federal assault weapons ban

yet

just kidding, maybe.

I think I have said everything i can on the subject.

That's the problem, many who are in favor of gun control will not take time to educate themselves in even the basics of the topic they aregue and the item they want banned.



The rate of fire on almost ANY semi-automatic weapon is nearly identical from an AR-15, which is the civilian model of the M-16 military rifle, to a semi-automatic 22 calibre rifle that a kid uses to plink tin cans. (Semi-automatic means 1 trigger pull= 1 round fired with no manual manipulation of the bolt or cocking a hammer or jacking a round into the chamber ala a pump shotgun)

The Assault Weapons Ban merely blocks the sale of a few dozen specified weapon types, while hundreds of models with EQUAL speed of fire and ammo capacity are not affected.

It accomplishes nothing other than setting a precedent for the banning of private firearm ownership based upon the governments 'whim'.

The real reason for the second amendment
Hey all,

If you've been able to read the transcripts from the sessions in which the founding fathers created the bill of rights, you would know that the only reason that they included the second amendment was because

1) they realized that independence from Britain was only possible with their firearms through warfare.. they tried diplomacy... it failed.

2) they knew what a government could do to its people if they successfully disarmed them. they wanted to protect its people (no matter how stupid they might get) from a government that was smart enough to disarm them.

they didn't want the government that they created to get so out of whack that the people would not be able to correct it, and as a last requirement, including fighting off their own governments, rulers, etc.. just like the American Revolution.

If you want to know what a government can do when it disarms its people.. just check out Hitler, or visit the Killing Fields. Hitler disarmed every country (or at least those citizens opposing him) he took over, including his own. The FF's simply wanted to protect the right of the citizen in this regard.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, gun education, yadda yadda yadda... I really don't understand people who think it does.

After understanding the true intention of the founders (through their own words) and reading the dozen or so revisions that they made to the 2nd amendment (before they actually found one that said it all), I can say that I am a for it.

Fortunately, the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed".. this is a tough one that politicians and courts have danced around... there probably shouldn't be any laws which do any infringing. You can check out the dictionary definition yourself.. or the founding fathers own words.. its rather clear. However i don't think anybody wants a citizen to have a NUKE.

The other thing it says is "Bear".. this is a tough one.. check out the dictionary and the founding father doc's to see how badly this one has been infringed.

Just like anything, understanding someones true intent, behind what they say or write, when the message is being interpreted different ways, is really what is important.

It is interesting that in civilized (1st world) countries and states where there are minimal or no gun control laws, that there are drastic differences in crime stats. A good example might be Switzerland.. most citizens are trained to fight (requires military service), and own a weapon. This leaves little doubt as to whether or not an attacking force will have a fight on their hands. Check out the crime stats for vermont, where there is almost no gun control.. and check out the stats from Florida, where they legally protect the use of deadly force (most commonly done with a firearm) to protect your personal property.. As an example.. this means you MAY be protected from criminal charges if you kill someone whose trying to steal your car! Do you think that would make criminals think twice?

It really takes some careful study to really gain the ability to have a valid opinion.. Just remember, "If your not part of the information gathering process... you should not be part of the decision making process". This means.. educate yourself.. (and not from others who are also clueless)

Now, about criminals, they usually want the easy route.. all things being equal, if they had to choose between robbing a store where the attendant had no weapon, or one in which they knew that the attendant did.. which one would you choose..??

No matter the laws, the criminals will get the weapons, thats what they do... illegal things.

... thats all i have on the second amendment.. don't even get me started on the first amendment.. most people don't even know that the words "seperation of church and state" aren't even in the bill of rights or the constitution.... the world is moving so fast, people don't even have time to figure out if what they're being told is true....

like these other myths

Myth: A college education = a job
Truth: A college education = a diploma

Myth: work hard = you'll succeed
Truth: work smart = you'll succeed

Note: Not Spellchecked.. and am a fast typer... sorry for mispells and grammar.

etc...

Thanks, Fedral. I would have simply replied to:with a simple "You are incorrect, sir," but you spelled it out a bit better than I would have.

