quote:Originally posted by PHX

Heh..."assault" weapons are used for killing human beings, whatever the reason (defense/offense). They serve no other purpose. Therefore they ARE "assault" weapons.


You say it's an assault rifle because the designer created it to do nothing else but "kill people." Interesting how you know the motives of the designer. How do you KNOW he didn't design it with "defense" in mind? Motive is the question here.

It's like in a murder trial. A guy kills someone with a Gun he had under his jacket. You gotta PROVE that the gun was in his jacket for the express and only intent of murdering the victim, before you can prove "pre-meditation." If he can present some other reasonable explanation as to why he had the gun, you can't prove pre-meditation.

Let's look at the definition of "Assault."

A violent physical or verbal attack.

A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.

Law.
An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Law. Sexual assault.
The crime of rape.

Now, in the hands of a soldier, an "assault" weapon is still a "defensive weapon."

In the hands of a citizen, calling it an "assault" weapon is to more than imply the person has intent to make "an unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily harm." That is why the liberals starting calling them "assault" weapons to begin with, to instill a preconceived notion that the only reason a citizen would possess such a gun is to commit an "assault" on another person.

The Constitution, however, does not agree with this notion, and clearly recognizes that a Citizen may possess a "deadly weapon" that is "designed for Militia" as a "defensive" weapon.

By calling these guns "asault weapons," they have denied the basic rights of Americans, and made a sweeping generality that the only reason someone would want one is to "assault" another!

There is just no way around this truth!

The fact that you keep going back to this same line of thinking is proof in and of itself as to how effective this "negative stereotype" on a particular category of weapon has been!

Sigh..if the government is knocking on your door, it don't matter how many or how big your weapons are....they are gonna get what they came for. But that is why we keep them in check...so that never happens. Soooo.... why would an oozie make you feel more protected? Im not looking at definitions, or politics or your idea of logic.... You could have a nuke in your house and your not gonna stop them from coming in to get you..maybee slow them down a little heh. But inevitably...it doesn't make a difference. Now...if you need an "assault weapon" for defense walking down the street at night...you live in the wrong ****in neighborhood.

If you claim you NEED an "assault" weapon for defense....whats to keep the next guy from saying he needs a tank, just so he will have a bigger weapon than you if you should decide to attack him, and then the next guy wants to carry around explosives on the street just so he would have something even bigger in case the tank guy attacks him and so on and on. That is why we have laws, so people don't get stoopid!

Oh yeah...and do you really think, that if we had these kind of weapons when the constitution was written, that they would not have made the exceptions. They probably never imagined the kind of technology we have now.

quote:Originally posted by PHX

that is why we keep them in check...so that never happens. We covered that.

quote:
Soooo.... why would an oozie make you feel more protected? Oh I don't know, so that I'm at least as well armed as the street gangs??? Duh! That's the problem with laws like these, the criminals don't care about them, what's another law broken. Laws like these only hurt the law abiding citizen. But I percieve this is just too much common sense for some people to grasp!

quote:
Now...if you need an "assault weapon" for defense walking down the street at night...you live in the wrong ****in neighborhood. It doesn't matter what neighborhood in which you live, recent events have demonstrated that.

quote:
whats to keep the next guy from saying he needs a tank,
Actually, a tank you can have! It's legal! Arnold Swartzanegger bought one a few years ago and was driving it around California Highways! There is no ban on tanks for purchase, just most people cannot afford them.

quote:
then the next guy wants to carry around explosives on the street
No law against carrying around explosives either, check into it!

quote:
That is why we have laws, so people don't get stoopid!
Laws don't stop the law breakers, to think they do is the "stoopidest" thing of all!

quote:
Oh yeah...and do you really think, that if we had these kind of weapons when the constitution was written, that they would not have made the exceptions. They probably never imagined the kind of technology we have now.
[/quote]

Um, excuse me, but they had weapons that were considered "advanced weaponry" in their day, they didn't make "exceptions" for them in the Constitution, so, NO I don't think they'd make such distinctions, otherwise they would have done so for "canons" and for "advanced loader muskets" and such. You are simply uninformed all the way around.

I really can't comment on the freedoms that every has taken this old Butt post but is good to see, cept theres some quoting MF's out there that just don't get the point, we're stuck between this dumbass and that butthead.. where can we go? we will always stick with the one dumbass, unless history proves me wrong it's always been that way.

bone collector, good game

so with that........

1 yer head is in the sand.
2 quit watching the the mary kate ashley olsen clock it's up!
3 FCC
4 Paranoid
5 Republican
6 You didn't listen
14 ya gotta stop, dumbass

and with that, !all those in favor of getting rid of term limits say Aye!

