Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

[benny 0]

Quote

Huh?

So reloading with a fresh 10-round magazine is gonna be impossible for "gangsters?" Besides, since when do "gangsters" follow laws?

Did you know, I cannot shoot a 10-round magazine in the service rifle category of NRA High Power? I must use either a 20- or 30-round magazine. That's the way it's always been and I doubt they will change the rules any time soon just because someone made up a law so a few can feel some false sense of security.

Charlton's law is higher than the law of the land. No wonder he played Moses.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Two things here:

I don't see how jumping a 170 diminishes the pleasure of your skydive over a 105 either... Well, I do, but I'm sure not going to tell you you can't have it. It's not about what you CAN do with the item.

Then explain how a smaller magazine has a negative impact on you enjoyment of shooting?

Quote

Second:
I will challenge you that currently we don't need a well regulated Militia to guarantee the security of our free state. While slightly off of the deepend here. If EVERYONE, or maybe just a few of the passengers on the hijacked airlines would have had their personal weapons handy I bet a few lives would have been saved. Would some innocents have died due to misplaced rounds. Probably. Would less have died because the terrorist would have. Definetly.

National Guard would come under the heading of well regulated militia. Should we disband them? Ah yes everyone should be packing the world would be a safer place just like the old west. However the thread is about assault weapons and I don't think it would be practicle for us all to have M-16s hanging over our shoulders.

Quote

One form of gun regulation I am for. MANDATORY training. At least in it's basic form. I understand the first part of the second ammendmendt. I do think that requiring some sort of training on the tool needs to happen in a day and age where they just aren't as common place as they were back then.

Absolutely agreed. I can't get a drivers license without training but I can get a gun.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Quote

I suggest you read a little of the Federalist Papers so you can get a clearer view of what the people who actually wrote the bill of rights meant.

Can you point me at specific items or sections I should start with?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[newsstand 0]

Gun crime overall has declined so it seems that the legislation had an effect, direct or indirect.

Quote

...
If you want to talk about dangerous firearms, you should be raving over polymer-framed handguns. Their use in crime has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. They are used way more often than so-called assault weapons.

The thread is about assault weapons. I think "plastic" guns are horrible.

Quote

So, you have issues with a firearm which happens to look like a military rifle, but you have no issues with a firearm which is functionally identical, yet looks like a hunting rifle? Can they not both be used for hunting? Can they not both be used for killing people? Can they not both be used for competitive shooting? Can they not both be misused in the wrong hands? Can a vehicle not be also misused in the wrong hands?

Yes they can but a deer rifle doesn't have a 30 round clip. Yes a car can and that is why I support the lawsuit protection of the firearms manufacturers.

Quote

You also seem eager to exclude the effects of tougher penalties for firearms crimes and a thriving economy (thanks mostly to reganomics and the .com boom) during the last decade, but I'll leave that one alone.

The climate for tougher penalities was almost certainly brought about by the same people who supported this ban. I have said several times that the impact of this legislation may have been indirect. Economy went in the tank a few years ago and no increase in gun crimes.

Quote

Back to the doj statistics. Gunshows were a hot topic here a bit ago. I'd like to call your attention to this little tidbit:

Quote

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

I guess it's really important to go after the most mundane and smallest portions of these issues huh? I am pretty sure we should ban black baseball hats, as I am sure they are used in the commission of a crime far more often than so-called assault weapons or firearms bought at gunshows...

Shutting down any source of dangerous weapons reduces the numbers available for illegal acquisition. If some one comes up to me and says "stick 'em up" I am not threatened by the ball cap. My life is not in danger because of the ball cap.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as
>a political issue in the upcoming campaign.

And the conservatives want to let the criminals who kill kids keep their guns.

See? Anyone can come up with a nonsensical sound bite!

No, Conservatives want to preserve the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Liberals want to bend and change the Constitution to suit their own agenda. Sorry you think these rights are non-sensical sound bites.

Oh, you mean like ammending it to ban gay marriage? You see the problem is your using ancient definitions of conservative and liberal. Conservatives have no qualms changing the constitution as long as it serves them.