Since I have chosen to get myself into this discussion I felt it made sense for me to see just what guns are banned and how they are different than other guns that are not banned; even if that meant going to a pro-gun site because on this issue that was about all I could find. It seems the NRA and supporters are quite busy flooding the internet with information and advertisements about guns. (Personally I find it distasteful. Just my observation, don't really expect a reply)

One such site is:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

I think it will be a shame if the ban is allowed to expire and then nothing is else is done to correct some of short comings of the ban.

You guys as bad as I hate to admit it are right, the banned guns are just scary looking and are no more dangerous than some guns that are not banned. Some of those non ban guns can do the same damage and they should be banned as well.

I think what needs to be done is add more guns to the ban list and closing the loopholes that allow gun obsessed people to get around the intent of the law rather than scraping it all together.

btw-it's mam.

ban weapons.... what are you thinking?
DEFINITION - ASSAULT WEAPON:

By u.s. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect

The federal definition of assault weapon includes the following:

A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug.

A semiautomatic shotgun that has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, detachable magazine, fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds

A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that has more than one of the following features: magazine attaches to the pistol outside the grip, threaded barrel, weight of 1.42 kg or more unloaded, barrel shroud, or a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic firearm

For those of you who didn't know, a rifle being classified as an assault rifle has nothing to do with the way it functions. There are alot of semi-auto weapons out there that are not assault weapons. Also by supporting a ban all you have done is make it harder for collectors and other people who would go about purchasing these legally,as criminals there ways around everything. Crime... How often do you hear of a crime where the criminal went and got a firearm 100% legitimately? Not very often especially in assault weapon cases. I don't see banning a weapon because of cosmetic design that has nothing to do with the way it puts bullets down range. One more bit of info... Assault weapons have only been acountable for less than a half of 1% of all violent crimes. By banning assault weapons you will not get rid of any fully automatic weapons either, those are considered CLASS iii firearms and it is unlawful to destroy one also you need a special licence to own them

Next time you want to ban something get your info strait

The 'right to bear arms' is silly, in 2004. It is an irrelevant historical throwback.

And the desire to bear arms is silly too, and very dangerous in society.

Anyone who wants to shoot (and who would want to do that?) should be able to use guns at a secure gun club, but not to take the weapons home.

That would be better. Those who wanted to have guns at home could be given free psychiatric help.

I have two friends that are avid gun collectors. One sticks mainly to civil war weapons, the other WWII era US military weapons.

The guy that collects the civil war weapons could easily sell his collection for over a million dollars as he has many rare and collectible peices. The other has a collection of what would have once been considered "assault style weapons". Why should the government have ANY say in what they can and cannot collect?

Myself, I am an avid hunter and I have a collection of various rifles and shotguns. Again, why should the government have any say in what I do for recreation within the bounds of the law?

You definitly have an opinion shared by many McTag and I can see why Europeans would feel that way, but I like guns, and I have many friends that like guns. We are responsible gun owners and we have been properly trained on how to use and clean them. I will not stand idly by and take responsibility for others mistakes and misuse of firearms.

You might think twice if...



Interesting opinion... however, criminal don't care about your opinion, or the law, even if that notion was able to get passed or approved in any country, that just won't stop the criminals from visiting your home. It may, in fact, make them more confident.

Think of the people who have successfully defended themselves with firearms, especially from people invading their homes.

It is sad that most of the people in our great country don't realize that we live in a society that fakes its sense of security. The rules DO NOT protect you. Common sense, awareness and self defense/prevention protect you, at all times. This includes when driving, walking, living, even breathing.

As an example, It would be silly to think that the laws against ASSAULT AND BATTERY (an incredibly common crime) will actually prevent you from visiting the hospital if someone decided to pound your head into the ground. What would you do if it happened to you? Tell the person who did it "Hey, your not allowed to do that, it's against the law!". This world is a crazy place, with plenty of people who willingly do wrongful, illegal things every day. Forget the lawsuit... that only counts if you live through the assault.