Z

originally posted by god... i mean sgo

quote: Laws don't stop the law breakers, to think they do is the "stoopidest" thing of all!
quote: Oh I don't know, so that I'm at least as well armed as the street gangs
quote: It doesn't matter what neighborhood in which you live

perhaps you think we shouldn't have laws to begin with - since they don't stop the 'law breakers' ?

just for kicks (i don't usually cite the NRA as a reputable source, but this discussion is mostly a joke anyways):

"State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that firearms arbitrarily defined as "assault weapons" have never been used to commit more than a minute fraction of violent crimes." - from the NRA FAQ

they had a pie chart too... looked like 1% or less
so i guess you DO live on the wrong f'in street

i can see the typical SGO response coming : "Yes! That's Exactly my Point! They're Harmless - get your facts straight! Yes, i'm saying one thing - then saying another - but the point is, I argue for the sake of arguing ! Get it?"

in some more seriousness.. i think you need to double check exactly what's termed an 'assault weapon' as opposed to an 'assault rifle' - if you REALLY want to be on par with scarface, you're probably gonna need to procure yourself an 'assault rifle' - or a machine gun - that's been illegal/hiiighly restricted for civilian use since 1934. "assault weapons" are all semi automatic. (yes of course, as i'm sure any response of yours will claim : you knew this all along)

Is this thing breaking any records yet for the longest never-going-to-be-resolved post or what? Just wondering.

Guns don't kill people its the person pulling the trigger....Chris Rock said it best Make bullets cost about 50,000 each people will think twice about killing someone or wasting bullets

Heh...no wait... then only the criminals will have (stolen) bullets....and Bill Gates.

SGO, I dont have time today to get into your lengthy diatribes so I will offer up this for debate today and will respond to the others later.

We are in a country right now with a large part of our military. This country doesnt even have a working sewage disposal system in many cases. We are using all of our technology in order to fight a war there against a handful of terrorists who have strained our military greatly. In America there are MILLIONS of gunowners. These gunowners have a collective pool of firepower and money FAR greater than the terrorists in Iraq. Do you honestly think that we cant defend ourselves against ANY country on earth? The military would have zero chance of defeating the American populace. If you really want to argue that point then you have stepped outside of reality.

Can I defeat the US military with my 10 guns? No. That is ludicrous, but I know that someone like you would turn what I said into that. My point is that there are enough people just like me who will fight against a tyrannical government. We would win that fight in every instance. The military is not big or bad enough to take the American people out. Period.

Well the military does have much bigger weapons but the populace could do it....but it would take organization. We would have to work together. How that would be accomplished on such a large scale I don't know.

quote:Originally posted by PHX

Well the military does have much bigger weapons but the populace could do it....but it would take organization. We would have to work together. How that would be accomplished on such a large scale I don't know.


It could have been done before 911. After that, the government used the war on terror to wage a new kind of war on the Citizens of the United States. One in which your every word, deed, and movement is now under scrutiny. No such "coalition" as Bone describes could ever be formed under the new Patriot Act. Yet Bone defends the Patriot Act, that is the funny part of it all.

What really gets me, is that people like Bone want to wait until they have to take up arms against their Government before they will do anything about the "out of control" Political powers in this Country. If you warn them that their freedoms are being eroded politically and judicially, they simply say, "that will never happen as long as I have guns." You can't reason with people like this, and it occurs to me, the most "vocal" of them will be the first to be rounded up by the new "Gestapo" under the authority of the "Patriot Act" for they openly advocate the taking up of arms against the Federal Government.

This Country is headed for Dictatorship, controlled not by one man, but controlled by the "Homeland Security" organizations, and the American people will sit back and watch it all, and do nothing, some banking that it "could never happen here because they have a shotgun" and others not caring at all, as long as they can watch the Superbowl.

I've lived and worked as a Government Employee for 23 years now, and I can assure you, it can happen, and it will! You go right ahead, Bone, think you are quite safe, and that if the Government takes your rights, renegade Military Personnel will come to your aid, or you and your neighbors will be able to mount a resistence. It is YOU who are out of touch with reality.

I think you've seen the movie "Red Dawn" too many times.

The truth is, Freedom is already a thing of the past in this Country, it's too late to reign big Government in from the Poll Booths, and the reason is, the American People themselves are "Big Government" and they are completely brain washed by either the Right or the Left (who incidentally are BOTH evil, and BOTH a part of the same Machine).

The New World Order is upon us, and there's no force on earth going to stop it, not even Bone and his neighbors with shotguns and deer rifles.

You sound like a raving madman preaching doomsday to the sane people.

I am leaving to Europe in a week. Well, actually i was hoping to leave for europe, but now that I have spoken to you I think that there is a possibility I might not actually have the freedom to leave the country that I thought i did. Wow, that is scary.

