NationStates Jolt Archive

So, are you excited? Mortified? Or could you care less? Your thoughts on the issue would be valuable.

You know, I never thought it would happen. After all, it's a popular piece of legislation, and it's a reasonable restriction on weapons ownership. I don't think the world's going to come to an end over it, but I don't like the idea that it became that much easier to own an assault weapon, because if they're easier to get legally, they're easier to get illegally as well, and while that means I could potentially own one too, I'm not the kind of person who wants to be able to protect myself in a firefight--I'd rather there weren't a firefight in the first place.

<sarcasm>OH DEAR GOD! The assault weapons ban is about to expire???!? Western civilization will surely crumble, and IT'S ALL GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!111one </sarcasm>

You know, I never thought it would happen. After all, it's a popular piece of legislation, and it's a reasonable restriction on weapons ownership. I don't think the world's going to come to an end over it, but I don't like the idea that it became that much easier to own an assault weapon, because if they're easier to get legally, they're easier to get illegally as well, and while that means I could potentially own one too, I'm not the kind of person who wants to be able to protect myself in a firefight--I'd rather there weren't a firefight in the first place.
gun nuts dont understand the words "not a firefight"

This is not a very good. I'm all for guns and having fun with them but there are some sick people out there who want to shoot people the hell up. They need a form of banning. You should have to take a very hard background test and a close look at your life and only allow the top 5 percent people who are qualified.

You know, I never thought it would happen. After all, it's a popular piece of legislation, and it's a reasonable restriction on weapons ownership. I don't think the world's going to come to an end over it, but I don't like the idea that it became that much easier to own an assault weapon, because if they're easier to get legally, they're easier to get illegally as well, and while that means I could potentially own one too, I'm not the kind of person who wants to be able to protect myself in a firefight--I'd rather there weren't a firefight in the first place.
If 1/3 of the NRA supports it, it must be popular.

Sweet, now I dont have to worry about the feds busting me for the crates of assault rifles and ammunition ive got stockpiled in my basement.

Sweet, now I dont have to worry about the feds busting me for the crates of assault rifles and ammunition ive got stockpiled in my basement.
Sorry, honey. It won't be lifted until Monday. An FBI agent may be on this thread right now, and watching you. The ban is still in place, but will disappear by Monday. Until then, I have no recollection that you ever talked about assault weapons.

If 1/3 of the NRA supports it, it must be popular.
Exactly, but the NRA leadership was firmly opposed to it, and they staked a goodly part of their national reputation on it, and they got what they wanted. It's really a shame, and while you may not agree with me on this last point, it's yet another reason why we've got to get rid of the extremists in charge of the House of Representatives--Dennis Hastert and especially Tom Delay. They're the ones who kept a renewal coming to the floor for a vote, and I don't care if they're replaced by Democrats or through an internal palace coup, but they need to be gone. I'd prefer Pelosi, of course, but I'll take either scenario.

I am pleased. It is about time that such a law, that banned some guns for purely cosmetic reasons, is going to susnset.

I am pleased. It is about time that such a law, that banned some guns for purely cosmetic reasons, is going to susnset.
i would not consider banning kalishnikovs automatic shotguns mac-10s and the like being for cosmetic reasons. i agree with semi-auto weapons not having above a certain clip size and i agree every single person doesnt need a AK or mac-10 or rotating barrel shotgun

The law did not ban fully automatic weapons.

They are already banned. You have to have a class 3 FEDERAL license to have one.

The ban includes semi-automatics, which are one shot per trigger pull. Nobody needs a Uzi. But I could sure use a durable gun made out of metal and plastic, not wood, because that is what the law does; it bans scary-looking guns.

*Fires AR15 into the air*

The law did not ban fully automatic weapons.

They are already banned. You have to have a class 3 FEDERAL license to have one.

The ban includes semi-automatics, which are one shot per trigger pull. Nobody needs a Uzi. But I could sure use a durable gun made out of metal and plastic, not wood, because that is what the law does; it bans scary-looking guns.
ok, cite the part of the law that bans guns made out of metal and plastic.

and the law specifically cites weapons it bans, ones i named. if its in Counter Strike, its banned to the general populace by the AWB, if it wasnt previously banned.

Originally Posted by Greater Valia
Sweet, now I dont have to worry about the feds busting me for the crates of assault rifles and ammunition ive got stockpiled in my basement.

Well if you have preban assualt weapons then it does not matter, but if they are post ban then something is wrong with you, unless you have a permit?
Having billions of rounds of any ammunition to small arms is not illegal why you would want such is beyond me but to each his own just dont break the law.

Another surprising move by the American empire. First they decelerate navy production and next they legalize assault weapons. Before you know it, they might actually stop their war on anime.

what is the point of having assult weapons? you dont take an ak-47 out for hunting, and you will probably never have to kill a robber/theif. gun crimes will soar and many cops will die. before people got weapons through a huge black market. and now they can go to a store and buy one easily. cops will be easily outgunned and gangs would be armed with them. about 5-10 years ago a bank in Los Angeles (i think) was raided by two armed gunmen with assult weapons. many innocent civillians were killed, cops also. they couldnt take the heavily armoured and armed gunmen with just their pistols. and remember columbine? well that can happen again, since if a wacko gets his hand on it he can easily raid the school. hopefully the senate can quickly make a resolution lengthening the ban. you might be able to put that AK-47 in your closet, but is it worth it to be able to get your favorite machine gun for the holidays, and see that many people and police will be killed? why is it so improtant to have that weapon. i am sure that some of the people will not use them to actually attack other people, but i am sure that a good number will.

ok, cite the part of the law that bans guns made out of metal and plastic.

and the law specifically cites weapons it bans, ones i named. if its in Counter Strike, its banned to the general populace by the AWB, if it wasnt previously banned.

We repeat: automatic weapons have been regulated since 1935 when the National Firearms Act of 1934 went into effect.

what is the point of having assult weapons? you dont take an ak-47 out for hunting, and you will probably never have to kill a robber/theif.

They're fun and collectible.

gun crimes will soar and many cops will die. before people got weapons through a huge black market. and now they can go to a store and buy one easily. cops will be easily outgunned and gangs would be armed with them.

Ah ha, so you're saying they have them anyway?

[In 1997, the Bank of America in North Hollywood] was raided by two armed gunmen with assult weapons. many innocent civillians were killed, cops also.

That's just liberal propaganda. The two men had fully automatic weapons. They were the only casualties, as the cops ran down to a local gun shop and borrowed a couple of Bushmasters.

they couldnt take the heavily armoured and armed gunmen with just their pistols. and remember columbine? well that can happen again, since if a wacko gets his hand on it he can easily raid the school.

Only one of their guns was semi-automatic, as I recall.

hopefully the senate can quickly make a resolution lengthening the ban.

They can't. Two days to pass a law? It can't be done!

you might be able to put that AK-47 in your closet, but is it worth it to be able to get your favorite machine gun for the holidays, and see that many people and police will be killed? why is it so improtant to have that weapon. i am sure that some of the people will not use them to actually attack other people, but i am sure that a good number will.

As I've said before, machine guns have been tightly regulated since 1935.

what is the point of having assult weapons? you dont take an ak-47 out for hunting, and you will probably never have to kill a robber/theif. gun crimes will soar and many cops will die. before people got weapons through a huge black market. and now they can go to a store and buy one easily. cops will be easily outgunned and gangs would be armed with them. about 5-10 years ago a bank in Los Angeles (i think) was raided by two armed gunmen with assult weapons. many innocent civillians were killed, cops also. they couldnt take the heavily armoured and armed gunmen with just their pistols. and remember columbine? well that can happen again, since if a wacko gets his hand on it he can easily raid the school. hopefully the senate can quickly make a resolution lengthening the ban. you might be able to put that AK-47 in your closet, but is it worth it to be able to get your favorite machine gun for the holidays, and see that many people and police will be killed? why is it so improtant to have that weapon. i am sure that some of the people will not use them to actually attack other people, but i am sure that a good number will.

Well you dont need a reason to have one, and you dont need a reason to exercise any other right. The people in the hollywood bank shootout were the reason to allow more assualt weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens. If any trained (or knowledgable) civilian or military personnel (off duty, just like any other civilian) or police officer would of had the correct weapons in that area that day they would of both of been put into a quicker process of termination as soon as the first shot was fired. Actually the truth is and you purposely twisted the facts (got anything to prove most would). That a few people may very well use them just as they use the current assualt weapons for illegal acts but most will not.

We repeat: automatic weapons have been regulated since 1935 when the National Firearms Act of 1934 went into effect.
...
for the second and last time, next post i ignore you

i ONLY listed the weapons SPECIFICALLY stated in the AWB

Oh, and I almost forgot: the banned weapons are used in less than 3% of gun crime, just as it was before the ban.

Thanks, Paxania. This is from a government website:

"...[the law bans] (1) a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, or a barrel shroud; or (2) a second pistol grip, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud, or the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

I can't have detachable magazines legally. It is a hassle that doesn't prevent people from murduring each other, which is the purpose of the ban.

Just wondering WHY you need assault weapons.
Is it to protect you from:
a) other countries?
b) your own government?
c) from criminals?
d) from rogue livestock?
e) antique cans?

I can't have detachable magazines legally. It is a hassle that doesn't prevent people from murduring each other, which is the purpose of the ban.

If you live in the US and you are not a former criminal then you can own detachable magazines legally. They just stopped making them for sales to the general public but everything already out in circulation is available.

Jesus Christ the ban is gonna be lifted.

I will first say I own a Marlin 880 .22 LR bolt action rifle. I enjoy target shooting, it is a relaxing sport, and it is very fun. What I don't like is jerks coming down to the range with AK-47s, M-16s, Galis, etc. One fellow came down with a .50 semi auto rifle!

What is the purpose of civilans owning assult weapons? Grant it, there are some responsible people out there, but there are many more crazy gun lovers. I went to a gun show to look at .22s a few years ago. I was horrifed with what I saw at about 5 tables. Practically every kind of assault rifle from the Stg.44 to the G36, submachine guns from Thompsons to HK MP-5s were stacked several weapons high on racks!

These are semi-auto civ versions, but why do you need an AK, Uzi, or Tech 9? You don't! You're not gonna go hunting with a 9mm machine pistol, they serve no purpose but to KILL. That is what they were designed to do.

I don't wanna walk into the local BB&T and feel in danger knowing some Rambo type is gonna break in carrying fully automatic weapons with 100 round plus drum mags. No one needs massive drum magizines!

Assault weapons off ALL should be outlawed in the civilian market. Only police units would be allowed to use them. Assault weapons serve no purpose in the hands of private citizens.

We are not talking about automatic weapons.

Ah ha, so you're saying they have them anyway?
yes and NO, some one who has the pateince and intention of doing osmething dangerous can go to some lengths to obtain one, but the average criminal will not own one, now the police can and will be outgunned by street thugs as the ordinary police do not carry nor are trained to carry heavy weapons or flak jackets capable of stopping an AK, hell our troops in AK territory dont have those



That's just liberal propaganda. The two men had fully automatic weapons. They were the only casualties, as the cops ran down to a local gun shop and borrowed a couple of Bushmasters.
bullshit, thats not propaganda, i remember seeing that video on TV, 2 asses with a car full of assault weapons held the police off for hours just casually walking down the street after robbing the place took several hours of a stand off before the police could bring some people in with enough M4s to go around to stop them, and they got lucky in that.


Only one of their guns was semi-automatic, as I recall.
and they should've had zero, guns, not just semi-auto.



They can't. Two days to pass a law? It can't be done!
*cough* patriot act *cough*



As I've said before, machine guns have been tightly regulated since 1935.
kalishnikovs are regulated under the AWB by name. your not even listening. maybe you will get the point when some one shoots you with a LEGAL AK

Jesus Christ the ban is gonna be lifted.

I will first say I own a Marlin 880 .22 LR bolt action rifle. I enjoy target shooting, it is a relaxing sport, and it is very fun. What I don't like is jerks coming down to the range with AK-47s, M-16s, Galis, etc. One fellow came down with a .50 semi auto rifle!

What is the purpose of civilans owning assult weapons? Grant it, there are some responsible people out there, but there are many more crazy gun lovers. I went to a gun show to look at .22s a few years ago. I was horrifed with what I saw at about 5 tables. Practically every kind of assault rifle from the Stg.44 to the G36, submachine guns from Thompsons to HK MP-5s were stacked several weapons high on racks!

These are semi-auto civ versions, but why do you need an AK, Uzi, or Tech 9? You don't! You're not gonna go hunting with a 9mm machine pistol, they serve no purpose but to KILL. That is what they were designed to do.

I don't wanna walk into the local BB&T and feel in danger knowing some Rambo type is gonna break in carrying fully automatic weapons with 100 round plus drum mags. No one needs massive drum magizines!

Assault weapons off ALL should be outlawed in the civilian market. Only police units would be allowed to use them. Assault weapons serve no purpose in the hands of private citizens.

These are legal to have with a collector's license in any case.

I don't need drum magazines either. BUt I could use bigger than an 8 round magazine. Maybe 12.

We are not talking about automatic weapons.