It is you who is mistaken. Most traditional Conservatives do not support changing the Constitution to ban gay marriage. GWB is NOT a Conservative. I believe (and hope)his proposal will fail.

[benny 0]

OK, let me clarify, I am not mistaken, but as you noted there is a difference between a traditional conservative and those in power today. But I think most picture people like GW when they think of a conservative. I apologize that your word has been bastardized. But by those (old) definitions I'm a conservative, what gives?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

OK, let me clarify, I am not mistaken, but as you noted there is a difference between a traditional conservative and those in power today. But I think most picture people like GW when they think of a conservative. I apologize that your word has been bastardized. But by those (old) definitions I'm a conservative, what gives?

Well, lets not get crazy here and start tossing words around at random. You are NOT and I repeat NOT a Conservative Benny.
If you look at one of the purist forms of Conservative, it means someone who is for slow, gradual change over time. Most Conservatives I know view GWB more as representing the Religious Right more than the traditional Buckley Conservatives. I think you are confusing Conservative and Republican. Big difference.

[mnischalke 0]

So because TAP ammunition has become harder to get for civilians, my statement is less true? TAP is not the only .223 ammunition out there, but it is what I have seen tested and used by the folks I am talking about.

Here's a few links:

FBI tests

GunSite tests

Olympic arms tests

Benefits of the .223 Cartridge in Contemporary Police Work

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[rjf98 0]

Quote

i dislike any weapon that gives a relatively untrained individual the same lethal potential as a professional warrior. Ever actually stabbed/been stabbed by anyone? Ever had someone look at you with the intent to end your life? Ever been in a real "someone isnt walking away from this fight" ? most people havent, and firearms make violence less personal, more distant and so far easier to stomach for everyone... you never have to see their eyes before you kill them, and all it takes is such a simple action.....

but guess what? you cant put the genie back in the bottle.....no matter how hard you wish you could....to keep yourself and those you love safe you train to a standard higher than your enemy and that means learning to shoot shoot safely and more accurately than your average street thug who might have fired his weapon in anger far more times than you ever will, but spends little to no time at the range actually learning how to use it.

Sounds like you and I agree on a lot of this, but here I have to disagree. The argument that the weapon itself makes one a more efficient killer is constantly used by the anti-gun side. I remember late 2002 during the DC sniper shootings. A reporter from Fox went to a range to fire a bushmaster and was showing everyone her "almost" bullseye from 15 yds. Problem was she didn't go into minutes of angle and what that distance actually equated to at ranges of 100 yds or more.

I also tend to disagree with the argument that shooting someone is somehow less personal than stabbing them. Just not the same. A sniper sees the face through the scope, he watches the victim fall and die. Go and talk to any combat vet sniper (or police sniper that's done the job) they'll tell you how personal it is. Handguns are the same way.. even the best trained can't take a man down over 50 yds really. Maybe you could argue "not AS personal" as an edged weapon, but it's definetly not the weapon that makes it easy to kill. Plenty of time spent studying the individual soldier in combat will tell you that they constantly shoot high or close their eyes before shooting, or purposfully miss. Only by good training, leadership, and peer pressure do they actually muster the ability to kill another human being.

[rjf98 0]

Quote

Then explain how a smaller magazine has a negative impact on you enjoyment of shooting?

Fine.. I HATE reloading. It hurts my thumbs and I see it as a waste of time.
That's my reason. Fair enough.

Quote

National Guard would come under the heading of well regulated militia.

National guard works for the federal government and not the state. Precident already shows us that when push comes to shove (state's will vs federal government's will) they follow the orders of the president and NOT the governor. That however is for another thread.

Quote

Ah yes everyone should be packing the world would be a safer place just like the old west. However the thread is about assault weapons and I don't think it would be practicle for us all to have M-16s hanging over our shoulders.

Do you believe that people should be responsible for their own actions? What about their own lack of action or preparation.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

School shootings, as a recent epidemic, are done by... wait for it.... GUNS!!!

The guns didn't shoot anyone. Some whacked out kids did.

[benny 0]

Quote

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I love this quote and usually apply it to the proponents of the PATRIOT Act among other things.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

The guns didn't shoot anyone. Some whacked out kids did.

Imagine if they only had rocks and sticks to throw... oh, the humanity..