I understand how bad it is for people like you. You sit around all day long and weave these conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get you when in actuality it is just that you live a poor pitiful existence and get worked up because you realize that noone really cares about what you say or do and your theories are simply that...theories. Our country has survived for many years on the foundations of our founding fathers. No politician in our history has been infallible. However, I think our system of government is in very good working order. Half the people in the country that care to vote will not be happy about this election. I very seriously doubt if any of those law abiding citizens who vote for the losing candidate are gonna fall under extra scrutiny. I know that it will be a sad day for you when you realize that the government doesnt care about what you do or say, unless you have illegal intentions, and you were wrong about things. However, unfortunately for you, that day is coming.

quote:
One of the first people arrested and detained was a College professor who had, earlier in his career written books that criticized American Foreign Policy. Some of the radical terrorist liked what he said (that does not make him a terrorist any more than me liking some of the things that a Liberal says makes me a Liberal) but see, this is how your mind works, no wonder you think the Patriot act is such a good thing.


You also made this puzzling post by reading on a libby website about how bad this poor "innocent" college professor was treated. As I said, if you do "suspishous" things dont be mad when you draw attention to yourself.

Below from his recent book: http://www.critical-art.net/books/molecular/index.html

CAE believes that the best response to these ultimately unsolvable problems is the idea of fuzzy biological sabotage (FBS). The fuzzy saboteur situates he/rself in the in-between—in the areas that have not yet been fully regulated. This situational strategy was very well developed by Brian Springer in his backhaul video work and in his laser information conduit interventions. His idea was to take what was considered private property, but functionally was public property. A backhaul (off-air live satellite video feeds) was considered the property of the media, but since it was in the public domain of the reception of airwaves and existed without copyright, it could be copied, replicated, and even marketed (now Fuzzy Biological Sabotage 101 backhauls are scrambled to stop this process). Springer was brilliant at finding these little cracks in the system and exploiting them. The fuzzy saboteur has to stand on that ambiguous line between the legal and the illegal (both criminally and civilly). From that point, the individual or group can set in motion a chain of events that will yield the desired final result. The opening activity— the only one to which the saboteur should have any direct causal link—should be as legal as possible and hopefully within the rights of any individual. The more links in the chain, the better from a legal standpoint, but extending causal chains increases the difficulty of controlling all the exponentially growing number of variables that could doom the action. For the most part, such actions will only have two phases—the legitimate or fuzzy act and the upheaval it causes. The authorities then have the legal conundrum of proving guilt by indirect action—an unenviable task for any attorney. Moreover, unlike CD, fuzzy sabotage does not require a physical confrontation with authority, and in many cases does not require any type of trespass.

If an action is done correctly, the fuzzy saboteur has an additional safety net supplied by the various governments of the world—plausible deniability. For centuries state forces have sabotaged one another by various means that cannot be proven within any judicial system other than by military field justice. Simply by creating a nonaggressive scenario, or denying activity all together, agencies of discord have avoided direct charges. This symbolic shield can be reverse-engineered to serve resistant culture. With any luck, the fuzzy saboteur will never have to use this shield, but if this is necessary it can create 102 The Molecular Invasion a platform for public attention where “tactical embarrassment” (to use the RTMark term) can be employed. It may be nostalgically reminiscent of 19th-century anarchism, when it was incumbent upon any member of the movement who was arrested to use the court or any other public stage to denounce the bourgeois system, but practically speaking, and for the health of the tactic, such public displays should be avoided at all costs. A single publicity battle can potentially be won through deniability and campaigning; however, a series of these occurrences will dilute the plausibility of the denial and allow the development of spectacular countertactics by the authorities. Like hard-core ECD, FBS is not a public process. CAE requests that those groups and individuals whose goal it is to spectacularize hacking and perform as activist pop stars to do the movement(s) a favor and leave this method alone—particularly in its testing stage. The final question then is, who are the agents of FBS? CAE suggests the use of wildlife to do the deed. Microorganisms, plants, insects, reptiles, mammals, tactical GMOs, and organic chemical compounds can all be a part of the resistance. The use of living nonpathogenic biological agents as disrupters will depend on each individual’s or group’s particular relationship to these creatures, as well as on localized conditions. Obviously, considerable arguments will erupt between the various positions on what constitutes an acceptable relationship between humans and other living creatures, and how various creatures will be employed, but let us say at the outset that we are not proposing that sentient organisms be considered for suicide missions or other incarnations of sacrificial economy.