What is an assualt weapon? An AUTOMATIC WEAPON! Fires a hell of a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

Assault weapons off ALL should be outlawed in the civilian market. Only police units would be allowed to use them. Assault weapons serve no purpose in the hands of private citizens.

Sure I do, because a single round from my perfectly legal desert eagle won't be enough, I need to unload the thirty round barrel magazine from an USAS-12 into that dangerous criminal, with his kknife.

Autoshotguns for everyone!

Might I remind you all that the purpose of the econd Amendment is to keep the citizenry capable of overthrowing the government.

*exasperated sigh*

ust wondering WHY you need automatic weapons.
Is it to protect you from:
a) other countries?
b) your own government?
c) from criminals?
d) from rogue livestock?
e) antique cans?

I am willing to bet there are over a million things someone may justify to themselve (since you do not need to justify it anyone else) that they need whatever it is they think they need or actually need. Now as long as they stay legal with that right it remains a right to do whatever that right grants.. curently it grants the right to own preban assualt weapons in 2 days and 21 minutes it will grant the right to own whatever is manufactured for semi-auto weapons available to the public.

I have difficulty understanding how people can bash the government for trampling on our right to privacy (gained only from an EXTREMELY lenient reading of the 9th amendment), and then support an ultra strict reading of the second amendment to justify banning semi-automatics.
The proponents of the bill of course will cry safety, wondering "why would anyone ever need to use an AK-47"? But that’s not the point. The entire purpose of the bill of rights is that anyone can do what they want without having to justify it. People don't need a reason to have a gun, as long as they are not committing crimes, they have the freedom to do whatever they want.
Further, while people talk about the need for safety, the assault rifle ban doesn't stop the spread of assault rifles, it just forces them to be spread through black markets. As Cliche as it is, the old axiom still rings true "if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns". Banning assault weapons doesn't deter criminals, only the law abiding citizens that would not have used the guns for illegal purposes anyway.

The law serves no productive purpose and merely serves to take away even more of our rights. Good riddance.

What is an assualt weapon? An AUTOMATIC WEAPON! Fires a hell of a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

They've been mislabeled in more liberal propaganda. We're talking about semi-automatic weapons.

Thanks, Paxania. This is from a government website:

"...[the law bans] (1) a folding or telescoping stock, a threaded barrel, a pistol grip, a forward grip, or a barrel shroud; or (2) a second pistol grip, a threaded barrel, a barrel shroud, or the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

I can't have detachable magazines legally. It is a hassle that doesn't prevent people from murduring each other, which is the purpose of the ban.
ok im tired of the bullshit

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

"`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "

"`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- " then add features you said

"w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device"

with all the stupidity i am close to wishing injury on you by the guns you seek to wish to make legal

We are not talking about automatic weapons.

Sorry, Assault Weapons. The Question Still Stands However.

Sure I do, because a single round from my perfectly legal desert eagle won't be enough, I need to unload the thirty round barrel magazine from an USAS-12 into that dangerous criminal, with his kknife.

Autoshotguns for everyone!
oh yeah! street sweepers all around!

ok im tired of the bullshit

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

"`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "

"`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- " then add features you said

"w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device"

with all the stupidity i am close to wishing injury on you by the guns you seek to wish to make legal

ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WERE STRICTLY REGULATED BEFORE THE BAN! Come on, how many times do I have to say it?

I have difficulty understanding how people can bash the government for trampling on our right to privacy (gained only from an EXTREMELY lenient reading of the 9th amendment), and then support an ultra strict reading of the second amendment to justify banning semi-automatics.
The proponents of the bill of course will cry safety, wondering "why would anyone ever need to use an AK-47"? But that’s not the point. The entire purpose of the bill of rights is that anyone can do what they want without having to justify it. People don't need a reason to have a gun, as long as they are not committing crimes, they have the freedom to do whatever they want.
Further, while people talk about the need for safety, the assault rifle ban doesn't stop the spread of assault rifles, it just forces them to be spread through black markets. As Cliche as it is, the old axiom still rings true "if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns". Banning assault weapons doesn't deter criminals, only the law abiding citizens that would not have used the guns for illegal purposes anyway.

The law serves no productive purpose and merely serves to take away even more of our rights. Good riddance.
WRONG, take some political classes, the amendments do not give you the right do do whatever hte fuck you want, you are granted the very BASIC of the amendment and limitatiosn arep laced on what you can and cant do by decision of the government and threat to society

ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WERE STRICTLY REGULATED BEFORE THE BAN! Come on, how many times do I have to say it?
you, sir, are an idiot, you will now be ignored, go to hell

I think the Founding Fathers meant what they said. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

you, sir, are an idiot, you will now be ignored, go to hell

Running away, is he?

My friend, there is a gun store not ten miles from my house. I can go in there buy a mint condition AK-47 for about $800 and a book all about the history of the AK family for an extra $20. Now, I take the AK I just bought and the book home. I open to a page which has the inner workings of the weapon. I break down my new gun, take a file, and file away the pin that keeps the weapon in semi-auto. Once that pin is down enough, PRESTO! I now have the capablity to blast every squad car from here to Richmond with easy.

It is that easy to make a semi-auto weapon into a full auto.

Yay! :P

Why do we need assault weapons? To overthrow the government of course. Or at least give it a fighting chance.

Yay! :P

Why do we need assault weapons? To overthrow the government of course. Or at least give it a fighting chance.
which is my favorite argument

*inserrt stupid redneck voice*
WE need gun laws because guns help us protect our other rights.

*uninsert*

yeah well the 2nd amendment isnt protecting the other amendments when the gun nuts actively support the people removing those other rights

kalishnikovs are regulated under the AWB by name. your not even listening. maybe you will get the point when some one shoots you with a LEGAL AK
But those aren't machine guns. They are semi-autos with detatchable magazines with a capacity exceeding ten rounds, making them, in the eyes of the law, assault weapons (which is an entirely different thing from an assault rifle, which is, by definition, select fire). And AK's are still being produced after the ban, just the mags have to be pre-ban, and they can't have things like bayonets (how many drive by bayonettings they have every year?), flash hiders (pretty much useless, and certainly wouldn't help a criminal at all), or muzzle brakes (only there for historical accuracy, since they do no good in a semi-auto). I do agree that people should have to go through more extensive background checks to buy a weapon, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to require a permit (the application for which would involve a psych eval.) to buy them, but all the AWB serves to do is make historically accurate military-style firearms prohibitively expensive for collectors. I'm all for getting guns off the street, but this isn't the way.

yeah well the 2nd amendment isnt protecting the other amendments when the gun nuts actively support the people removing those other rights
I definitely agree with you there though. I appreciate the right to due process (or did when I had it) quite a bit more than the right to own whatever guns I want.

which is my favorite argument

*inserrt stupid redneck voice*
WE need gun laws because guns help us protect our other rights.

*uninsert*

yeah well the 2nd amendment isnt protecting the other amendments when the gun nuts actively support the people removing those other rights

Thank you! Ah dun reckon that you mightn't considah tha' a compliment, but Ah'd reckon your hearts in the riaht place. ;) Now when that thar big day comes, yall might have a fightin' chance of stoppin' the revolution, as well as joinin' it.

This is terrible! Gun crimes will soar.

People shouldn't own guns.

GEEH!!!!

so my "pre-ban" weapons are legel again?

17 rounds from a glock stops any argument.

*two swords work better, you just have to be closer*

:cool:

I think my dad is going to be the first in line to get one. :headbang:

*inserrt stupid redneck voice*
WE need gun laws because guns help us protect our other rights.

We need them guns because...er...guns protect our god damn rights!
*fires a gun by accident, taking down three pigeos*


Now THAT'S how it goes

so my "pre-ban" weapons are legel again?

17 rounds from a glock stops any argument.

*two swords work better, you just have to be closer*

:cool:
see thats what im talking bout, outlaw ALL FIREARMS and require everyoen to take martial arts classes and have convential weapons training with swords and stuff

see thats what im talking bout, outlaw ALL FIREARMS and require everyoen to take martial arts classes and have convential weapons training with swords and stuff
So if you think we should all be taught to kill eachother, why do you have a problem with guns. At least when people learn to shoot, the target is a piece of paper, and not another human being.

see thats what im talking bout, outlaw ALL FIREARMS and require everyoen to take martial arts classes and have convential weapons training with swords and stuff

But then someone will bring a gun to a knife fight.

I prefer to be able to fight without weapons, but I am damn sure know i will need a gun someday.

But then someone will bring a gun to a knife fight.

I prefer to be able to fight without weapons, but I am damn sure know i will need a gun someday.
ok listen, if you take away all guns at once or convicne everyone at once, which is possible because the world is full of gullible halfwits, that they will never need a gun, i can do what i want easily

you can NOT know you will need a gun someday, that is impossible, unless you are psychic, and if that is so, you still do not need a gun because you can predict what people will do or stay away from situations where a gun is necesary, and yo ucan foresee the consequences of you drawing your gun on someone who already has their gun on you, that is, you getting shot. just because you have a gun doesnt mean you are immune

Yes, we are all aware that automatic weapons are still banned. But it really doesn't matter: a skilled gunman with a semi-auto weapon can empty a 30-round clip in under 5 seconds. What the AWB does is make it difficult to acquire such a large magazine, thus vastly slowing down a gunman's rate of fire, as well as the amount of ammo he can carry. It also bans such features as pistol grips on rifles, which allows them to be spray-fired from the hip (you'd have a hell of a time hip-firing a hunting rifle). This, again, cuts down on an assailant's rate of fire, as well as the scope of his target area (you can swing around more with a gun at the hip than from the shoulder). The AWB also bans exceedingly heavy (and powerful) pistols, and pistols with a barrel shroud that allows for two-handed firing (which increases accuracy). The ban makes it harder for people to buy guns intended for killing. You can still take your rifle and go deer hunting, you just cant mow down a crowd in a few seconds.
Also, addressing the issue of the 2nd amendment being so that the citizenry can overthrow the government: I really doubt that even a large revolutionary force, armed with assault (hell, even automatic) weapons could take on the highly-trained, well-equipped US Army. So the point is moot. If the citizens want to overthrow the government, they can't succeed without the Army. If they have the Army, they really don't need powerful weapons.

Yes, we are all aware that automatic weapons are still banned. But it really doesn't matter: a skilled gunman with a semi-auto weapon can empty a 30-round clip in under 5 seconds. What the AWB does is make it difficult to acquire such a large magazine, thus vastly slowing down a gunman's rate of fire, as well as the amount of ammo he can carry. It also bans such features as pistol grips on rifles, which allows them to be spray-fired from the hip (you'd have a hell of a time hip-firing a hunting rifle). This, again, cuts down on an assailant's rate of fire, as well as the scope of his target area (you can swing around more with a gun at the hip than from the shoulder). The AWB also bans exceedingly heavy (and powerful) pistols, and pistols with a barrel shroud that allows for two-handed firing (which increases accuracy). The ban makes it harder for people to buy guns intended for killing. You can still take your rifle and go deer hunting, you just cant mow down a crowd in a few seconds.
Also, addressing the issue of the 2nd amendment being so that the citizenry can overthrow the government: I really doubt that even a large revolutionary force, armed with assault (hell, even automatic) weapons could take on the highly-trained, well-equipped US Army. So the point is moot. If the citizens want to overthrow the government, they can't succeed without the Army. If they have the Army, they really don't need powerful weapons.
but but but but if i dont have a tec-9 i cant mutilate some guy trying to steal my stereo! :rolleyes:

its not hard to get a high capacity magazine with the ban in effect. I can buy a truckload of 40 and 75rd magazines for my AR-15 right now, ban and all.

/Glad the ban is going to die :D

i can already feel the massacres this is going to cause by people walking around with automatic concealed handguns and just randomly shooting up each other in fear they mgiht pull a gun on them, in which case they do and we have riots in the streets than ALL guns get banned because people are fucking stupid

My friend, there is a gun store not ten miles from my house. I can go in there buy a mint condition AK-47 for about $800 and a book all about the history of the AK family for an extra $20. Now, I take the AK I just bought and the book home. I open to a page which has the inner workings of the weapon. I break down my new gun, take a file, and file away the pin that keeps the weapon in semi-auto. Once that pin is down enough, PRESTO! I now have the capablity to blast every squad car from here to Richmond with easy. It is that easy to make a semi-auto weapon into a full auto.

Wrong in most cases you wont need a file until after you have had to weld an extra piece onto the sear. It takes skill and knowledge something most criminals do not have.

its not hard to get a high capacity magazine with the ban in effect. I can buy a truckload of 40 and 75rd magazines for my AR-15 right now, ban and all.

/Glad the ban is going to die :D
Well, it's supposed to be. The ban made high-cap mags illegal, so unless you're buying pre-ban merchandise (which should be hard to find and/or rare, I think), you're purchasing illegal equipment.

i can already feel the massacres this is going to cause by people walking around with automatic concealed handguns and just randomly shooting up each other in fear they mgiht pull a gun on them, in which case they do and we have riots in the streets than ALL guns get banned because people are fucking stupid
Do you honestly believe that the homicide rate will increase as a result of the ban ending?

the AWB has nothing to do with automatic weapons.

BTW - http://store.yahoo.com/cdnn/index.html

that is my source for all of my high-capacity magazine needs :D The 75 round drum mags arent on that site, but on another site I also frequent.

