federal assault weapons ban

That's a rare statement, revel. I'm far to the right on this one, but I do appreciate your concerns.

0 Replies

Get your liberal eyes off my cigarettes, McGentrix.

0 Replies

the ban on assault appears primarily a symbolic one, we do have a nation on edge with violence and events like 9/11 or Columbine raise the awareness of violence at least media-wise. But in reality it still remains a feel good symbolic gesture not unlike invading Iraq cause we are on edge about terrorism. The "pistol grip" shotgun held by Kerry is not so different then the "freedom fries" of the Bush admin.

0 Replies

This debate amuses me. The gun nuts (forgive my bias here, or don't, I really could care less) fill the thread with detailed info on the various guns as though their superior knowledge (or ability to appear knowledgeable) should end all discussion.

Why is it, I wonder, that police chiefs and officers tend to speak out in favor of the ban on assault weapons?

0 Replies

competition?

0 Replies

Quote:

...In addition, a well-known Illinois gun company, ArmaLite, is pushing consumers not only to order assault weapons now for shipment after the ban expires, but also to add bayonets and even flash suppressors to their weapons. I can't quite figure out how a flash suppressor helps a hunter just because the deer can't see where the shot is coming from, but it sure helps a crook, which is why they were previously banned.

The NRA, in case no one has noticed, has yet to endorse Bush for reelection. The cover story is that the politically skilled gun lobby was waiting until each party's convention had ended before making its choice. The real story is that if the assault weapons ban expires, Bush will get endorsed, and the first board of directors meeting to discuss endorsement will take place this weekend...

The truth is that assault weapons, as opposed to handguns, are an issue that splits Republicans, unites Democrats, and even divides the NRA.

In a sample of nearly 5,000 people during August, extending the ban was supported by 68 percent of the respondents overall, including 61 percent of the Republicans, 62 percent of conservatives, 57 percent of people in gun-owning households, and even 32 percent of NRA members.

The ban, however, will expire. Bush will get his endorsement. And people are going to die.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/09/politics_and_the_assault_weapons_ban?pg=2

0 Replies

In this entire discussion not one gun enthusiast has come up with the tired gem "Guns do not kill people-people do." I say since we can't get rid of people we should take the next logical step and get rid of the guns.

0 Replies

...and cars, and cigarettes, and knives, and swimming pools, and ladders, and matches, and anything even remotely poisonous...

0 Replies

Cars are regulated--you need a license to drive and the car has to be registered. Cigarettes are regulated, too--highly taxed these days, and there are fewer places you can smoke around other people.

The point, anyhow, is that most of the items on your list, McG, have the potential to hurt the user. Guns injure and kill other people. There's a difference, no?

0 Replies

Guns don't have a potential to hurt the user? John Kerry got a purple Heart because a gun hurt it's user.

Cars kill all kinds of people every day. Far more than guns do. Guns are also regulated.

0 Replies

MgC
And people, don't forget people. :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

I don't deny that cars are dangerous to others, and that's why drivers are licensed. As I noted in the post you're commenting on.

And yes, your silly comment re Kerry notwithstanding, guns can hurt the user. That's hardly an argument for semi-automatic weapons, is it?

0 Replies

If I post again here do you think my stalker will show up?

Here's my son shooting a .22 semi-auto that can hold about 15 or more cartridges (internally). Is everyone scared? I mean, what a SCARY looking gun!

http://www.msnusers.com/_Secure/0RwAAAB4WaCVt4RMAdt4I6yY66NwSr3TXwNrJpp934csUAXwfzMUVxuLKVfkl6GyF4vDTojCQRtOcG3ZTsOcAslyNtPNMblCFktNnBqZ3EdQ/alex_22.jpg

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cigarettes kill far more people than assault weapons do. I don't think people should smoke. Cigarettes should be banned...

I quite agree that cigarettes kill more people than assault weapons.

My husband is on the verge of throat cancer and has to go through this complicated process to try and quit. It is scary.

I live in Kentucky, a lot of my relatives are tobacco planters; needlesss to say I am not one of those that make a big deal of people of smoking regardless of the health hazard that not only affect the smoker but everyone around them.

The reason that cigarettes kill far more people than assault weapons is that more people have cigarettes than they do assualt weapons. Cigarettes probably kill more people than bombs; should we just go ahead and let people buy bombs? That argument does not seem too swift in my opinion.

0 Replies

The argument is made to show the ridiculousness (is that even a word?) of banning guns because they kill people not to start some campaign against smokers.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

I don't deny that cars are dangerous to others, and that's why drivers are licensed

True, drivers ARE licenced... that is because driving is a privilege that is extended to you by the government. There is NO 'Right to Drive' to be found anywhere in the Constitution. You DO have the 'Right to Travel', but the government has the right to regulate the method you use to get there.

The 'Right to Bear Arms' however is clearly spelled out in the Constitution and thus is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The argument is made to show the ridiculousness (is that even a word?) of banning guns because they kill people not to start some campaign against smokers.

You didn't answer my question. No one is talking about banning guns. Just assault weapons. You made out like that because more people die because of cigaretts and we don't ban those then we shouldn't ban assault weaons either. Well, by that reasoning we shouldn't ban bombs or regular private civillians having armored tanks since we are allowed to have cigarettes and they kill people too.

0 Replies

Military grade weapons have mass destructive capabilities and are capable of automatic fire. They have no place in the private secter.

What is it about assault weapons that should require them to be banned? I am as dangerous with my 30-.30 as I would be with any assault style weapon.

Why is it that you feel the need to jump into the extreme end of the pool to ask a question?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Military grade weapons have mass destructive capabilities and are capable of automatic fire. They have no place in the private secter.

What is it about assault weapons that should require them to be banned? I am as dangerous with my 30-.30 as I would be with any assault style weapon.

Why is it that you feel the need to jump into the extreme end of the pool to ask a question?

Listen, I don't know a 30 - 30 from any other gun.

From what I understand about pre banned assualt weapons they can shoot off more rounds quicker than regular riffles and guns. Instead of killing one person or animal you will kill 10. (if you are good at shooting I guess)

The reason I jumped in at the extreme was to make the point that just because the constitution gave us the right to bear arms that don't mean that we can bear any kind of arms or else we could even have bombs and armored tanks.

0 Replies

not even the NRA supports the legalized ownership of military grade weapons.

0 Replies

federal assault weapons ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know