Fuzzy Biological Sabotage 103 Pranks If FBS has roots, it is in the realm of pranks. Most readers probably have a story of a prank that they or someone they knew did involving a biological agent. Placing a dead rodent or fish (nature’s stink bombs) in a heating duct at school or some other offending institution is one of the classics. However, these are not among the class of pranks that are of interest to the fuzzy saboteur. FBS pranks are not done for a good laugh, for public embarrassment, or simply to be annoying; rather, they should be done as a form of psychological disturbance—more along the lines of LSD in Castro’s cigars and liquid refreshment before a public address (to use an example from the CIA’s book of practical jokes). Pranks can be used to stir up internal institutional paranoia, or they can be used to divert attention toward useless activities. Pranks can provide their own unique blend of inertia.

For example, the release of mutant flies in research facilities and neighboring offices can potentially have a disturbing effect. There are all kinds of mutated flies available on the market. They come in various colors with almost any type of deformity one might desire. Labs use them for cross-generational study because they are easy to raise, reproduce quickly, and maintain unusual genetic codes. Choose a set of mutated flies and begin a steady release of them into biotech facilities (it also works well in nuclear facilities). They can be set free in lobbies, parking garages, parked cars, almost anywhere. One does not have to challenge a fortified site—the flies themselves will do the infiltration. If enough flies are acquired or produced, you just have to be near the site and release swarms of 104 The Molecular Invasion them. Trespassing is not really necessary, unless there is a need for specific targeting. It only takes the occasional observation of them on a regular basis for people to start wondering what might be causing the appearance of these strange creatures. Needless to say, the first conclusion will not be that some fuzzy saboteur must be letting mutated flies go in the offices. The imagination will provide more exotic scenarios. The key here is consistency, not quantity. Moreover, relying on the power of the rumor mill that develops in any workplace, we can be sure that the fear and/or conspiracy factor will be considerably amplified. A paranoid work force is an inefficient work force. This approach thus creates inertia in the system. In the best-case scenario, an investigation into the origins of the flies would be launched, which would burn more cash and waste even more employee time. In the worst-case scenario, the prankster would provide a topic of conversation at breaktime.

http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/05/27/ ... orism.html

When you do things that try to draw attention to yourself, dont be mad when that attention comes full force. The last time there was this much hysteria going on in America was during the time of Mcarthy. The media/communists had a field day with this man and his constant accusations of communists in our government. He had a nervous breakdown and died to the pleasure of many of our media personalities of the time. Forty years later...much of what he was claiming was true. In the end the Patriot Act has probably already taken countless terrorists off the streets and if someone like this "innocent" professor gets caught up in the web so be it. Again, rights of the many over rights of a few.

quote:Who ever state that all military members supported Bush??? But whether you support Bush or not, is not the issue! Everyone should support our troops and the decisions of our government to go to war. We have to show a unified front! It's demeaning to our troops and to our country when our own citizens speak out publicly against what we are doing to combat terroism! The terroists are using our own "freedom of speach" against us! Remember people, United we stand, Divided we fall! You may not like it but its the truth! So until every last terroist is DEAD and BURIED, we can never give up, we can never back down, we must stay united no matter what your specific political ideas are.

***

So nobody should even QUESTION going to war? Tell me again why we went to war?
1. First we bombed the #$@% out of impoverished Afganistan to get Osama Bin Laden (incidentally the same Bin Laden who's family was flown out of the USA on 9/13/2001 by none other than the Bush administration on a commercial flight w/out ANY questioning about their relative). Hey, anyone know where Osama is?? Anyone care? As for Afganistan, who cares about it now? Now girls are free to go to school in Afganistan. Well, if there WERE any schools.
2. We went to war in Iraq to find Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. We violated UN Resolutions to do it. We had to b/c of the acts of terror he was committing against his own citizens...with chemical weapons gladly funded by none other than the USA. George H.W. Bush in that case. We had a pre-emptive war against a country who supposedly posed a threat b/c of WMD. We found NO weapons of Mass destruction and now look like bullies.

Hey, remember when no Germans questioned Hitler? Rings a bell, doesn't it? Don't be a bully!! If we weren't entitled to think about & question our leaders, we wouldn't even be allowed to write on this website.

Even more sickening, if this sounds like an anti-Republican rant, is that the Democrats have been pushing all this through. Standing by & watching it happen.

And one more point we might all be able to agree on: It's not easy to get good information about any of this. I know the mass media gives us fluff like the weather & who Britney Spears just married and I know the right wing engages in nasty personal attacks on politicians & their families and now I'm starting to see the same from the left wing. Makes me think neither is better & it all comes down to money in the end.

I dont' like politics because I don't like being lied to. I trust few if any politicians. I was just wondering if it had been pointed out that the Patriot Act was written by a Democrat. Whoever was complaining about that can blame everyone as far as I'm concerned.