Besides it doesnt matter, I allready have a ClassIII firearms liscence anyway.

Yes, we are all aware that automatic weapons are still banned. But it really doesn't matter: a skilled gunman with a semi-auto weapon can empty a 30-round clip in under 5 seconds. What the AWB does is make it difficult to acquire such a large magazine, thus vastly slowing down a gunman's rate of fire, as well as the amount of ammo he can carry.

And a skilled gunman can change a clip in under a second. If you are talking about the damage albe to be done by a skilled gunman, I know a lot of skilled gunman who can do a whole heck of a lot of damage with a bolt action rifle. They prefer one actually for it's accuracy.
Oh, it doesnt cut down the ammount of ammo he can carry. That's a factor of weight not of clip capacity. If a man can carry 20 lbs of ammo before the ban, he can still carry 20 lbs of ammo after the ban (minus the weight of the extra clips).

It also bans such features as pistol grips on rifles, which allows them to be spray-fired from the hip (you'd have a hell of a time hip-firing a hunting rifle).

Actually, pistol grips make's shooting from the hip harder. The human arm isnt designed to bend like that would require. I find it's amazingly easy to hold and fire a hunting rifle from the hip.

This, again, cuts down on an assailant's rate of fire, as well as the scope of his target area (you can swing around more with a gun at the hip than from the shoulder). The AWB also bans exceedingly heavy (and powerful) pistols, and pistols with a barrel shroud that allows for two-handed firing (which increases accuracy).

Ummmm, you can swing around more from the shoulders, not the hips.. it's a function of human anatomy. The hips move to a certain extent taking the shoulders with them, then the spine can twist more moving the shoulders even further along the circle. I find my accuracy with a pistol is increased when I use one hand supporting the other alont the butt of the pistol, not by grabing the barrel. That way I can keep my shooting arm straight out and steadier. Putting one hand on the barrel causes me to bend my shooting arm thereby reducing the steadiness and my accuracy goes to crap.

The ban makes it harder for people to buy guns intended for killing. You can still take your rifle and go deer hunting, you just cant mow down a crowd in a few seconds.

You couldnt mow down a crowd in a few seconds pre-ban. What this bad did was attempt to make people feel better because it banned scary looking weapons, but had no real basis in reality.

Also, addressing the issue of the 2nd amendment being so that the citizenry can overthrow the government: I really doubt that even a large revolutionary force, armed with assault (hell, even automatic) weapons could take on the highly-trained, well-equipped US Army. So the point is moot. If the citizens want to overthrow the government, they can't succeed without the Army. If they have the Army, they really don't need powerful weapons.

Ah, but the need isnt really the issue. Right now, we have the right to own arms. Beyond that, as long as I dont break any laws I can own guns. Need has nothing to do with it.

Well, it's supposed to be. The ban made high-cap mags illegal, so unless you're buying pre-ban merchandise (which should be hard to find and/or rare, I think), you're purchasing illegal equipment.

Its as easy to go into any gun store and buy high capacity mags along with a ak or ar all legal preban firearms. We already have hundreds of millions of them in circulation and still waiting to be bought into circulation.

Quote - "My friend, there is a gun store not ten miles from my house. I can go in there buy a mint condition AK-47 for about $800"

That is a ripoff, I got both of mine for $350 each here.

Well now.
The AWB doesn't apply to me.
I'm in the U.S. Army.
/me huggles my M-16. :D
I'd take an M-16 over an AK-47, or heck, even an AK-74 any day.

Well now.
The AWB doesn't apply to me.
I'm in the U.S. Army.
/me huggles my M-16.
I'd take an M-16 over an AK-47, or heck, even an AK-74 any day

The only gripe I had with my M16's a1 and a2 was having to span the gas vents every once in awhile. But they are fun. I still have my armory cards I wonder if they would let me take my ole lady for a spin? lol

I used to be in the Marines, but once I got out I got my Class III firearms liscence and got me an M-16 :D - So I can take my lady for a spin any day I want.

Quote - "My friend, there is a gun store not ten miles from my house. I can go in there buy a mint condition AK-47 for about $800"

That is a ripoff, I got both of mine for $350 each here.
Yeah, but your's are probably SAR-1's or WASR-10's. I think he was talking about pre-bans, with all those evil dangerous features like bayonet lugs and muzzle brakes.

Both of mine have bayonet lugs and threaded barrells - just no muzzlebrakes installed on them right now.

It's easy enough for a crook to get a gun. If their killing, their stealing. What's the use in banning guns, if your keeping them away from the law abiding person? By the way, automatic guns arn't banned in USA. You need a Class-3 license.

I would just note that Britain has all but banned every type of firearm and their violent crime rate has escalated faster and is higher, per capita, than the U.S.'s. see gun crimes (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html)

And while the point has been made in this thread, I want to repeat, since when did a ban on any type of gun keep anyone but law abiding citizens from having a gun? Criminals, by their very nature, don't give a flying F___ about gun bans of any kind, only the people who might use one for defense purposes against a criminal are hurt by bans.

I would just note that Britain has all but banned every type of firearm and their violent crime rate has escalated faster and is higher, per capita, than the U.S.'s. see gun crimes (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html)

And while the point has been made in this thread, I want to repeat, since when did a ban on any type of gun keep anyone but law abiding citizens from having a gun? Criminals, by their very nature, don't give a flying F___ about gun bans of any kind, only the people who might use one for defense purposes against a criminal are hurt by bans.

My point in greater detail. Thank you :).

I'm amazed at how many people are posting who clearly have no weapons knowledge or experience beyond Counter-Strike. To state what has already been said, the sunset of the ban does NOT make automatic weapons legal. It was mostly a thorn in the ass of law-abiding gun owners, that I'm sure sounded great of the drafting board, but didn't go into practice terribly well.

That said, I'm tickled that the ban is down, and will be celebrating by doing what I usually spend my Friday nights doing: going down to the local firing range with some friends, renting an Uzi (some cheap Chinese-made knockoff at that, but it's fun to shoot :)), putting a good 100 rounds through it per person, then hooking up with the nearest person that's got a rifle we've never fired. We pay for ammo, they let us handle their hardware.

Plus, my bud's almost got enough cash for an M1 Garand he's had his eye on for a while. Once we've got that, oh the afternoon we'll have!

Plus, my bud's almost got enough cash for an M1 Garand he's had his eye on for a while. Once we've got that, oh the afternoon we'll have!

Have fun. I am in the process of acquiring an m14 myself.

many cops will die. before people got weapons through a huge black market. and now they can go to a store and buy one easily. cops will be easily outgunned and gangs would be armed with them. about 5-10 years ago a bank in Los Angeles (i think) was raided by two armed gunmen with assult weapons. many innocent civillians were killed, cops also.

Many police officers have died, the ban didn't stop that. And the bank robbery incedent happened AFTER the ban was passed. Weapons are going to continue to be available on the Black Market. People are called criminals because they break the law. Do you think a guy who's determined to rob a bank and/or kill people is going to stop and think "I can't go do that stuff, coz I'd get in to REAL trouble for using an AK-47?" If someone is willing to break more important laws like not killing or stealing, then the gun ban isn't going to mean squat, and it isn't going to stop the guy from getting whatever weapon he wants to use.

Oh Goody!

Hmmmm AK-47? Nahh I am kind of partial to the 50 Calibur Sniper rifle!

:rolleyes:

;)

I actually have a 50 cal rifle - not one of those fancy barretts though - mine is a mcmillan bolt action. Wonderful long range target rifle, and I actually shot a coyote the other day with it :D

Might I remind you all that the purpose of the econd Amendment is to keep the citizenry capable of overthrowing the government.


Hey? That's my reason for stocking up on guns too! Join in! It'll change history for the better!

It's easy enough for a crook to get a gun. If their killing, their stealing. What's the use in banning guns, if your keeping them away from the law abiding person? By the way, automatic guns arn't banned in USA. You need a Class-3 license.
Actually, you just need the class-3 to deal in NFA weapons, or buy post-86 machine guns. Pretty much anyone who can legally own a firearm can buy one, you just have to pay the $200 NFA tax and wait for a few months for all the paperwork to go through. Of course, most (legal) machineguns cost at least $5000, so not many people can own one.

Gun control is a cop out for people who aren't resposible enough to lock their guns up and teach them right from wrong.

It's all poor people and dangerous minorities that cause violence.

Oh, and I'm picking up a nice M15A2c

Gun control is a cop out for people who aren't resposible enough to lock their guns up and teach them right from wrong.

It's all poor people and dangerous minorities that cause violence.
you wish.

My point in greater detail. Thank you :).
and who understands that gun regulation isnt banning all firearms, raise your hand

I'm amazed at how many people are posting who clearly have no weapons knowledge or experience beyond Counter-Strike. To state what has already been said, the sunset of the ban does NOT make automatic weapons legal. It was mostly a thorn in the ass of law-abiding gun owners, that I'm sure sounded great of the drafting board, but didn't go into practice terribly well.

That said, I'm tickled that the ban is down, and will be celebrating by doing what I usually spend my Friday nights doing: going down to the local firing range with some friends, renting an Uzi (some cheap Chinese-made knockoff at that, but it's fun to shoot :)), putting a good 100 rounds through it per person, then hooking up with the nearest person that's got a rifle we've never fired. We pay for ammo, they let us handle their hardware.

Plus, my bud's almost got enough cash for an M1 Garand he's had his eye on for a while. Once we've got that, oh the afternoon we'll have!
that is a bullshit lie, ordinary gun owners do not need a Ak-47, semi auto that would tkae about 3 seconds to make auto, that fires with extreme accuracy, guess what no one does unless they are in teh military, to say this is a thorn in the side of ordinary gun owners is inane tripe, ordinary gun owners should be perfectly happy with their ability to own a heavy caliber revolver or pistol, or a hunting rifle, or a double barrel shotgun.

I have a lovely quote from Dianne Feinstein, but I know you are not reading this.

Many police officers have died, the ban didn't stop that. And the bank robbery incedent happened AFTER the ban was passed. Weapons are going to continue to be available on the Black Market. People are called criminals because they break the law. Do you think a guy who's determined to rob a bank and/or kill people is going to stop and think "I can't go do that stuff, coz I'd get in to REAL trouble for using an AK-47?" If someone is willing to break more important laws like not killing or stealing, then the gun ban isn't going to mean squat, and it isn't going to stop the guy from getting whatever weapon he wants to use.
ok, so you are saying THIS:

because it happened while the ban was in place, the ban should be removed, thus making it much easier and faster to obtain one of the weapons used in the incident.


i do believe you have a breaki n your logic circuits.

and dont whine about police or anything, they CAN carry banned guns becuase they are the FUCKING POLICE, but why should they have to? the common crook wouldnt have access to an Uzi or MAC-10, where as they will now.

Oh, do you know the muffin man, the muffin man, the muffin man,
Do you know the muffin man who lives on Drury Lane?

Heh heh, I find being on Chess Squares's ignore list amusing. :)

Oh, do you know the muffin man, the muffin man, the muffin man,
Do you know the muffin man who lives on Drury Lane?

Heh heh, I find being on Chess Squares's ignore list amusing. :)
Let me help you.

:mad: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You do know the Nazi party in Germany loved gun control

Umm, right, only people in Iraq have the right to assault weapons...

Thanks, Bozzy.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban...I would have done it." - Dianne Feinstein.

"Have all firearms registered under some pretext with the intent of confiscating them, thus leaving the population defenseless." - Vladimir Ilich Lenin

that is a bullshit lie, ordinary gun owners do not need a Ak-47, semi auto that would tkae about 3 seconds to make auto, that fires with extreme accuracy, guess what no one does unless they are in teh military, to say this is a thorn in the side of ordinary gun owners is inane tripe, ordinary gun owners should be perfectly happy with their ability to own a heavy caliber revolver or pistol, or a hunting rifle, or a double barrel shotgun.

Chess-Squares, I don't mean this to be insulting, but you really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

The other posters on this thread have already made a number of explanations as to why this bill was bad - and even if it weren't bad, I would submit that neither Bush nor Kerry would sign an extension of this bill, even if it did get passed by Congress (which it won't).

You are in no position to tell any person other than yourself what someone "needs". If I choose to invest in an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle, I have my own reasons for doing so. And if I purchase it in a store, fill out the paperwork for the state, the ATF and for the local jurisdiction, have my background check completed, wait five days and then pick up my firearm, there is little chance that I am planning on taking it out and gunning down women and children. If I wanted to do that, I'd get a weapon in a way that couldn't be so easily traced back to me.

Further, the gun-ban does ban certain weapons by name. However, this was primarily done based on how the weapon looked - not on it's abilities. As has been stated, there are many weapons that are currently on the market that are arguably more lethal than those banned under this act.

The problem arises because most individuals who aren't proficient with their weapons have fallen prey to the "scare tactics" of the anti-gun crowd - who enjoy convincing people of things that aren't true (similiarly to how others feel Bush justified the war in Iraq by "linking" Iraq with 9/11).

Semi-automatic weapons do not allow you to press the trigger and fire a continual stream of bullets. That would be a full-automatic weapon, and those types of weapons - machine guns, sub-machine guns, and the like - have been regulated since 1934, which was updates in the 80s.

