


You see ejrprmc and duckinator equate registering guns with registering cars and boats. My point is that gun ownership is a right guaranteed under the constitution. Car and boat ownership are not a guaranteed right, they are a privilege bestowed upon us by the state who licenses that vehicle or not, and us if we pass a test. Equating the two is not a practical comparison.

Defining an assault weapon is where the danger lies. Remember Kerry during the campaign holding up the shotgun that was a gift to him. He had earlier agreed in legislation that that particular shotgun was an assault weapon. Most of the guns added in the past few years were not assault weapons they were given that status not by logical means, but by emotion, because they looked bad. What does a thumb hole stock add to a rifle to make it so dangerous? It is the ability of these people to affect legislation that can restrict the second amendment based solely on the scary looks of a gun. You don't need to be a dictator to endanger the second amendment only an emotional, well meaning, misguided, gun control zealot.


----------



## mr.trooper

Sho' Nuff.


----------



## Gohon

the_duckinator said:


> Left wing spin my a**. Anyways, Bush could turn into a dictator just as quickly as Kerry could. The chances of that happening are infinetesimal, so it's really a non issue.
> 
> ej4prmc is right, registering guns doesn't take away anything. He's also right in asking why we shouldn't register things meant to kill when we have to register cars and boats.


Using the term dictator was simply to get a point across. Besides, most countries that ended up with a dictator did not start out with one and the population were as naive as you are. Left wing spin is exactly what it is with a very heavy dose of socialism. No, ej4prmc is not correct in any way shape or form. You want to register things meant to kill, well where do you draw the line........... does that include knives, swords, crossbows, long bows, spears ................. see where it leads to. Ask the people of Australia what the Government did a few years with the registration list. Hell just ask people in California what is going on right now. We have a constitution that gives me the right to have guns and it shall not be infringed which is what registration is. You either support the constitution or you don't. There is no picking and choosing those parts you like.


----------



## mr.trooper

Well said.

And P.S-look up the definition of "bear". Contrarry to what SOME will tell you , it actualy means to Carry or to ware vissibly, NOT "to own" ( that would be the definition of "Keep"). :wink:

just for the sake of REPETITION and REDUNDANCY:

*The Second Amendment:*

"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*.

For your convenienc i have placed the key words of this statement in bold face. Now, let us define what those key words mean:

#1) Necessary: 
_____1- "Being such in its nature ther it must exist, occur, or be true;inevitable 
_____2- "Absolutely needed to accomplish a desired result."

#2) Right:
_____1- "Any power or priviladge to which a person has a moral, legal, or just claim: the _right_ to vote.

#3) People:
_____1- "The agragate of human beings living under the same government: the _people_ of England.

#4) Keep:
_____1- " To have AND retain possesion or controll of; hold."

#5) bear:
_____1- " To support; hold up."
_____2- " To carry; convey."
_____3- " To show visibly; carry"

#6) Arm:
_____1- "A weapon."

#7) Infringe:
_____1-"...;To violate."

So, in its long form, the Second amendment would read like so:

"A well regulated Militia being *absolutely needed* for the security of a free State, The *power* of *American CITIZENS* to *posses* and *carry weapons visibly* shall NOT be *violated*."

The EXACT same thing, with the "troublesome" words clearly defined in standard American English. There is NO "wiggle room". it says what it says, and that ALL that is says. :roll:


----------



## the_duckinator

I agree completely, the constitution does say we have the right to bear arms, no argument here. What *kind* of arms we are allowed to bear depends on the person who interprets it. How do you define arms? Does it mean all firearms? All weapons? Any object that can be used in self defense? Some would argue that the second amendment says that we should be able to have WMD's, grenades, rocket launchers, anti aircraft artillery, etc. Who decides where we draw the line? Everyone will have their own opinion on what weapons we can and cannot own.


----------



## Plainsman

Duckinator

Good point, that's why I said in a previous post definition is where the danger lies. Full auto have been outlawed since I think it was 1936. I don't think anyone on here would disagree that we don't need full auto. Your right the constitution would let us have much more, but most of us would voluntarily agree to less. The problem arises where do we draw the line? Therein lies the danger. Look back at how people want to define an assault weapon. Some say a thumbhole makes it an assault weapon, some say semi auto is assault weapon, some say more than ten rounds etc etc. I think we have given enough and at some point it must stop. Remember the cop killer Teflon bullets that would go right through a bullet proof vest. We even outlawed them even though they didn't exist.