Yea, without guns, they might have focused more on home made pipe bombs, and actually got them to work! (ala Dillon and Klebold)

. . =(_8^(1)

[rjf98 0]

Let's stick to the topic. Assault weapons ban. Do you honestly believe that you are safer due to the ban? If you do than the quote applies. If you don't feel safer... well... what's the use?

[rjf98 0]

The assault weapons ban had nothing to do with the most recent of school shootings. It didn't stop the criminals from getting guns. NO Law you write will stop criminals from getting guns. That's the argument from those that oppose this ban. Only LAW ABIDING citizens can't have the guns.

How about this. If you use a gun and kill someone and then we catch you... YOU DIE.

I don't want to turn this into a death penalty argument. It's just that the ban takes away what I as a law abiding citizen can enjoy and does nothing statistically relavent to make everyone safer.

[benny 0]

Quote

Let's stick to the topic. Assault weapons ban. Do you honestly believe that you are safer due to the ban? If you do than the quote applies. If you don't feel safer... well... what's the use?

Look, I honestly like guns. Hell, post 9/11 I'm really glad that rednecks have guns because I feel like said good ole boys are going to be the last line of defense when the government basically begins to lock down all our freedoms in the name of "security". But it's complex, I'm also for this ban because I don't think just any schmoe from the street should be able to own a weapon capable of mowing down lots and lots of people in a short amount of time.

I'm really torn by this issue, but I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't think you should ban all guns, but at the same time there has to be some sort of point at which we say no. Under the most widespread interpretation of the second amendment we should be able to get our hands on some ICBMs as well.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

why do you jump out of an airplane?

I know my reasons... so why do people need guns in general? Nobody has even come close to an answer?

And I know my reasons for wanting a firearm. Who are you or the government to say no?

And still, no answer.....

Easy question.... Why? And don't answer with another question...

[billvon 2,918]

>No, Conservatives want to preserve the rights granted by the Bill of
> Rights. Liberals want to bend and change the Constitution to suit
>their own agenda.

It was a joke, but if you insist:

If you consider this administration as "conservatives," conservatives are doing their level best to destroy the protections of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. In the name of "fighting terror" of course. Sorry, but those protections, to me, are a lot more important than the protections of the second amendment (although in my ideal world you don't mess with the constitution at all.)

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The guns didn't shoot anyone. Some whacked out kids did.

Imagine if they only had rocks and sticks to throw... oh, the humanity..

Yea, without guns, they might have focused more on home made pipe bombs, and actually got them to work! (ala Dillon and Klebold)

But their guns worked JUST FINE to kill how many high school kids? Where did they get their guns? They might have focused on pipe bombs? Prove it!

Blog Clicky

[Kennedy 0]

quade. I managed to simply read after my posts on the first page, but this post just made me have to reply.

Quote

The gangs on the streets were litterally mowing down people (police in particular) with these devices. These weapons weren't choosen to be banned simply because they were "scary looking" as JohnRich keeps regurgitating from the NRA, but because they were extremely popular with gangs.

They were mowing people down, but the banned firearms are only used in 2% of gun crimes?

Quade, the Assault Weapons Ban applies only to semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns. They do not "spray bullets." They fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger, and one bullet only.

These terms of the AWB are all about cosmetic features, not funcitonal ones. The AWB bans a firearms having two or more of the following: bayonnet lugs, pistol grips, collapsible stock, flash suppresor, and threads for a sound suppresor.

So the industry kept making the exact same semi-automatic firearms, but without those external features.

These firearms look like military rifles. Gun control advocates have commented on using the ignorance of the public and taking advantage of the fact that people don't know the difference between true military assault weapons and these semi-automatic cousins.

Quote

That -has- made the weapons less popular with those folks in general which is why year after year their use has steadily declined.

Actually, they are more popular now because they are harder to get and have become collectors items inaddition to any other values.

Also, these firearms have not become less common in crimes than before the AWB was passed. They still constitute just 2% of gun crimes, same as before the ban.