The bottom line is that in the hands of a skilled criminal, any type of weapon that is currently legal is as dangerous as any of the weapons that are currently banned. The banning of those weapons did not have an appreciable affect on gun crime. The lifting of the ban will merely enable gun enthusiasts and collectors easier access to the weapons.

Any non-bolt action rifle can be made to be fully automatic, if the user has sufficient knowledge and the right equipment.

One of the rights that sets America apart from the rest of the world is that the government does not assume that the populace cannot handle the responsibility of owning firearms. I think of that as more of an enlightened approach than an irresponsible one.

In any event, Clinton fully recognized that his passing this gun ban lost him control of Congress, so I sincerely doubt any politician in a competitive race would vote for a bill that may cost him his seat. So this ban is officially over.

:mad: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You do know the Nazi party in Germany loved gun control
they loved mind control and storm troopers, welcome to the republican party

the amendments do NOT give you the ability to do whatever the fuck you please and declare it to be because the amendment says so, the government can place limits on your rights for safety and other reasons.

Umm, right, only people in Iraq have the right to assault weapons...
do you live in iraq? no?
do you live in haiti? no?
do you live in a war torn country with guerillas walkngi the streets heavily armed? no?


are you in the military? no?
are a member of the police force? no?

you do not have the right to own an assault weapon

they loved mind control and storm troopers, welcome to the republican party

the amendments do NOT give you the ability to do whatever the fuck you please and declare it to be because the amendment says so, the government can place limits on your rights for safety and other reasons.

Wrong. That's the entire point of the amendments - to provide rights that the Federal government cannot infringe upon.

There have been Supreme Court interpretations of the law that refine the meaning, but the bottom line is the amendments prohibit the government from taking certain actions and ensure that the rights of the people are maintained.

w00t! Now I can finnaly get a folding stock and hi-cap mags for my rifle! I wish I could find a place to pre-order...

ok, so you are saying THIS:

because it happened while the ban was in place, the ban should be removed, thus making it much easier and faster to obtain one of the weapons used in the incident.


i do believe you have a breaki n your logic circuits.

and dont whine about police or anything, they CAN carry banned guns becuase they are the FUCKING POLICE, but why should they have to? the common crook wouldnt have access to an Uzi or MAC-10, where as they will now.
You realize that those weapons you just mentioned are so highly proliferated that lifting the assualt weapon ban wouldn't make a difference? The criminals get them pretty easily. I know a cop, and he even says the assualt weapon ban is ridiculus. The only thing they should ban is armor piercing ammunition, as no one really has a need for those but criminals.

:mad: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to security of a free State,THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED You do know the Nazi party in Germany loved gun control

Incorrect. That´s just a piece of NRA propaganda. Every GERMAN citizen was allowed to own and bear arms as he pleased.

The only thing they should ban is armor piercing ammunition, as no one really has a need for those but criminals.

Nearly every centerfire rifle is "armor piercing." Body armor was designed for handguns.

You realize that those weapons you just mentioned are so highly proliferated that lifting the assualt weapon ban wouldn't make a difference? The criminals get them pretty easily. I know a cop, and he even says the assualt weapon ban is ridiculus. The only thing they should ban is armor piercing ammunition, as no one really has a need for those but criminals.
we will see where we are in a year, im done with this, too many people have been poisoned by the NRA

Nat·ion·al Ri·fle As·soc·i·a·tion - An evil, Nazi, superautonomous organisation with an Illuminati-style board that orders the stupid Americans to own evil guns and kill people where no ordinary citizens have a say in anything

ok, so you are saying THIS:

because it happened while the ban was in place, the ban should be removed, thus making it much easier and faster to obtain one of the weapons used in the incident.


i do believe you have a breaki n your logic circuits.

I'd like to point out that only a tiny fraction of gun crimes are even comitted with any sort of rifle (I believe Paxania or someone posted a source for that, don't remember what it was). And if a criminal wants to buy an assault weapon, the lifting of the ban won't make that any easier. It will make it less expensive to get one in original military configuration, but as long as it shoots, I doubt a bank robber will care much about historical accuracy. And if a criminal wants to buy a fully automatic weapon, they will do that through the black market, so that it will be unregistered, and much cheaper (prices on legal machineguns have skyrocketed since the '86 ban, which, needless to say, did not affect the guns criminals were buying illegally). Handguns are actually the guns used in most gun-related crimes, and I do believe more regulation regarding those wouldn't hurt. In Minnesota, for instance, you must have a handgun liscence (free, but you have to apply) AND fill out the regular forms for it.
Regarding the justification for owning an "assault weapon", why do I need one? Every year they kill what, a couple hundred people? But every year thousands of Americans die because of obesity-related causes due to their sedentary life styles, which center largely around television. So how do you justify purchasing a television. That's just it; you don't have to. You buy one because you want to, and it's only the government's business if you use it to bash in your neighbor's head.
I can certainly understand wanting to be able to keep people from harming others, but the fact of the matter is that you can't. Right now, anyone could go out on the street, pick up a brick, and bash someone else's brains out. It would be more convenient with a gun, but taking away guns won't keep people from committing crimes. And those that are serious about it will still be able to buy firearms illegally, to use against the populace that would then be unable to defend themselves.
The problem does not lie in the fact that Americans are allowed to own guns. Canadians own plenty of guns too, but they don't kill eachother nearly as much as we do. Every able-bodied man in Switzerland has an assault rifle in his home (an assault rifle, not an assault weapon, they're two entirely different things), but they don't kill eachother as much as we Americans do. In Finland, it's far easier to acquire a fully automatic weapon, and they don't have to justify that any other way than saying "I want one." And I've never seen any figures, but I would bet that not a whole lot of Finnish people are shot every year. Do I know the solution to our problem? No, but then I'm not running the country. However, no decrease in crime has been seen with more gun legislation, and other countries have shown that it is possible to let people own guns and not have them shoot eachother.

But seriously, I really want to know: Does anyone here actually think that crime rates will rise when the ban is lifted? I want to actually hear someone say, "As a result of the lifting of the Assault Weapons Ban, murder rates in the U.S. will increase noticably."

no, i'm done, i refuse to argue with people who have been corrupted by pro-gun propaganda

Someone write, "Now now, which side has been proven to use lies and distortions?"

...the government can place limits on your rights....

No, a government does not grant or revoke rights - that is why they are called rights. Some governments ignore rights, but none grant them. The word 'rights' has become abused to the point of near meaninglessness. An 8 yr old thinks he has the 'right' to watch Yugi-Oh all night. That would be foolish to document. Access and rights are not the same, but many have warped the meaning of the two to the point they are nearly indistinguishable.

Declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Bill of Rights
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (IE - the Bill of rights limits government, it does not grant rights)

Amendment II

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.


Note it does not say anything about hunting. It is specific in that it allows people to own weapons for military purposes.

Wow, so many gun enthusiasts here. I never realized that.
Anyhow, I'm very glad the ban is expiring. I'm not gonna buy a gun, as I've never fired one in my life. But it is good that it is lifted.
Before I explain why, I must explain why I think the 2nd Amendment is extremely important. It is liberty's insurance policy. An armed populace is the last, and possibly the greatest obstacle for anyone wishing to take liberty from the people. We were the first nation built solely on the concept of individual freedoms, so it is fitting that we were the first to figure out how to safeguard liberty.
The assault weapons ban was, for this reason, unconstitutional. It prevented the individual from mounting an effective defense against an assault on their liberty. One is not likely right now, but it may be the basis for a dictatorship or foreign occupation fifty years from now, that doesn't care about our rights. Therefore, I'm glad it is expiring.
As for the gun crime issue, it won't spike. Perhaps it will in the beginning, but not in the future, as more civilians buy these weapons, obtaining equilibrium. Already, many law-abiding civilians are saying they'll buy these weapons. And a ban on automatic weapons is one thing I do support. They are dangerous. A semi-automatic weapon is sufficient, as it can fire many rounds without reloading. Besides, 100 million people armed with Glocks is more potent than a million soildiers with M-16s.

No, a government does not grant or revoke rights - that is why they are called rights. Some governments ignore rights, but none grant them. The word 'rights' has become abused to the point of near meaninglessness. An 8 yr old thinks he has the 'right' to watch Yugi-Oh all night. That would be foolish to document. Access and rights are not the same, but many have warped the meaning of the two to the point they are nearly indistinguishable.

Declaration:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Bill of Rights
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (IE - the Bill of rights limits government, it does not grant rights)

Amendment II

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.


Note it does not say anything about hunting. It is specific in that it allows people to own weapons for military purposes.
how long have you done indepth studies of the constitution and the people who created it and the court cases following its creation? hmm, well how long?

Wow, so many gun enthusiasts here. I never realized that.
Anyhow, I'm very glad the ban is expiring. I'm not gonna buy a gun, as I've never fired one in my life. But it is good that it is lifted.
Before I explain why, I must explain why I think the 2nd Amendment is extremely important. It is liberty's insurance policy. An armed populace is the last, and possibly the greatest obstacle for anyone wishing to take liberty from the people. We were the first nation built solely on the concept of individual freedoms, so it is fitting that we were the first to figure out how to safeguard liberty.
The assault weapons ban was, for this reason, unconstitutional. It prevented the individual from mounting an effective defense against an assault on their liberty. One is not likely right now, but it may be the basis for a dictatorship or foreign occupation fifty years from now, that doesn't care about our rights. Therefore, I'm glad it is expiring.
As for the gun crime issue, it won't spike. Perhaps it will in the beginning, but not in the future, as more civilians buy these weapons, obtaining equilibrium. Already, many law-abiding civilians are saying they'll buy these weapons. And a ban on automatic weapons is one thing I do support. They are dangerous. A semi-automatic weapon is sufficient, as it can fire many rounds without reloading. Besides, 100 million people armed with Glocks is more potent than a million soildiers with M-16s.
you attempt to make us of my favorite fallacy on the subject

"it is for the protection of rights"

the facts stand that those who out and out support the removal of gun bans are republicans

facts state republicans believe and support ANYTHING republicans do

facts prove it is the REPUBLICANS who support the removal of the rights that the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect by being in place.

where were the NRA taking up arms when the patriot act was put in place? the attempt at the gay marriage amendment? every other law taking away the rights of the people?

they werent there thats right, they were voting to support it

no, i'm done, i refuse to argue with people who have been corrupted by pro-gun propaganda
Sure, it is less threatening for you to believe that than to accept you are wrong. You are not brainwashed, simply ignorant.

Sure, it is less threatening for you to believe that than to accept you are wrong. You are not brainwashed, simply ignorant.
i am the ignorant one?

i recognise guns are necesary for a free society
i realise you cannot ban guns

i have concluded ASSAULT WEAPONS are not needed by the general populace
i realise all firearms are actually weapons
i have concluded it is safer to own a dog than a gun, and better preventive measure
i have concluded the reason for the 2nd amendment is outdated for several reasons
i dont recognise the NRA as a non-partisan intelligent source


i dont think im the ignorant one here

you attempt to make us of my favorite fallacy on the subject

"it is for the protection of rights"

the facts stand that those who out and out support the removal of gun bans are republicans

facts state republicans believe and support ANYTHING republicans do

facts prove it is the REPUBLICANS who support the removal of the rights that the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect by being in place.

where were the NRA taking up arms when the patriot act was put in place? the attempt at the gay marriage amendment? every other law taking away the rights of the people?

they werent there thats right, they were voting to support it
I have no idea whether the NRA endorsed those bills or not. I do know they aren't purely Republican. Michael Moore is a card carrying member of the NRA.
Anyhow, it seems to me that you view these acts as a restriction of rights. I'm not gonna argue whether I think they are or aren't. However, I will say that it is hypocrisy to say that we are sliding into a state of few rights, yet also say that it is immoral for the individual to defend himself from this.

I'm ultra excited about the ban being lifted.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.
That's just one interpretation. Another one, the one that I follow, is that the militia has a right to assemble, and therefore, regulate itself. Unfortunatly, it wasn't written in if the government or the militia had powers of regulation. Until then, I'm glad the current government agrees with the idea that militias, and by extension private citizens, have the right to freely own arms.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.

Okay, so it says well-regulated. I'd say we're already pretty well-regulated by the government.

And as for European countries, England banned most guns, and their gun crimes rates are way up. And ask any German about gun crimes perpetrated by Turkish gangs. In addition to the fact that our country is much bigger than any of theirs, so yes, we'll have more crimes.

So the US government would smack down any revolution just like that? You sound like a 18th century Brit sounding the praises of his mighty redcoat army. As many people are in this country, in comparison with military enlistment, a well-armed civilian population would probably put a beating on the US army, by sheer numbers.

As many people are in this country, in comparison with military enlistment, a well-armed civilian population would probably put a beating on the US army, by sheer numbers.
I don't think a bunch of untrained civilians with commercial weapons could do jack about an airstrike or cruise missile.

Would a government kill all its citizens? If it's a just cause, all will follow it. If it's not, it's their own fault.

Okay, so it says well-regulated. I'd say we're already pretty well-regulated by the government.