Check the crime rates. The states with the most lax gun laws have the lowest crime rates. You may at first think this is because the areas with the highest crime rates make more gun laws. Then you may notice that a relaxing of the laws results in a decrease in crime.

Correct we do not need an assault weapon to shoot a deer, but we might want to use a Browning semi auto in good old 30-06. Perhaps a Remington 260 heavy barrel with thumbhole stalk. Would you not agree?


----------



## ej4prmc

The Government CONFISCATED all the handguns now that they know who owns them. I am sure glad the gov. did that! :withstupid:


----------



## Plainsman

ej4prm try to have a cognizant thought. Scary I know, but I promise it will not hurt. If your 14 years old I apologize for giving you static.


----------



## ej4prmc

Grow up Plainsman. It seems *I* am one of the FEW here who makes any VALID points. You speak of the government stealing all your guns, WHO needs to grow up? I talk about common sense laws. Just because you register a gun don't mean the gov. is going to take them, I speak ONLY about reg. them, nothing more, nothing less. IF you are a law bidding citizen then you have nothing to worry about. Explain to me how reg. handguns has taking ANYTHING away from the law bidding person. I agree with you that the gov. has no right to my model 700 rifle or my 1100, but if my next door neighbor was walking around with a AK47 I would be extremly nervous. Have you ever been to a third world country? I have, I walk through the streets of Beirut in 1987 and it scared the HELL out of me to see every day people walking around with AK47, many of whom where 10-14 years old. I don't want to see that ever in the USA, hell I get scared when driving down the road near Minot and I come over a hill and see Military personal standing on the road with M16's. What I speak of has nothing to do with conficating anything.


----------



## mr.trooper

WOW. if your that paranoid then you realy are the one who needs to grow up.

Whats wrong with AK-47s? my daddy bought me an SKS when i was 12.

Tell me this: What does registration take away from CRMINALS? NOTHING.

Tell me this: What efect is had by making laws for people who ont obey them? NONE.

P.S.- If our society hadnt gone so far down the tuves durrign the 60's/70's then we woudnt have to worry about people having such weapons because they would have the SELF CONTROLL, AND RESPECT needed to act like HUMANS and not Apes...but that all we are anyway Right? so why not act like one? .


----------



## Plainsman

An AK47 if full auto and they have been outlawed since 1936. This is the problem with liberals they always want more control. Enforce the laws on the books. ej4prmc I think it is extremely hypocritical of you to say leave my 700 alone, but how about my neighbor. As for handguns I hunt with one, but you think it needs to be registered. I have run into people like you before. Everything you have is great, but outlaw what other people have. More useless laws. I think the radical liberals don't want to enforce the laws we have so they have an excuse for more and more laws. Then when things are real bad they can start enforce them all and get rid of most firearms. More firearms laws will do nothing but punish the innocent.

I think people that think gun control is a good thing are people with very bad tempers. They think that because a gun is there someone might kill someone else with it. They see others as they know themselves to be. I noticed one of your posts had to be edited because of your poor manners. That may explain why you think gun control is ok.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Plainsman writes!

"Good point, that's why I said in a previous post definition is where the danger lies. Full auto have been outlawed since I think it was 1936. "

You and I agree fully on gun legislation, but let's clear up a few misconceptions about full auto's. They are not illegal to buy or own. They are controlled via a permit process! They restricted the sale of full auto's mainly as a way of reducing the availability to criminal types.

The Thompson was available across the counter until this time. The cost made it prohibitive for most people to purchase, but Capone and others like him bought them as a way of having more firepower than the police.

The same thing is happening today with law enforcement. Powers that be have chosen until recently not to arm our officers with equal or greater firepower. That changed with the bank robbery in CA. So one must understand the reality of all of this.

A 1100 with slugs or buckshot is just as deadly as a AK47 in fact at close range for those that have never fired a full auto I would rather have someone at 40 yards shooting at me with an AK 47 full auto than a shotgun be it pump or semi auto.

Muzzle control on a full auto is almost impossible unless you are practiced with it and control your shot bursts. That is the reason the US Military had the M-16 modified to shoot 3 shot bursts. Ignorance of these weapons is what breeds the fear of them along with movie portrayals of them.

As far as accuracy of some of these weapons get a grip. They are capable of shooting 3-4" groups at 300 meters. Now compared to a bolt action that may shoot a 1" group yes they are less accurate, but no less deadly since most vital kill shots are not under 4"s.

It continues to amaze me that people that hunt do not have a clue about even the weapons they use. I think many times that just because someone only shoots #2-3's in steel or maybe 4 shot lead on upland they forget about the other loads available for that weapon.