Quote

For people with an open mind, more information HERE

You ridicule people quoting the NRA, but you post from the brady campaign? These people are the biggest gun ban organization around. THe NRA has training services, safety courses, environmental and conservation efforts, and more. The Brady people are nothing but straight up gun banners.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Look, I honestly like guns. Hell, post 9/11 I'm really glad that rednecks have guns because I feel like said good ole boys are going to be the last line of defense when the government basically begins to lock down all our freedoms in the name of "security".

So only rednecks should be able to own guns?

Quote

But it's complex, I'm also for this ban because I don't think just any schmoe from the street should be able to own a weapon capable of mowing down lots and lots of people in a short amount of time.

None of the weapons covered in the AWB are capable of "mowing down lots and lots of people in a short amount of time". Every weapon covered under the AWB is a single shot, one sqeeze of the trigger, one round, weapon; just like handgun or rifle I could buy from the dealer down the road. "Assault Weapons", as has been covered before, "look" scary to the anti-gun crowd. Tell me, how is a gun covered under the AWB, that is functionally the same as a gun not covered under the AWB, any more dangerous than any other gun?

Quote

I'm really torn by this issue, but I'm not sure what the answer is.

Well, you're finally starting to give it some thought, that's the best anyone can hope for, I suppose.

Quote

don't think you should ban all guns, but at the same time there has to be some sort of point at which we say no.

Yes, currently we say "no" to the scary looking ones.

Quote

Under the most widespread interpretation of the second amendment we should be able to get our hands on some ICBMs as well.

That's been debated before, most reasonable people agree that ICBMs are not covered under the second amendment.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[jdhill 0]

Let's play a little word substitution...

Quote

I skydive because I love it.
It's beyond freedom. My owning a rig doesn't jeopardize anyone around me. I skydive because I can, and I want to. Need and want are two different things. People want guns, they don't need them.

Now with some small changes...

I shoot guns because I love it.
It's beyond freedom. My owning a gun doesn't jeopardize anyone around me. I shoot guns because I can, and I want to. Need and want are two different things. People want to skydive, they don't need to.

Quote

Where do the criminals get there guns? States with little/no regulation. States where you only need a drivers license to buy a gun. States that opposed a waiting period. These guns are brought to areas where guns are harder to get legally. Most of the illegal guns in NJ and NYC came from the south. It's like a fucked up osmosis.

Criminals get the majority of their guns through theft, not someone buying a gun legally and reselling it... I'm sure that happens in some cases, but its not the majority.

Quote

I feel I have the right to have a Bazooka, and RPG, and a Howitzer in my small urban apartment, but, gee, I can't.

Oh but you can... if you are willing to do all the paperwork and pay the taxes...

Quote

Now, Let's look at cause and effect.

What effect has the ban had? None... It was an artificial, feel good (not) measure, based purely on asthetics, not function...

If the ban had some tangible effect on crime, I might say it should continue, but there has been no effect, so the ban should sunset, like it was intended.

J
J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I think "plastic" guns are horrible.

Well, the day someone invents one, you just let me know. He said "polymer framed" pistols. Glocks are polymer framed. They started the revolution. They also have about two pounds of steel resting on top of the frame. That is called the slide. There is also the barrel and the inner workings of the gun. Again, all metal.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

Let's play a little word substitution...

Quote

I skydive because I love it.
It's beyond freedom. My owning a rig doesn't jeopardize anyone around me. I skydive because I can, and I want to. Need and want are two different things. People want guns, they don't need them.

Now with some small changes...

I shoot guns because I love it.
It's beyond freedom. My owning a gun doesn't jeopardize anyone around me. I shoot guns because I can, and I want to. Need and want are two different things. People want to skydive, they don't need to.



J
J

I NEVER MENTIONED THE BAN!!!!!!! I'm talking theoretically. Owning a gun doesn't jeopardize anyone around you? is it a magic gun? A water pistol? Give me proof that the illegal guns in NYC are "stolen". And stolen from where. They are brought in, mainly from VA, SC, NC, GA, and other states w/ lax gun laws.

Blog Clicky

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

They are brought in, mainly from VA, SC, NC, GA, and other states w/ lax gun laws.

New York City's draconian gun laws don't make PA's gun laws "lax". Look to the rest of the country to get a baseline on what is and isn't "lax".

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.