And as for European countries, England banned most guns, and their gun crimes rates are way up. And ask any German about gun crimes perpetrated by Turkish gangs. In addition to the fact that our country is much bigger than any of theirs, so yes, we'll have more crimes.

So the US government would smack down any revolution just like that? You sound like a 18th century Brit sounding the praises of his mighty redcoat army. As many people are in this country, in comparison with military enlistment, a well-armed civilian population would probably put a beating on the US army, by sheer numbers.
rofl, because of course they are going to jsut storm in with troops

two words for you: carpet. bomb.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.

Well-regulated is referring to the militia, not the firearms.

And the argument that there is less crime there because they've banned guns is absurd. There's less crime because they've got a smaller population. Per capita, we're not that far off. And in any event, the number of times that firearms are used to prevent crime is an unreported statistic, but estimates indicate it happens 3-4 million times a year.

The government has the authority to regulate guns, based on the Supreme Court's last interpretation of the second amendment. That's why it is the public's reponsibility to keep an eye on Congress and ensure that they don't take advantage of that authority.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.
In historical context, "well regulated" means well-equipped.

Look at Switzerland. If I wanted to get a fully-automatic assault rifle, not some semi-automatic "assault weapon" all I would have to do is look inside the closets of any household with a able-bodied male citizen over the age of 25. I'd be able to find a Sig 550 ASSAULT RIFLE. That means it's fully automatic. They have some of the highest gun distribution rates in the world. Shooting's practically the national sport there. Yet the gun violence rate is extremely low.

I believe that America's gun violence is more a offshoot of our culture than gun ownership itself. If we provided more chances for the poor, instead of relagating them to broken-down schools, and provided more realistic, positive role models instead of having to dream of being superstar athletes and musicians to get out, then perhaps we would curb crime.

The other thing is there is a serious disconnect between urban and rural gun use and ownership. In rural communities, most of the time one sees gunfire, it is a hunter shooting birds or deer, or a rancher getting rid of varmints. In urban communities, it is usally the police shooting gang members or people shooting each other. It is unfair for one group to dictate the regulations placed on the other. What may not be needed in the inner city might be essential on a farm, and vice versa.

And to whoever suggested holding a pistol "rifle style" - that is, underneath the barrel: try looking at competitive action pistol shooters - Todd Jarrett, Rob Leatham, Doug Koenig, Ernest Langdon, etc. They all wrap their support hand (the hand that doesn't pull the trigger) around their other hand. Not on the butt, where the magazine is, and definitely not along or under the barrel, but around so the heels of the palm touch each other, and both forefingers point in the same direction, with one set of fingers over the other. These are some of the best shooters in the world, and they didn't use barrel shrouds or whatever even before 1994. Barrel shrouds are there to prevent you from burning yourself if you accidentally touch the barrel. You really should never be actually touching the barrel of a firearm anyways, unless it's a break action, there's a malfunction, or you're checking if it's empty, and then only the chamber end. Or if you're cleaning, of course.

(Sets thread on fire, streaks through it)

Enough already. Clearly no one's changing anyone's mind. I pronounce this thread:

IGNORED

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.
In historical context, "well regulated" means well-equipped.

Look at Switzerland. If I wanted to get a fully-automatic assault rifle, not some semi-automatic "assault weapon" all I would have to do is look inside the closets of any household with a able-bodied male citizen over the age of 25. I'd be able to find a Sig 550 ASSAULT RIFLE. That means it's fully automatic. They have some of the highest gun distribution rates in the world. Shooting's practically the national sport there. Yet the gun violence rate is extremely low.

I believe that America's gun violence is more a offshoot of our culture than gun ownership itself. If we provided more chances for the poor, instead of relagating them to broken-down schools, and provided more realistic, positive role models instead of having to dream of being superstar athletes and musicians to get out, then perhaps we would curb crime.

The other thing is there is a serious disconnect between urban and rural gun use and ownership. In rural communities, most of the time one sees gunfire, it is a hunter shooting birds or deer, or a rancher getting rid of varmints. In urban communities, it is usally the police shooting gang members or people shooting each other. It is unfair for one group to dictate the regulations placed on the other. What may not be needed in the inner city might be essential on a farm, and vice versa.

And Chess Squares, what happens if the dog's asleep or old or for whatever reason can't warn you or defend you? Or if the dog barks so much you don't know when it's a false alarm and when it's real? A couple of years ago, my dog would let us know whenever somebody was close by. Now I've seen perfect strangers walk up to our front door and ring our doorbell without him making a sound. He only started barking when the doorbell rang. What happens if kill the dog? Who will protect you now? And being the educated person you are, you do realize the courts have ruled that the cops have no actual duty to protect you, right?

(Sets thread on fire, streaks through it)

Enough already. Clearly no one's changing anyone's mind. I pronounce this thread:

IGNORED

<sarcasm>Of course, for ANY thread to be successful it has to have BIG and BOLD text and people have to walk away shouting the praises of modern liberalism! Huzzah!</sarcasm>

Why do I use sarcasm tags? Some people are just that stupid...

Chess Squares, what happens if the dog's asleep or old or for whatever reason can't warn you or defend you?
then thats just as good at not having one, your rebuttle is illogical

Or if the dog barks so much you don't know when it's a false alarm and when it's real?
you should train your dog then

What happens if kill the dog? Who will protect you now?
if they are going to bother killing the dog, no one and nothing is going to protect you as they already have the intention of killing you

And being the educated person you are, you do realize the courts have ruled that the cops have no actual duty to protect you, right?
which has what to do with the price of tea in china?

This is not a very good. I'm all for guns and having fun with them but there are some sick people out there who want to shoot people the hell up. They need a form of banning. You should have to take a very hard background test and a close look at your life and only allow the top 5 percent people who are qualified.
I love guns. I love weapons. This is mostly due to my desires of deityhood and blatant destruction (I am, on a completely unrelated note, utterly insane). But killing people!? Who cares about people trying to overthrow the government with guns? What if someone uses guns to kill? That's a problem. Thing is, if there's no guns, there's nothing to protect against; you don't need a gun. Lifting the ban on assault weapons doesn't make sense to me.

then thats just as good at not having one, your rebuttle is illogical

I thought you said you were leaving? CHESS SQUARES LIED! LET US MAKE BIG TEXT!

you should train your dog then

Thats dumb. When guns are banned, then criminals will use killer attack dogs!

if they are going to bother killing the dog, no one and nothing is going to protect you as they already have the intention of killing you

Translation: Screw you, I have no other points worth their intellectual weight in metaphysical salt!

which has what to do with the price of tea in china?

EVERYTHING.

I thought you said you were leaving? CHESS SQUARES LIED! LET US MAKE BIG TEXT!



Thats dumb. When guns are banned, then criminals will use killer attack dogs!



Translation: Screw you, I have no other points worth their intellectual weight in metaphysical salt!



EVERYTHING.
you're funny

you're funny

Hmmmm - is that said out of genuine humor, or sarcasm? You should use the <sarcasm> tag if it is, so as not to be misinterpreted. But if it is genuine, my thanks! I try.

Why I like the assault weapon ban:

1. Imagine someone you hate.
2. Imagine them with an assault rifle. :D

Why I like the assault weapon ban:

1. Imagine someone you hate.
2. Imagine them with an assault rifle. :D

Well, nutters like you are the reason they put the ban in place in the first place. Unless you mean the person you hate has the assault rifle, which would be ok... I guess... you are a confusing chap.

EDIT: OH, you like the ban. Well, still, unless the person with the rifle hated you, then it'd still be all right. Also, now you too can get an assault rifle quickly and easily, thus equalizing the situation! Everyone goes home happy!(?)

If 1/3 of the NRA supports it, it must be popular.

WHAT!?!?!?!!?

Why are you in the NRA if you don't support assault rifles?

I love guns. I love weapons. This is mostly due to my desires of deityhood and blatant destruction (I am, on a completely unrelated note, utterly insane). But killing people!? Who cares about people trying to overthrow the government with guns? What if someone uses guns to kill? That's a problem. Thing is, if there's no guns, there's nothing to protect against; you don't need a gun. Lifting the ban on assault weapons doesn't make sense to me.

Um, you are kidding right? Nothing to defend against? Are you suggesting that criminals only use guns to commit crimes? Are you saying that I dont have to worry about a criminal armed with clubs or knives?

For some wierd reason. my mind is equating assault rifle ownership with nuclear weapons; if everyone had them, then noone would attack anyone out of fear of retribution.

That's where powerful propaganda gets you, I guess. Of course, pretending they're machine guns will backfire because people will think machine guns are legal and easily accessible without the sky caving in.

For some wierd reason. my mind is equating assault rifle ownership with nuclear weapons; if everyone had them, then noone would attack anyone out of fear of retribution.

What's with comparing guns to nukes and other WMD's? How is a gun similar to a tactical nuclear weapon? How? How is a single shot bolt action .22 capable of causing a 25-megaton mushroom cloud?

Umm, forgive me if this has already been brought up and dealt with, but I have not had time to read the entire discussion. If it has, then just tell me the page number.

Why does everyone seem to assume that guns would cease to exist just because they were banned? Banning guns would simply take them away from citizens and create an illegal market for them to criminals, who, by the way, are already criminals meaning that they break the law. There are so many guns out there that it would be impossible to track them all.

I would like to point out a similar case in the ban on alcohol. It was banned, but just became more prolific as a result. It didn't prevent people from drinking, just prevented them from drinking legally. I see no reason to think a ban on firearms would be any different.

If you don't like guns, don't carry one. I like natural selection. ;)

Good analogy. The point has come up throughout the entire thread, but the libs insist on using long debunked, emotion-loaded arguments.

I think you need to remember that weapons kill people, whether they are big or small. People are afraid of dieing, and so would hesitate to warrant action that would get them killed.

Um, you are kidding right? Nothing to defend against? Are you suggesting that criminals only use guns to commit crimes? Are you saying that I dont have to worry about a criminal armed with clubs or knives?
I guess I did suggest that. Whoops. Then, what you should do is get a club. Or a knife. Or a single- or double-action weapon, like a revolver or a shotgun (with a hunting license, shotguns and hunting rifles are easy to obtain; revolvers are harder, because they're less accurate, thus not used for hunting and they are easy to conceal). I have a lot of things that can potentially be good for killin' things, and if you're worried about break-ins, always keep something nearby; a club, a knife, a gun, a golf club, a hammer, a sword... The list goes on and on.

On a side note, Canada (where I live, which, I'll admit, will heavily bias me) has substantially less deaths than the US and higher gun restrictions (there's an assault weapons ban, thorough background checks and a mentality that says that the only people with guns should be security, police or military or have a hunting license). (abridged quote by Brent Butt) "In Canada, murder is front page news. In the US, murder is only front page news if they did something creative with the bodies."

Umm, forgive me if this has already been brought up and dealt with, but I have not had time to read the entire discussion. If it has, then just tell me the page number.

Why does everyone seem to assume that guns would cease to exist just because they were banned? Banning guns would simply take them away from citizens and create an illegal market for them to criminals, who, by the way, are already criminals meaning that they break the law. There are so many guns out there that it would be impossible to track them all.

I would like to point out a similar case in the ban on alcohol. It was banned, but just became more prolific as a result. It didn't prevent people from drinking, just prevented them from drinking legally. I see no reason to think a ban on firearms would be any different.

If you don't like guns, don't carry one. I like natural selection. ;)
"Passive Eugenics." Sure, the smart and violent live, and the stupid and unlucky die. And, unfortunately, that's the only way things work; saddening.

This is a tough problem. Of course, we'll need to have some way of taking care of firearms. Simply banning them won't fix the situation. What we need is extreme authoritarianism and routine checks of all citizens.

Let's learn from the Swiss example; everyone carries a gun and is in the military. And, somehow, it works. Probably because EVERYONE has a gun, not just the wackos who want one (if anyone has something against calling people "wackos," don't worry; I'd like a few guns too).

Now even though I support the end of this ban, I must say that I'm a little surprised and worried that so many people plan to buy guns. They're for two things, and only two: hunting, and corporal defense. You can't hunt with assault weapons unless you were a wacko. So why are so many people planning to buy them?

So many anti-gunners immediately dismiss the possibility that people are, oh, target shooting ("Practicing to kill, you mean!"), competing ("Rednecks!"), collecting ("How dare they!")...

Now even though I support the end of this ban, I must say that I'm a little surprised and worried that so many people plan to buy guns. They're for two things, and only two: hunting, and corporal defense. You can't hunt with assault weapons unless you were a wacko. So why are so many people planning to buy them?

Why is it that you say that guns are for "two things, and only two"?
Is it not possible that someone wishes to collect guns, simply for collecting sake? My father-in-law hasnt fired a gun in 20 years, but he has his guns for his collection.. including a mouser with a serial number of 005 or something like that. Not to shoot, but to collect.
What about people who enjoy target shooting. Not hunting or defense, but a viable passtime I believe.

The point is that there shouldnt need to be a "reason" for exorcising ones rights.

Why is it that you say that guns are for "two things, and only two"?
Is it not possible that someone wishes to collect guns, simply for collecting sake? My father-in-law hasnt fired a gun in 20 years, but he has his guns for his collection.. including a mouser with a serial number of 005 or something like that. Not to shoot, but to collect.
What about people who enjoy target shooting. Not hunting or defense, but a viable passtime I believe.