I remember well the hole that was in the side of a old building from a 10 gauge at 30 yards loaded with BB's when the shooter tried to kill a raccoon climbing into the window of that old barn.

Yet if they said you do not need a 10 gauge as it is to big or to lethal would you react the same way about that, or if I said you do not need a 10 gauge to hunt ducks or geese, since I can kill geese with a .410?

You want to tell me what I can or cannot hunt with, I will support that when you support the elimination of a 10 gauge or 12 gauge for upland and waterfowl. Since it is a choice and the ballistics are what you look for tell me that the .30 cal in a SKS is not as lethal hunting round as the 30-30 or a 6MM!

Show me why a bullet out the end of a AR15 in a .223 is less deadly than out of a Mod 700 Rem ! Then tell me if a 7600 Rem is not capable of shooting multiple rounds in a 30-06 or 7 MM just like a SKS or AK 47 is in shooting a different round!

It is not about hunting, nor do all gun owners that shoot hunt. Lots of guys I know simply are target shooters. Yet people are so narrow minded that they think that guns are only used in hunting and that is the only area that needs protecting.

Outside of Atlanta a suburb was the target of a lot of home invasions, until the council passed a law requiring all residents to own a firearm. Rate of home invasions dropped 97% in that suburb.


----------



## ej4prmc

you compare a model 700 to an AK47. ARE YOU ALL ON DRUGS? Lets see here, 700= 4 rounds, AK= 30 rounds, who needs 30 rounds to shoot something? Rate of fire, 700=4 rounds in 6 sec. AK= 30 rounds in 7 sec. SO now you tell me about how there is NO diff.


----------



## mr.trooper

Well actualy, the AK's capacity depends on the mag. Thye do make 5 round hunting mags. Also, its actualy 1 shot per pull of the trigger, on most models

Also, if you want to get technical, full auto AK-47's and other fully automatic weapons arent Actualy Completely illegal. Its a verry simple waiting game to be aproved for ownership of Class III (fully automatic weapons, and NFA) weapons. Anyone who is 18 and has a clean record can get one LEGALY.

All you have to do is send in the forms and wait. its realy not hard at all. This being said, why dont we see any crimes with legaly owned full autos? there hasnt been one since 86, and that crime was commited by a member of a SWAT team who used the DEPARTMENTS Mac-11 SMG.

Your still not getting the simple facts. Crimes are not determined by the types or amount of weapons avalible. Its a non-issue. Violent crimes are comminted with many other objects besides guns, and will continue to be commited witht hese obects UNABATED even if all guns were restricted.

What you would have done is pointless.

The reason the AK is no different than the 700 is because the vast majority of crimes only involve a few rounds fired, and in these scenarios the 700 would be just as usefull as an AK-47...Except MORE Accurate, AND MORE POWERFULL. Get it now? probably not... :roll:

Your rght. the constitution would have the citizenry equiped equaly with the military. Tell me againhow this is so horrible? something about mass crime waves, and Anarchy right? :roll:

your right. idont need an full auto. but if your HONEST, i dont need a single shot 12 guage either.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

ej4prmc said:


> you compare a model 700 to an AK47. ARE YOU ALL ON DRUGS? Lets see here, 700= 4 rounds, AK= 30 rounds, who needs 30 rounds to shoot something? Rate of fire, 700=4 rounds in 6 sec. AK= 30 rounds in 7 sec. SO now you tell me about how there is NO diff.


Just so we are clear this is what I posted!

Quote [Show me why a bullet out the end of a AR15 in a .223 is less deadly than out of a Mod 700 Rem ! Then tell me if a 7600 Rem is not capable of shooting multiple rounds in a 30-06 or 7 MM just like a SKS or AK 47 is in shooting a different round! ]

For your information the 700 Rem was on the list of guns to be made illegal by the left with support from people like you who cannot seem to separate hunting from ownership! The proposal drafted and supported by Kerry and others when the AWB reached sunset included any weapon used by the military of the US.

SFC Rude, correct me if I am wrong but I think the Marine Sniper is a Rem Mod 700!

Education is the key here and understanding what you are supporting! Defining a assault weapon as something capable of high rates of fire would ban any semi auto hunting rifle. Talking about clip capacity is also a joke because practiced and efficient shooter can crank out 30 rounds out of a 7600 Rem or others with multiple magazines.