Every person in this world has a right to defend their life and liberty. A TRAINED, RESPONSIBLE individual with a firearm is the most effective way to do this (irregardless of age), when the bad people come knocking on your door. Many cities in the US even REQUIRE the ownership of a firearm. It is quite amazing!

Until recently, our entire governmental protection systems (namely police, etc) were designed to be "response driven" and not "preventitive". This means that they show up AFTER the crime has occurred. With the advent of Homeland security, some of our rights have been given up to improve the "preventitive" side of the protection business.

I think it is great that we have an anti-gun crowd in this country. One day maybe we'll even witness the religious prophecy (some people believe) of them being changed into "plowshares" (sorry if my biblical references are slightly off). But please don't forget that weapons of destruction, including firearms, have been around a long time, and have been a big part of forging and protecting this nation. The bad guys are getting badder, and the protective forces are under budgeted, overwhelmed... and simply human.

Take care of yourselves. And at a minimum, get educated on proper gun safety, whether or not you ever want to use one. You just never know what situation you may run into.

And remember, Bad people will typically do bad things with whatever you give them (money, firearms, etc). While good people tend to do good things with them. Hope for more of the good guys.

Man with gun visits your home, steals stuff, leaves again.

Man with gun visits your home, you shoot him dead, or he shoots at you because you have a gun, leaving you wounded or dead.

Which of these is better?

My point is, I cannot think of any human interaction, within the law or outside of it, which is improved by having firearms present.

McTag, if those were the only two options, it would be a great and wonderful world.

But, what about man with gun visits your home, steals stuff, rapes and kills your wife and daughter then shoots you in the back of the head because he knew there was no chance of you owning a gun because you were a law abidding citizen.

Several people have made the assertion that owning a gun protects your household. In that when a thug comes to rob and kill people have protected themselves with the weapon.
Is that a myth or fact? Does anyone have any statistics that substantiate or disprove that assertion. From what I have read in the past owning a gun and trying to use it increases rather than diminishes your chances of being killed.

Happens every day in every neighborhood. It's a really big problem.

A guy steals a tank from the local army base. He heads up your front sidewalk and through your newly renovated entraceway, crushing all your pets under the treads, then he tries to pull your wife into the tank with him to rape her but she's too fat, so he shoots her in the kneecaps and takes your Scotch, your Creedence tapes, and your eldest male child instead and ONLY because he knew you didn't have a tank, being a law abiding citizen with a fat wife.

****, and then you have to go to Wal-Mart and replace all that stuff.

McGentrix, how much are fat wives going for at Wally World??

But to take your fat wife, he would need to get out of his tank at which time someone like me, who owns and maintains many guns, will be able to take him down thus saving your fat wife and your creedance tapes.

I part company with my liberal colleagues here. I believe the title 'assault" weapon is more an issue of erroneous marketing titles by an ill informed press than true species differences. there are many semi auto sport guns , including shotguns that are, technically, assault weapons.

The issue of teflon coated ammo, to me, is a more important distinction. That is ammo, designed for the sole purpose of defeating kevlar body armor, which is usually only worn by law enforcement or military.

Many people believe that au, because the press never seems to report any incident where private citizens have defended themselves with their firearms.

There have been hundreds and hundreds of cases where citizens have killed, wounded or held criminals who assault or inavde their houses.

Do a little searching and you will find a lot of occurances. (Although never on the major networks for some reason)

farmerperson

May your mother get blackbug.

Actually, I'm a fearful opponent in a potato gun skirmish, but I'm unfamiliar with any instrument which shoots projectiles that actually cause bruises (my dancing career requires pristine alabaster skin).

Teflon bullets, like those nifty Black Talon cuisinart things, really don't seem to have much of a sporty justification, do they.

But I should be of open mind and the next time I'm down there visiting, I swear I will stop in at Ben's Bazooka Barn and pick up a little something, perhaps a grenade from the bulk bin.

Fedral wrote




Hundreds and hundreds of cases but not reported in the press you say? Baloney I say. The papers in NY live off incidents such as that it would be front page news. Do you have any statistics or is it just your opinion?