The point is that there shouldnt need to be a "reason" for exorcising ones rights.
I understand collectors, but please, not as many people collect cars, or coins, or airsick bags, but many more collect guns. I personally find no reason for it. All they do is bang. Are the different sounds of the bangs what attract collectors? I just find it illogical, and personally, a waste of precious ammo.

I would like to point out a similar case in the ban on alcohol. It was banned, but just became more prolific as a result. It didn't prevent people from drinking, just prevented them from drinking legally. I see no reason to think a ban on firearms would be any different.

If you don't like guns, don't carry one. I like natural selection. ;)Excellent analogy. This and the rabid gun violence in Europe, a place where firearms are all but banned, should say something. When alcohol or firearms or any other item cannot be regulated by the government, underground channels will make it spread like wildfire. If the goernment does have some control, they can ensure that the items will mostly fall into the proper hands and make a tidey profit while they're at it.

I'm a liberal (or a "pinko hippie faggot" as my friends call me) and I'm not a member of the NRA. I'm also rabidly against the AWB. Go figure.

I understand collectors, but please, not as many people collect cars, or coins, or airsick bags, but many more collect guns. I personally find no reason for it. All they do is bang. Are the different sounds of the bangs what attract collectors? I just find it illogical, and personally, a waste of precious ammo.

All cars do is vroom. All coins do is jingle. All airsick bags do is catch your ill.

All cars do is vroom. All coins do is jingle. All airsick bags do is catch your ill.
But there are only a few collectors of each. Guns, on the other hand, have a magnetic lure that is near universal.

Even using a single shot pistol or rifle. I can still pull several rounds a minute, accurately and safely. The ban meant almost nothing to me.

Why I like the assault weapon ban:

1. Imagine someone you hate.
2. Imagine them with an assault rifle. :D
Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Except for the fact that the AWB has nothing whatsoever to do with assault rifles. An assault rifle, generally speaking, is an intermediate caliber, select-fire, infantry weapon. Being select-fire (that is, capable of both semi- and fully-automatic fire), they are regulated by the NFA of 1934, and the production/importation of them for civilian sale was banned in 1986. As has been pointed out many times already in this thread, the AWB just bans "scary looking" guns, not guns that function any particular way.

But there are only a few collectors of each. Guns, on the other hand, have a magnetic lure that is near universal.
I'd collect cars too, but you don't find many interesting, functional historical cars for less than $200.

The point is that if they can't use an AR15 (they can and they don't), they'll use an old Italian bolt action rifle. ;)

I understand collectors, but please, not as many people collect cars, or coins, or airsick bags, but many more collect guns. I personally find no reason for it. All they do is bang. Are the different sounds of the bangs what attract collectors? I just find it illogical, and personally, a waste of precious ammo.

My two cents.

1. Some people collect guns for their historical significance, it's not always about "the different sounds of the bang".

2. As for the "the different sounds of the bang" issue think of it like this: In golf you have different types of clubs, each one with it's own purpose, and for each club you have to adjust your swing and whatnot to fit the purpose of that club. With guns it's the same kind of thing. Different bangs = different clubs.

Okay i'm done, not that any of that had anything to really do with the ban topic :)

Why collect wine? They all have alcohol, and get you drunk. Sure, if you're a connesoieur you can tell the difference, but there's just two different types: red and white. No reasonable person should have more than 1000 bottles of wine.

Just like wine, there's subtle (and not so subtle) variations in guns. Maybe this one just feels better to you, and you're able to shoot better with it. Maybe this one's a highly modified competition rifle in a very select event. Maybe this one is a highly modified competition rifle in a different, select event. Maybe this one was your grandfather's. Maybe one just looks nice to you.

But to the uninitiated, one bottle of wine tastes like another, whether it's a '97 Opus One or a Two Buck Chuck, just like a NRA Hipower modified 500 yard AR pattern match rifle looks like the M4 the military uses.

Why collect wine? They all have alcohol, and get you drunk. Sure, if you're a connesoieur you can tell the difference, but there's just two different types: red and white. No reasonable person should have more than 1000 bottles of wine.

Just like wine, there's subtle (and not so subtle) variations in guns. Maybe this one just feels better to you, and you're able to shoot better with it. Maybe this one's a highly modified competition rifle in a very select event. Maybe this one is a highly modified competition rifle in a different, select event. Maybe this one was your grandfather's. Maybe one just looks nice to you.

But to the uninitiated, one bottle of wine tastes like another, whether it's a '97 Opus One or a Two Buck Chuck, just like a NRA Hipower modified 500 yard AR pattern rifle looks like the M4 the military uses.
but if you are collecting them then you arn't using them. and if you are using them you arnt collecting them for collecting purposes and thus the argument is nullified

but if you are collecting them then you arn't using them. and if you are using them you arnt collecting them for collecting purposes and thus the argument is nullified
What, I can't use a collection? I might collect, say 50 cars. But cars were meant to be driven, so I occasionally drive them, even my rarest and most expensive examples. Does that mean it isn't a collection anymore? How are you defining collection?

I'm just saying that those guys who collect guns and use them for fun just waste ammunition, and negate the point of gun ownership. Not even half of the gun buyers I have talked to say they use guns for corporal defense.
BTW, I just figured out that I once shot a .45 calibur pistol loaded with blanks. Does that count as firing a gun?

but if you are collecting them then you arn't using them. and if you are using them you arnt collecting them for collecting purposes and thus the argument is nullified

No, it isnt nullified. Wine collectors do indeed taste their wines from time to time.. and save the special bottles for special occasions. Some gun collectors dont shoot their guns, they are for collection only. Some gun collectors do shoot their guns, at ranges whatever. It's a perfect analogy.

I'm just saying that those guys who collect guns and use them for fun just waste ammunition, and negate the point of gun ownership. Not even half of the gun buyers I have talked to say they use guns for corporal defense.
BTW, I just figured out that I once shot a .45 calibur pistol loaded with blanks. Does that count as firing a gun?

So what are you saying is not a "waste of ammunition". Do you believe target shooting is a waste of ammunition? Do you believe plinking is a waste of ammunition?

Are you saying that guns must only be fired in an attempt to kill something (if you are, you and Chess seem to agree on this)?

So what are you saying is not a "waste of ammunition". Do you believe target shooting is a waste of ammunition? Do you believe plinking is a waste of ammunition?

Are you saying that guns must only be fired in an attempt to kill something (if you are, you and Chess seem to agree on this)?
Target practice is good for training, not for sport. Guns should be used only to kill something, but I fail to see how Chess Squares and I agree on this. Anyhow, do you know that the army is suffering an ammunition shortage? I'm sure it wouldn't be half as bad if there weren't as many people going to target ranges and gun clubs.

Perhaps it will take a few more Columbines, a few more MC Donald shootouts, a few more workers going "postal", a few more drive by mass shootings before some sanity will prevail?

Target practice is good for training, not for sport. Guns should be used only to kill something, but I fail to see how Chess Squares and I agree on this. Anyhow, do you know that the army is suffering an ammunition shortage? I'm sure it wouldn't be half as bad if there weren't as many people going to target ranges and gun clubs.

You dont watch the olympics then? Target practice is a big sport. People train in target shooting to get better at... target shooting.

Chess Squares rabidly insist that guns are only for killing.

Did you know that the army uses different ammunition from target shooters... mainly because target shooters usually re-load thier own ammunition (and of usually different caliber)

Perhaps it will take a few more Columbines, a few more MC Donald shootouts, a few more workers going "postal", a few more drive by mass shootings before some sanity will prevail?

Columbines, McDonald shootouts (never heard of a shootout at a McDonalds, a shooting yes, shootout no), workers going postal, drive by mass shootings (nice addition of the word mass... taking a little artistic liberty?). These are all the fault of guns, I guess is what you are saying. People had nothing to do with it.

Why is it you seem to hold the criminal blameless for his actions while laying all the blame on the tool used.

You dont watch the olympics then? Target practice is a big sport. People train in target shooting to get better at... target shooting.
I wish it weren't.
Chess Squares rabidly insist that guns are only for killing.
But I think he disagrees with me that killing things is a desired effect for guns. They form an effective deterrant against criminals and madmen in the government. They should also be used for hunting.
Did you know that the army uses different ammunition from target shooters... mainly because target shooters usually re-load thier own ammunition (and of usually different caliber)
I knew that. But they probably use the same metal composition, and making bullets for target shooting steels resources the army needs to manufacture their guns. Even the metal, tungsten, is the same for many bullets. And don't tell me that my logic dictates we should use less tungsten for everything else. Tungsten is good only to make lightbulb filaments and bullets, but virtually nothing else.

i rabidly argue guns are designed to kill, people seem to not be able to read

i rabidly argue guns are designed to kill, people seem to not be able to read

And you seem completely unable to understand that you are mistaken. I have pointed out several times that guns, today, are not solely designed for killing.

Purely Euclid, please explain why you have a problem with target shooting as a sport? This I really cant understand.

And you seem completely unable to understand that you are mistaken. I have pointed out several times that guns, today, are not solely designed for killing.

Purely Euclid, please explain why you have a problem with target shooting as a sport? This I really cant understand.
The purpose of guns is to kill or wound.
Find me another purpose that doesn't involve this....

Onerule seriously practicing isn't same as purpose....

Hunting, they kill
Defending house, they kill
War, they kill.

They have no theer purpose... unless you use ones from 1800's when they were round balls. They rarely killed.
People dueled and stood still while a couple rounds each shooting back then. Someone after much wounding surrendered.

Now a days you'd be dead if you dueled that way 9/10 times with current guns.

The purpose of guns is to kill or wound.
Find me another purpose that doesn't involve this....

Smith and Wesson model 52. It's a target shooting pistol. 5 round clip capacity, it only shoots bullets called wad cutters. These bullets are designed to cut nice clean holes in paper targets, yet same design produces much less tissue damage than does a bullet designed for such.

Onerule seriously practicing isn't same as purpose....

Hunting, they kill
Defending house, they kill
War, they kill.

Indoor ranges. Target shooting. Target shooting leagues, tournaments, the Olympics. I would say the vast majority of civilian owned guns never kill anything.

They have no theer purpose... unless you use ones from 1800's when they were round balls. They rarely killed.
People dueled and stood still while a couple rounds each shooting back then. Someone after much wounding surrendered.

This really has no bearing on your argument or mine. Those same "round ball guns" were indeed designed to increase the efficiency of killing.

Now a days you'd be dead if you dueled that way 9/10 times with current guns.

Actually, most gun shot wounds today do not result in death. Todays guns can be much more deadly than "round ball guns" but by no means is a gun shot wound a death penalty.

I think the Founding Fathers meant what they said. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Well, since no one else has jumped on this, I will. My first question to you would be - have you ever taken a course on U.S. history? Because if you did, you missed a large part of it, mostly the part dealing with entire writing and ratifcation of the constitution. This is taken from the Cornell Law school website:

Amendment II
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.

Okay, good. We have that. Pax mentioned the last bit - "shall not be infringed" I'd like to note the first part, "A well regulated militia. . ." In regards to that I'd like to define "regulate" for everyone.

From Websters II

regulate - v 1. To direct or control in agreement with rules or laws. 2. To adjust the amount, rate, or flow of. 3.to adjust for proper functioning.

Yay. Okay. Now that we know that, we can see that indeed, the federal government has the right to regulate (as in ban) all firearms if it wants to. Those little first four words give the government this right, and that's the part that most people ignore because they don't like it. Well, thats too bad for the gun nuts because they can't pick and choose which parts of the amendment they want. The whole thing is there, written in all its glory.

Aside from that though, lets look at the founding fathers. The federalists (i.e. Washington etc. . .) were strong believers in a strong central government. They wanted the government to have more power than the people. In fact, if you look into your history, you'll find that the only reason we have the bill of rights at all is because of Sam Adams and Patrick Henry. The founding fathers wanted the government to have all of the power, but, Adams and Henry were opposed to it because it lacked a civil freedoms section. Since those two were such dangerous political opponents, the founders included the bill of rights in the constitution. After this was done, Adams and Henry supported the consitution and it was ratified.

I'd say we have much to learn here. The first lesson is what the Second Amendment actually says. The second lesson is how this plays into federal government power. The third lesson is why the founding fathers wrote the amendment that way and how it got there.

Learn history first, then debate.

<sarcasm> Yee haw! Now I can take my automatic assult rifle dear hunting. I can't wait to shoot me up some vension! <sarcasm> Who the hell needs a fully or semi-automatic assult rifle for hunting, or anything else for that matter? The only reason people need them is to shoot other people.

And don't anyone say "I need it for self defense" or "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The only reson you would need an assult rifle for defense would be if someone else was using one to try and kill you. Also, guns do kill people. A person killing a person would mean they killed them with thier bare hands, not pumping lead into them.

<sarcasm> Yee haw! Now I can take my automatic assult rifle dear hunting. I can't wait to shoot me up some vension! </sarcasm> Who the hell needs a fully or semi-automatic assult rifle for hunting, or anything else for that matter? The only reason people need them is to shoot other people.