So do we outlaw guns that have magazines? Only drop plate type weapons? Where do you start or where do you stop! I like the part about where you say someone does not need 30 rounds, then why do you need 5 or 3. Why not make all guns muzzle loaders only as they can cleanly kill a deer,elk,bear,moose, or any fowl loaded properly! Once you draw a line at lets say the 30 round magazine and somebody goes off with gun that holds only 5 or 6 will that not justify taking that away also?

I am not a fan of handguns and if they disappeared today I would not lose anything, but I can tell you that I will fight and try and inform others about the pitfalls of having them taken from law abiding people for no reason other than it may scare someone.


----------



## ej4prmc

Ron you wrote:
"For your information the 700 Rem was on the list of guns to be made illegal by the left with support from people like you who cannot seem to separate hunting from ownership"

People like me who want only REPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS, Yea people like me! Oh by the way the REMINGTON MODEL 700 is only on YOUR LIST! Why do you insist that I am talking about all guns? You don't even understand the reason behind the constitution? It was so the GOVERNMENT didn't impose IMPERIALISM on the people while this country was young and developing into what it is today. Maybe you ought to go back and live like they did in the 1700's


----------



## Militant_Tiger

ej4prmc said:


> Ron you wrote:
> "For your information the 700 Rem was on the list of guns to be made illegal by the left with support from people like you who cannot seem to separate hunting from ownership"
> 
> People like me who want only REPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS, Yea people like me! Oh by the way the REMINGTON MODEL 700 is only on YOUR LIST! Why do you insist that I am talking about all guns? You don't even understand the reason behind the constitution? It was so the GOVERNMENT didn't impose IMPERIALISM on the people while this country was young and developing into what it is today. Maybe you ought to go back and live like they did in the 1700's


Oh boy...

To start off imperialism is taking over other countries and areas in the name of the mother country. How would what you've said protect them from anything?

Secondly, why is it that you keep quoting how you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer and blah blah blah, you can't use anything above 5 rounds in most states in the first place, and no state allows the use of full auto arms for hunting.

Thirdly why does it matter how many rounds you can spray out of something? If someone wants to kill another human being, they will use any weapon they have. If you ban the nasty looking ones, they will kill the person with a derringer, ban the derringer and they will kill them with a knife, ban the knife and you have made humans a harmless, usless race who can no longer preform simple tasks.

What do you feel that is accomplished by the banning of assault weapons?


----------



## mr.trooper

ej4prmc said:


> Maybe you ought to go back and live like they did in the 1700's


you wouldnt like that EJ4. you see, if we were living back inthe 1700's we would have drug you out to town square, tar & Featered you by now; perhaps followng it up with a good Olde fashioned FLOGGING.

not that i woudnt mind that...

any way, BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!


----------



## Gohon

Ron Gilmore said:


> Plainsman writes!
> The Thompson was available across the counter until this time. The cost made it prohibitive for most people to purchase, but Capone and others like him bought them as a way of having more firepower than the police.


I'm probable wrong on this so as soon as I finish sticking my foot in my mouth I'll look it up, but I don't believe guns such as the Browning BAR and Thompson were actually available to the general public. I believe these were for the most part stolen from the military and police and then sold to the bad guys through the black market. The laws that caused registration of these types of weapons was in reality a law enforcement tool to be used to put the bad people away when caught with one as they of course would never register a gun and expose themselves.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/

The 1920's and 30's

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Auto Ordnance Corp. was selling the TSMG on the open market in the 1920's, it was uncomfortably aware of what it's guns could do if placed in the wrong hands. It relied on its dealers to restrict sales based on an agreement that stated "Thompson Guns are for use by those on the side of law and order, and the Auto-Ordnance Corporation agents and dealers are authorized to make sales to responsible parties only." Unfortunately not all of its dealers would abide by this agreement.

January 16, 1920 marked a turning point in American history. With the enactment of the Volstead Act, the United States government made it illegal to import, manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages. It wasn't long before criminals realized that immense profits could be made by providing the public with the alcohol it wanted. So, like a carpenters hammer, the Thompson Submachine gun became a tool of the trade, employed by many of the bootleggers and gangsters of the 1920's and 30's.

To John Thompson's distress, his namesake Submachine gun turned out to be the perfect weapon for gangland murders. Being compact and easily hidden, and possessing tremendous firepower, it could easily kill one or more targets without requiring the gunman to get close enough to be exposed to return fire - which usually wasn't a problem because anyone near the intended victim was either also killed, or diving for cover. Even heavy doors and automobile bodies could not shield a victim from a TSMG firing armor piercing ammunition. It was these fearsome qualities that inspired the nicknames bestowed on it. Chopper, Gat, Chicago Typewriter and Tommy Gun all became popular terms used by criminals and the public at large. Eventually, individuals like Al Capone, John Dillinger and Machine Gun Kelly became permanently associated with the gun.