1. You didn't end your sarcasm tag properly mate. 2. Yes, very few people need an assault weapon to hunt. I don't think thats a reason anyone's been using though. 3. I don't understand the collecting reason either, but hey, people collect weird stuff. If they want to collect massive assault weapons, as long as they don't live in a shack in a bad neighborhood (where they could be stolen and used) or aren't in danger of going postal, more power to them! There are easier ways to kill a man as well that don't involve guns. My mother can do it many many different ways with her bare hands. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters. You want to regulate karate lessons and coupon cutters then?

And don't anyone say "I need it for self defense" or "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The only reson you would need an assult rifle for defense would be if someone else was using one to try and kill you. Also, guns do kill people. A person killing a person would mean they killed them with thier bare hands, not pumping lead into them.

The text I bolded confused me. You're against the AWB death but you made a legitimate point for the opposition. As is, there are many illegal, unregulated, and unmonitored channels to buy this stuff anyway that are cheaper and more convenient, and weapons of equal firepower that the AWB didn't ban because they didn't look scary. I believe the Bushmaster rifle the D.C. Sniper used was legal by the ban. Also, nobody has even said "Guns don't kill people..." until YOU did.

BIG text time! :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: <smileys like assault weapons :gundge: ?

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_solution2.jpg

The purpose of guns is to kill or wound.
Find me another purpose that doesn't involve this....

Onerule seriously practicing isn't same as purpose....

Hunting, they kill
Defending house, they kill
War, they kill.

They have no theer purpose... unless you use ones from 1800's when they were round balls. They rarely killed.
People dueled and stood still while a couple rounds each shooting back then. Someone after much wounding surrendered.

Now a days you'd be dead if you dueled that way 9/10 times with current guns.
And I suppose you're for banning swords then. After all, the sword was useful for two things in antiquity - killing people and showing off how rich and powerful you are. After all, there's nothing a sword can do besides kill, wound, or maim that another blade cannot do more effectively - axes can chop trees, knives are just plain useful for opening boxes, cutting food and rope, and millions of other small chores, spears can be used for hunting, sickles for farming, ice picks for breaking apart ice, etc. The only people who had swords in olden times were the rich and the soldiers.

So do you support banning swords?

And yes, edged weapons can be brutally effective, even today. I know of trained knife wielders who say they would rather go against a gun with a knife at close range than vice versa. Knives, and by extension, swords, can sever arterys, nerves, and tendons, leaving you bloodless, paralyzed, and with useless muscles.

Columbines, McDonald shootouts (never heard of a shootout at a McDonalds, a shooting yes, shootout no), workers going postal, drive by mass shootings (nice addition of the word mass... taking a little artistic liberty?). These are all the fault of guns, I guess is what you are saying. People had nothing to do with it.

Why is it you seem to hold the criminal blameless for his actions while laying all the blame on the tool used.
Why even thr press uses the word "mass".

[i]http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/01/wilkinsburg.shooting.01/

Mass shooting breaks out at Pennsylvania McDonald's

Cold French Fries Prompt McDonald's Shooting

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/news/2001/cold-fries.html

Man gets 13 years for shooting up McDonald's drive-thru -- all he wanted was a "large orange drink"

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=714458

You want fries with that?

Americans don't feel safe without a gun, it seems...
I love W.Europe!!! :rolleyes:

Also, guns do kill people. A person killing a person would mean they killed them with thier bare hands, not pumping lead into them.
So you mean that only guns should be arrested whenever somebody gets shot? I'd like to see you try this theory out and see how far you can go with it.

The Assault Weapons Ban is DEAD!

The Assault Weapons Ban is DEAD!
Now if we only had a nationwide(all 50 states) concealed carry law.

Good, now I will buy that AK with the 100 rnd drum.

Why even thr press uses the word "mass".

[i]http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/01/wilkinsburg.shooting.01/

Mass shooting breaks out at Pennsylvania McDonald's

Cold French Fries Prompt McDonald's Shooting

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/news/2001/cold-fries.html

Man gets 13 years for shooting up McDonald's drive-thru -- all he wanted was a "large orange drink"

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=714458

You want fries with that?
you cant reason with the unreasonable

they believe guns will protect them MAGICALLY from everything and everyone and nothing even happens with guns bad ever. and they will believe this until their kid ends up dead in a school shooting from a disgruntled little disturbed punk who brought his dad's perfectly legal semi-automatic/automatic handgun with some ammo enlarging device on it and shot up the school

So you mean that only guns should be arrested whenever somebody gets shot? I'd like to see you try this theory out and see how far you can go with it.
and so YOUR logic is that because the guns themselves dont get up and kill people they should have no regulations on them?

you cant reason with the unreasonable

they believe guns will protect them MAGICALLY from everything and everyone and nothing even happens with guns bad ever. and they will believe this until their kid ends up dead in a school shooting from a disgruntled little disturbed punk who brought his dad's perfectly legal semi-automatic/automatic handgun with some ammo enlarging device on it and shot up the school

We don't deny that there are crimes. However, crime is at an all-time low (since we began measuring it 30 years ago), 27% of violent crime is gun crime (as of 2002), and less than 3% of gun crime involves the formerly banned weapons.

what i see as a problem with this is that we in the u.s.
seem to have a culture of irrisponsibility.

now don't think i'm suggesting this or anything because i'm
not, but wouldn't it be poeticly ironic if bush's ass were
to get shot with one?

=^^=
.../\...

Because of you big scare of terrorist you restrict human right's like making it alot easy for the goverment to spy on people even register that books there read. And alot of other things like that with you patriot act. But it's no problem letting people get easier access to guns in USA. That if the terrorist will go on a shooting spree next time? Sorry if this is seemed anti american but I just though it was funny:)

The Assault Weapons Ban is DEAD!

YAY! Now I can go out and get my Uzi and AR15 and hunt down Pax. :rolleyes:

gun nuts dont understand the words "not a firefight"

Here we go again....

ok, cite the part of the law that bans guns made out of metal and plastic.

and the law specifically cites weapons it bans, ones i named. if its in Counter Strike, its banned to the general populace by the AWB, if it wasnt previously banned.

I don't blame my real-world basis on video games. Tell me, are Glocks in the game?

If most civilizations crumble from within, then the enemies of the U.S. must surely be happy that the N.R.A. is fueling the internal struggle. The more guns the quicker the downfall.

Just wondering WHY you need assault weapons.
Is it to protect you from:
a) other countries?
b) your own government?
c) from criminals?
d) from rogue livestock?
e) antique cans?

F. All of the above.

Why even thr press uses the word "mass".

[i]http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/01/wilkinsburg.shooting.01/

Mass shooting breaks out at Pennsylvania McDonald's

Cold French Fries Prompt McDonald's Shooting

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/news/2001/cold-fries.html

Man gets 13 years for shooting up McDonald's drive-thru -- all he wanted was a "large orange drink"

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=714458

You want fries with that?

The press uses the word mass for a shooting of 4 people.
A BB gun?!?
And the last post is forums? Great source there... kinda like quoting Nationstate forums to prove your point :rolleyes:
Where are the "mass" drive by shootings you refered to?

And Chess... Lying to prove your point, only proves you are capable of lying to prove your point. I never said anything close to resembling what you are attributing to what I believe.

One could say that you believe that putting a gun into someone's hands makes the magically go out and commit crimes.

bullshit, thats not propaganda, i remember seeing that video on TV, 2 asses with a car full of assault weapons held the police off for hours just casually walking down the street after robbing the place took several hours of a stand off before the police could bring some people in with enough M4s to go around to stop them, and they got lucky in that.


That was utter police ineptitude. One sniper could have stopped the whole thing in under a minute.


kalishnikovs are regulated under the AWB by name. your not even listening. maybe you will get the point when some one shoots you with a LEGAL AK

Got a link? The AKs were already regulated by George Bush I.

What is an assualt weapon? An AUTOMATIC WEAPON! Fires a hell of a lot of bullets in a short amount of time.

Ah...no. Please do some research on the term. There are semi-automatic "assault weapons" out there as well.

Because of you big scare of terrorist you restrict human right's like making it alot easy for the goverment to spy on people even register that books there read. And alot of other things like that with you patriot act. But it's no problem letting people get easier access to guns in USA. That if the terrorist will go on a shooting spree next time? Sorry if this is seemed anti american but I just though it was funny:)

Yeah, OBL really wants to send his increasingly limited pool of minions to the U.S. so they can go through licensing processes and background checks so they can buy semi-automatic weapons at inflated prices rather than getting fully automatic AK-47s at $100 each... :rolleyes:

ok im tired of the bullshit

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3447/bradybill.html

"`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; "

"`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- " then add features you said

"w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device"

with all the stupidity i am close to wishing injury on you by the guns you seek to wish to make legal


Close? You've already done so in other threads.

WRONG, take some political classes, the amendments do not give you the right do do whatever hte fuck you want, you are granted the very BASIC of the amendment and limitatiosn arep laced on what you can and cant do by decision of the government and threat to society

Oh yeah, here comes Chess' "class" knowledge. Oh, and the colorful language, making that convincing, emphatic "hit home".

you, sir, are an idiot, you will now be ignored, go to hell

Hoo boy...yeah, you're real convincing here in your debate skills. Give it up, kid. You're just hurting your side.

Running away, is he?

Hiding, actually. That's what he does when "Chess Logic" isn't accepted by rational, thinking people.

Doesn't affect me as I'm not in US, but I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons on the streets. Rifles are for hunting and pistols are for portable self-defense. The semi-automatic and fully-automatic were designed for the 21st century battlefield as a good comprise between high calibre rifles (long range, low firing rate) and sub-machine guns (short range, high firing rate).

This is terrible! Gun crimes will soar.

People shouldn't own guns.

And yet all the evidence points the exact opposite, when you relax gun laws...

We need them guns because...er...guns protect our god damn rights!
*fires a gun by accident, taking down three pigeos*


Now THAT'S how it goes

Funny, you get more negligent discharges from police officers than any other demographic out there. THESE are the people you'd rather entrust you life with?

They already have all those nifty pre-ban weapons, and some banned full-autos!

see thats what im talking bout, outlaw ALL FIREARMS and require everyoen to take martial arts classes and have convential weapons training with swords and stuff

And the law-abiding citizens will be shot by the criminals that still have their illegal weapons.

Brilliant.

Doesn't affect me as I'm not in US, but I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons on the streets. Rifles are for hunting and pistols are for portable self-defense. The semi-automatic and fully-automatic were designed for the 21st century battlefield as a good comprise between high calibre rifles (long range, low firing rate) and sub-machine guns (short range, high firing rate).


The only semi autos used on a battlefield are handguns.

ok listen, if you take away all guns at once or convicne everyone at once, which is possible because the world is full of gullible halfwits, that they will never need a gun, i can do what i want easily

you can NOT know you will need a gun someday, that is impossible, unless you are psychic, and if that is so, you still do not need a gun because you can predict what people will do or stay away from situations where a gun is necesary, and yo ucan foresee the consequences of you drawing your gun on someone who already has their gun on you, that is, you getting shot. just because you have a gun doesnt mean you are immune

And you'll find that a great many of us already know this, and wouldn't try to pull a gun, when a gun is pointed at us.

You really think we're idiots, don't you? Kid, you really have to learn a bit more about people.

The deal here is: Most of us don't ever want to have to use a firearm in self defense at all. We want to be prepared should the need actually arise. That's it.

Vermont doesn't have people running through the streets on rampages, killing all within site. Neither does Switzerland. In Vermont there are no laws regarding firearms (or the equivalent of that), and in Switzerland, men are, by law, supposed to have at least one firearm.

It's not the guns, people.

Funny, you get more negligent discharges from police officers than any other demographic out there. THESE are the people you'd rather entrust you life with?

They already have all those nifty pre-ban weapons, and some banned full-autos!


Thats unfair, true but unfair.

Civilian shooting are more likely to be correct because he knows who the criminal is and who is the potential victim.

When a cop shows up, he has to assess the situation quickly. Sometimes they will make mistakes.

Yes, we are all aware that automatic weapons are still banned. But it really doesn't matter: a skilled gunman with a semi-auto weapon can empty a 30-round clip in under 5 seconds. What the AWB does is make it difficult to acquire such a large magazine, thus vastly slowing down a gunman's rate of fire, as well as the amount of ammo he can carry. It also bans such features as pistol grips on rifles, which allows them to be spray-fired from the hip (you'd have a hell of a time hip-firing a hunting rifle). This, again, cuts down on an assailant's rate of fire, as well as the scope of his target area (you can swing around more with a gun at the hip than from the shoulder). The AWB also bans exceedingly heavy (and powerful) pistols, and pistols with a barrel shroud that allows for two-handed firing (which increases accuracy). The ban makes it harder for people to buy guns intended for killing. You can still take your rifle and go deer hunting, you just cant mow down a crowd in a few seconds.
Also, addressing the issue of the 2nd amendment being so that the citizenry can overthrow the government: I really doubt that even a large revolutionary force, armed with assault (hell, even automatic) weapons could take on the highly-trained, well-equipped US Army. So the point is moot. If the citizens want to overthrow the government, they can't succeed without the Army. If they have the Army, they really don't need powerful weapons.


Have you ever tried firing from the hip with ANY firearm? You won't hit a thing. That spray from the hip propaganda is just that. Movies have developed more people's knowledge of firearms than anything else. And movies are completely false in their portrayal of firearms.

And you'll find that a great many of us already know this, and wouldn't try to pull a gun, when a gun is pointed at us.

You really think we're idiots, don't you? Kid, you really have to learn a bit more about people.

The deal here is: Most of us don't ever want to have to use a firearm in self defense at all. We want to be prepared should the need actually arise. That's it.

Vermont doesn't have people running through the streets on rampages, killing all within site. Neither does Switzerland. In Vermont there are no laws regarding firearms (or the equivalent of that), and in Switzerland, men are, by law, supposed to have at least one firearm.

It's not the guns, people.

Dont the Swiss require everyone(of militia age) to have at least 1 FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle?

i can already feel the massacres this is going to cause by people walking around with automatic concealed handguns and just randomly shooting up each other in fear they mgiht pull a gun on them, in which case they do and we have riots in the streets than ALL guns get banned because people are fucking stupid

Wouldn't you think it would have started with all the "shall-issue" states that offer concealed carry permits?

And yet it hasn't. Actually, those states have had drops in their violent crime stats....hmmm.....

Have you ever tried firing from the hip with ANY firearm? You won't hit a thing. That spray from the hip propaganda is just that. Movies have developed more people's knowledge of firearms than anything else. And movies are completely false in their portrayal of firearms.


lol

I love it when I see people holding handguns sideways in the movies. I keep wondering what they think they would hit?

that is a bullshit lie, ordinary gun owners do not need a Ak-47, semi auto that would tkae about 3 seconds to make auto, that fires with extreme accuracy, guess what no one does unless they are in teh military, to say this is a thorn in the side of ordinary gun owners is inane tripe, ordinary gun owners should be perfectly happy with their ability to own a heavy caliber revolver or pistol, or a hunting rifle, or a double barrel shotgun.

Okay, Chess' description of firing an actual automatic weapon proves he doesn't know crap about them. If you can put all 40 rounds into someone on one squeeze of the trigger, you had better enlist--we don't have too many that can do that.

this is alot shorter with zaxon ignored

do you live in iraq? no?
do you live in haiti? no?
do you live in a war torn country with guerillas walkngi the streets heavily armed? no?


are you in the military? no?
are a member of the police force? no?

you do not have the right to own an assault weapon

Where is THAT listed in the Constitution? Some learning you did, kid.

Oh wait, I'm probably on his ignore list as well. I pissed him off in another thread.

But seriously, I really want to know: Does anyone here actually think that crime rates will rise when the ban is lifted? I want to actually hear someone say, "As a result of the lifting of the Assault Weapons Ban, murder rates in the U.S. will increase noticably."

Chess said as much earlier in the thread.

no, i'm done, i refuse to argue with people who have been corrupted by pro-gun propaganda

And anti-gunners say WE have closed minds... :)

The only semi autos used on a battlefield are handguns.

The M16/AR15 series rifles can fire fully automatic or semi in 3 shot bursts.
Anyone with semi-auto has a military gun capability still.

how long have you done indepth studies of the constitution and the people who created it and the court cases following its creation? hmm, well how long?

Oh, here we go again...that's right, he took a CLASS. He must know so much more about what is going on than we do....bow to Chess!!!!

Where is THAT listed in the Constitution? Some learning you did, kid.

Oh wait, I'm probably on his ignore list as well. I pissed him off in another thread.

Face it Zaxon, Chess doesnt argue from logic or factual information... he argues from emotion and irrational thoughts. I havent been here for long, but I have never seen any difference.

Everyone who's citing the 2nd amendment, please note:
Amendment II

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.

Notice the phrase "well-regulated"? Here, I'll make it a little easier to read:

A WELL-REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
That would imply that the government can regulate arms. All kinds of arms.
The whole "overthrow the government" argument is outdated at best, and more likely just flat-out stupid: I will reiterate that the US government could smack down a revolution faster than you or I could blink.

Please, everyone, look at Canada or European countries where guns are more strictly regulated. Notice: there are far less gun crimes, and homocides in general there. Seeing as, for the most part, these nations are pretty similar to our own (disregarding the higher quality of social services in these nations), we can safely assume that gun-control legislation helps to stop crime.


The meaning of the phrase, "Well regulated" actually means (200 years ago, and backed up in the Federalist Papers) "in proper working order". Not that the government can limit the type of firearm.

(Sets thread on fire, streaks through it)

Enough already. Clearly no one's changing anyone's mind. I pronounce this thread:

IGNORED

AAAAGGHHHH!!!! The pain! How can I stand to live???? Sheesh.

The M16/AR15 series rifles can fire fully automatic or semi in 3 shot bursts.
Anyone with semi-auto has a military gun capability still.

Ok, so what if someone has military gun capability? So what if someone wants to own an assault weapon? So what if someone wants to own a fully automatic weapon? As long as that person is a responsible person, Im all for it.

Anti-gun advocates argue from 2 basic points:
1. Guns arent needed. (Or Semi-auto's arent needed, Assault weapons arent needed, etc.)

2. Gun ownership will increase crime rates.

Again, need has nothing to do with it. A person shouldnt have to have a need to exorcise their rights.

And the facts prove that the opposite is true about gun rates. Responsible gun ownership decrease crime rates.

jesus christ what is he responding to, he has at least half the posts in the thread

Perhaps it will take a few more Columbines, a few more MC Donald shootouts, a few more workers going "postal", a few more drive by mass shootings before some sanity will prevail?

And maybe a bit more publication on how firearms, today, are actually used to stop your previous examples.....

Now if we only had a nationwide(all 50 states) concealed carry law.

I just wished the Supreme Court would do its job, that way we wouldn't have to keep hoping for all these laws "allowing" us our rights back.

you cant reason with the unreasonable


You're right. No one can reason with you, without you waxing juvenile with your insults.

Doesn't affect me as I'm not in US, but I don't see the need for semi-automatic weapons on the streets. Rifles are for hunting and pistols are for portable self-defense. The semi-automatic and fully-automatic were designed for the 21st century battlefield as a good comprise between high calibre rifles (long range, low firing rate) and sub-machine guns (short range, high firing rate).

Uh, most concealed carry pisols ARE semi-automatic....

Thats unfair, true but unfair.

Civilian shooting are more likely to be correct because he knows who the criminal is and who is the potential victim.

When a cop shows up, he has to assess the situation quickly. Sometimes they will make mistakes.

You're right...most officers do put in range time and things like that, but there are others that just didn't get the four basics of firearms handling.

CURSE YOU, GOVERNOR FLORIO!

its the friggin energizer bunny

this is alot shorter with zaxon ignored

Ack!! The final stroke! Victory to Chess!

Funny thing is, I'll still learn more by actually seeing what the opposition is posting. And there's still a chance a perception may be changed....

I remember when I was Chess' age, and knew everything. :)

Face it Zaxon, Chess doesnt argue from logic or factual information... he argues from emotion and irrational thoughts. I havent been here for long, but I have never seen any difference.

I know....I was just trying to see how long it would take to get on his ignore list.

Oh wait, should I have changed the font size on "ignore"?
:D

Ack!! The final stroke! Victory to Chess!

Funny thing is, I'll still learn more by actually seeing what the opposition is posting. And there's still a chance a perception may be changed....

I remember when I was Chess' age, and knew everything. :)
these are worth replies

so did you gain the ability to be psychic with age and becoming a republican? i find that psychic abilities come with being a republican, you know things no one has told you or things that havnt happened yet

Face it Zaxon, Chess doesnt argue from logic or factual information... he argues from emotion and irrational thoughts. I havent been here for long, but I have never seen any difference.
and give examples of arguing with emotion and irrational thought

as opposed to the repetitive rhetoric and republican psychic ability of zaxon and yourself

Someone tell him to give up on his debunked and emotion-loaded arguments.

jesus christ what is he responding to, he has at least half the posts in the thread

Your inane babbling, for one. You've got a few posts yourself.

Just found this great quote:

"To one without faith, no explanation is possible." --St. Thomas Aquinas

these are worth replies

so did you gain the ability to be psychic with age and becoming a republican? i find that psychic abilities come with being a republican, you know things no one has told you or things that havnt happened yet

I'm not a Republican.... :) Try again.

I'm not pyschic. I'm using similar data involved in previous relaxation on gun laws (IE shall-issue concealed carry).

You're using emotional hyped-up rhetoric.

As someone who financed a drug-addiction through high school by running semi-legal guns, the most important thing I can say is "well, there goes business." I can say "good riddance," but I'm going to miss it.

Ten years ago, you couldn't give away an AK-47. My step dad's best friend, who sells guns for a living, bought 50 of them wholesale for about $1500 once the ban went into legislature, and two weeks after it went into effect, he could sell each for $650. A 50-round magazine, where shipping and handling for 100 of them cost more than they did, suddenly were worth at least 30 bucks apiece. One guy even bought five at 80 each, his offer. He estimates that this ban, over ten years, gave him an extra $200K in business.

Now that this is all gone, gun dealers the nation over will weep in poverty.

---------------------
All the actually dangerous stuff was always legal, you just needed to fill out a small mountain of paperwork in triplicate and pay a fee (either 2.5, 5, ro 10K, can't remember), then you get a liscense and it's just another small mountain to get an SMG. It was bad legislation which may have started out as a good idea, and almost certainly unconstitutional. Now that I've kicked Codine & can legally get an unlimited supply of other painkillers, I'm happy to see it go. But I also know it'll be back in four years, at most, with a clearer, completely different definition of "assault weapons" that somehow manages to cover the exact same guns.

Someone tell him to give up on his debunked and emotion-loaded arguments.

Give him ten or twenty years. Until then, he won't have enough real-world experience to make informed decisions.

The M16/AR15 series rifles can fire fully automatic or semi in 3 shot bursts.
Anyone with semi-auto has a military gun capability still.


They are not "semi auto", they are "select fire". Semi auto means that ONLY 1 bullet can be fired per trigger pull. "Select fire" means you can change the rate of fire usually between full auto and 3 round bursts, some might even have 1 round bursts, but they are still considered "select fire" rifles.

Full auto and select fire weapons were already tightly controlled for civilian use prior to the "assault weapons" ban.

I just wished the Supreme Court would do its job, that way we wouldn't have to keep hoping for all these laws "allowing" us our rights back.

seriously. IF G.W. gets his second term then there is hope that we will get judges that actually do their jobs instead of the legislators' jobs.

Well, well. Not one link to the actual text of the law in question (http://www.csgv.org/research/votes/keyvotes103/103_assault_house.cfm)

So, just to throw a bit of fact on the argument, here's the defintion of what is and is not legally an "assault weapon" under the `Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act':

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
`(B) any firearm that--
`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(iii) is an antique firearm;
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this Act is in effect.
`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
`(B) the transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer to an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) or to a law enforcement officer authorized by such an entity to purchase firearms for official use;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
<snip>
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.

And as for the meaning of the 2nd amendment, maybe we should look to such evidence as Federalist Paper 29: Concerning the Militia (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm), by Hamilton, The Federalist No. 46 The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm) by Madison, and the the legal history (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm).

I can back up the intent of the founders to allow the general populace to be armed with a lot more documentation...

Oh, and living here in Japan for the last 13 years has taught me to appreciate the respecft for freedoms found in the US.

And the poll results are quite interesting, considering that there is some real evidence that the majority of forum posters are of a lefty bent. (See Free Soviets' political compas thread for said evidence.)

seriously. IF G.W. gets his second term then there is hope that we will get judges that actually do their jobs instead of the legislators' jobs.
you mean like declaring gay marriage illegal, abortion illegal, that homosexuals are "inherently evil" a la roy moore, that big business is immune from lawsuits and jail time

just because you are legislating to the right doesnt mean you arnt legislating

you mean like declaring gay marriage illegal, abortion illegal, that homosexuals are "inherently evil" a la roy moore, that big business is immune from lawsuits and jail time

just because you are legislating to the right doesnt mean you arnt legislating


What are you talking about?

I am talking about Judges INTERPRETING the law and Legislators MAKING the law.

"just because you are legislating to the right doesnt mean you arnt legislating"

Under what tortured use of the English language does this even make any sort of sense? Can anyone here figure out what he is trying to say with this statement?

What are you talking about?

I am talking about Judges INTERPRETING the law and Legislators MAKING the law.

"just because you are legislating to the right doesnt mean you arnt legislating"

Under what tortured use of the English language does this even make any sort of sense? Can anyone here figure out what he is trying to say with this statement?
listen you ignorant halfwit

the ooh evil liberal judges are interpreting laws in the manner they must be intepreted: in ways that allow them to keep up with the development with society


the conservative judges interpret the law in such a manner that they are preventing any laws from being made to try and adapt to the advancement of society


quote one instance, just one, of this supposed "legislating form teh bench" bullshit you repeat like a republican parrot

(snipped because... well just because)

quote one instance, just one, of this supposed "legislating form teh bench" bullshit you repeat like a republican parrot

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/useditorial31.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/762148/posts
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/031/ferejohn.html

and the one to draw the most fire :D

http://www.etherzone.com/2000/bend113000.html