Interestingly, even though Thompsons could be legally sold to anyone on the open market, in the underworld they commanded exorbitant prices ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 apiece. This phenomena was attributed to the eventual crackdown on the many dealers who were more than happy to sell machineguns to known gangsters. One dealer in Philadelphia, Edward Goldberg, would oblige his gangland customers by grinding off the serial numbers before delivery. 

Ironically, it was during this same time period that the TSMG was finally adopted for service by an official military branch of government. The United States Coast Guard began issuing Thompsons to patrol boats along the eastern seaboard. The guns proved to be very effective for boarding parties inspecting watercraft suspected of rum-running. Shortly after that, another government agency purchased 250 Thompsons. The United States Post Office, responding to attacks and robberies of mail trucks, purchased the guns to be used by United States Marines assigned to guard the mail. In 1927, these same Post Office guns would be used successfully by Marines fighting in the jungles of Nicaragua; prompting the Corps to order 200 more. The popularity of the Thompson with the troops, and it's successful role in close quarter fighting led the Marines to officially adopt the Thompson in 1930, years ahead of the Army.

In 1928, at the same time the Marines were fighting in Nicaragua, the Navy had re-evaluated the Thompson and decided to adopt it for use on Naval Gunboats. Deciding that the rate of fire was too fast, and that the Tommy Guns trademark vertical foregrip was too delicate, the Navy agreed to adopt the Thompson if these issues would be addressed. Auto Ordnance agreed, and replaced the foregrip with a horizontally mounted one. The rate of fire was reduced by replacing the Thompsons actuator with a much heavier unit. This increased the mass of the bolt, and reduced the cyclic rate down to an acceptable 600 rounds per minute. The new Navy model of the Thompson was released as the "U.S. Navy Model of 1928". The number 8 being stamped over the number 1 on the Model 1921 guns used to build the order.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You will find a complete history on the Thompson including the most famous ad to sell it to the public, by clicking on the history on the right side of the page!


----------



## Plainsman

You can legally own a full auto, but check on the price. I think it is a few thousand dollars for a permit.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> You can legally own a full auto, but check on the price. I think it is a few thousand dollars for a permit.


$200 dollars.


----------



## Plainsman

$200?????? really. I guess I should have looked it up and not taken peoples word for it. Thanks


----------



## Gohon

Ron Gilmore said:


> You will find a complete history on the Thompson including the most famous ad to sell it to the public, by clicking on the history on the right side of the page!


Very informative information ................ if you don't mind I'll remove that foot now .


----------



## mr.trooper

yes, its $200 for the permit...and A MINIMUM on $3,000 for the cheapest full-auto piece of junk known to man kind. Any decent gun (Like a full auto BAR) will run you around $15,000-$20,000. Yes full autos are legal for civilians...but the reason nooe has them is becuse they are rediculously expensive. Just another toy for the rich. i know i cant drop Twenty grand on a gun, but if you cn, go right ahead.

Just so we clear this up, its $200 PER GUN. you have to get RE-permited, and RE-fingerprinted and RE-approved by your local Sheriff all over again if you want another one.

here is the process again:

1) call your local BATF Agent and request the nesisary forms.

2) go to your local sheriffs office and get him to do e quick evaluation on you. He will provide you with a letter saying that your not insane ("mentaly stable")

3) fill out forms and send them and the sherrifs letter in with a $200 processing fee.

4) wait 6 months for them to actualy process your paperwork

5) Answer the BATF's miriad of questions about the criminal record of someone in a different state who happens to have the same name as you (happens alot, especialy with people who have common names. i knew a guy who it took an ADITIONAL 6 months to get approved because of some guy in Kentucky who had the same name and a record. It took that long for him to prove that he was a different guy.)

6) Get your lsence back from the BATF. CONGRAULATIONS! you have just been approved to spend your entire lifes savings on a single gun that you cant realy do anything with!

Yea...Thats why noone buys them...even though they are legal. If you want to get one, then fine. you have eveory right to. But in my book it just makes you kinda foolish for spending that much money on one...

O, and yea, tompsons and BARs (full auto) WERE avalible to the public for about $20 i think. Trouble was, that was a months wages for most men. if you had the money you could just walk down the the hardware store and buy one. no permits, no background checks, no nothing. yet for some reason crime rates were non-existant compared to today...hmmmm. i wonder why that was?


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Define assault weapon for me.


liberal far left definition= all weapons.

pointer


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> yet for some reason crime rates were non-existant compared to today...hmmmm. i wonder why that was?


Are you out of your mind?



> liberal far left definition= all weapons.


I'm a liberal and I think the term is ridiculous, you should watch where you put the blame in these statements.


----------



## pointer99

mt......

ask chucky shumer about that......also remember daniel patrick moinahan?........ he proposed a 1000% tax on amunition ........and btw he campaigned for the hildabeast who took his place in the senate.

pointer


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> Secondly, why is it that you keep quoting how you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer and blah blah blah, you can't use anything above 5 rounds in most states in the first place, and no state allows the use of full auto arms for hunting.
> 
> Thirdly why does it matter how many rounds you can spray out of something? If someone wants to kill another human being, they will use any weapon they have. If you ban the nasty looking ones, they will kill the person with a derringer, ban the derringer and they will kill them with a knife, ban the knife and you have made humans a harmless, usless race who can no longer preform simple tasks.
> 
> What do you feel that is accomplished by the banning of assault weapons?


good job mt ..... spoken like a true republican. hehehe.

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper

Militant_Tiger said:


> yet for some reason crime rates were non-existant compared to today...hmmmm. i wonder why that was?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you out of your mind?
Click to expand...

you fail to realize how sparce violet crime was back in that Era. Even witht hem in full swing, it wasnt any worse than the 90's.

Before 1930 the homide rate was much lower than it is today. Even now, with crime rates onthe fall, its still around 5 times more than it was at the turn of the centure: a time when wepons of all types were freely avalible, and virtualy un-restricted.

What does this mean? CRIME RATES HAVE NO CORRILATION TO THE AVALIBLILITY OF WEAPONS, OR TO THE TYPE O WEAPONS.

Funny how that works.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet for some reason crime rates were non-existant compared to today...hmmmm. i wonder why that was?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you out of your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you fail to realize how sparce violet crime was back in that Era. Even witht hem in full swing, it wasnt any worse than the 90's.
> 
> Before 1930 the homide rate was much lower than it is today. Even now, with crime rates onthe fall, its still around 5 times more than it was at the turn of the centure: a time when wepons of all types were freely avalible, and virtualy un-restricted.
> 
> What does this mean? CRIME RATES HAVE NO CORRILATION TO THE AVALIBLILITY OF WEAPONS, OR TO THE TYPE O WEAPONS.
> 
> Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Got any facts? Seems to me that violent crime was just as prevolent, the only difference was it was organized crime.


----------



## mr.trooper

Check out the FBI's homicide rates. The homicide/murder rates, as far as we can tell, (official reporting of such things didn't begin until the early 30's) Homicide rates during the big gangster era of the 30's were comparable to the crime rates of the 90's.

This site: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm has some good facts, as well as a chart of homicide rater per 100,000. They site FBI crime reports as well as other credible sources. Its geared toward discrediting the War on drugs, but the numbers speak.

If you will notice, the PEAK of criminal activity in the early 30's is comparable to the 90's. Ill also add this; I wasn't Terribly Olde during the 90's, but I was plenty old enough to realize what was going on around me, and I have to say that I didn't feel as if I were in any particular danger.

Also notice that crime rates were on the decline BEFORE full autos required permitting in 1936. Notice how low murder rates were BEFORE prohibition, in the era of the First World War...lower than they are today. Yet at this time any Joe Shmoe could walk into the hardware store and order just about any weapon under the sun (provided he had the means to pay for it...).

Also notice the period between prohibition and "the war on drugs". During this time fully automatic weapons were still being produced for the civilian market in limited quantities (up until 1986). I've got an old flier from the mid 80's, just before Bush Sr. enacted the 86 ban on the importation or manufacture of fully automatic weapons for civilian market. The MAC-11 in .380ACP (1700 rpm) cost a whopping $200, and the .45ACP version (1100 rpm) was an exorbitant $230.yet crime rater were low. My point is that during that point in time you could obtain 2 SMG's and the permits for under $650. Yet Murder and violent crime rates were low.

This goes to prove, ONCE AGAIN that the availability of weapons has nothing to do with violent crime.

It ALSO proves the "Assault Weapons" have nothing to do with violent crime.

It also proves that gun control is worthless.

Cheers :beer:


----------

