1994 AFB- Assault Features Ban

[funkyflathead]

Can we not agree that the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Act was more about banning cosmetic features than guns themselves?

All it did was ban flash hiders from AR-15s and bayonet lugs from M1 Carbines.

Agreed?

[Wonk]

1. So why do you want them back if they're merely cosmetic?

[funkyflathead]

2. The gun looks cooler that way

They were made to have flashiders and bayo lugs.

Neutered guns look stupid although functionally the same.

[slackmaster]

8. Also historical value

In the case of REAL historical military weapons like the M1 Carbine, forcing people to remove a bayonet lug or folding stock or flash hider or any other feature degrades the item as a piece of preserved history. We who collect firearms value historical accuracy.

It's historical revisionism; political correctness in concrete form.

[Valarauko]

4. Because it enables

ATF to bust people for almost no reason.

[madddog]

6. yeah...

I can't wait to see an ATF agent try to figure out whether or not that's REALLY a DSA gas piston in each of my FALs lol...'course I've got the receipts just in case...mama didnt' raise no fool.

[slackmaster]

7. Because the ban is illogical and pointless

Any law that restricts peoples' activities without an offsetting benefit to society violates one of the bedrock principles on which the nation was founded.

It's a form of tyranny and should be allowed to expire.

[MrBenchley]

9. Too TOO funny...

<sarcasm>Yes, that's why the gun nuts and the gun industry are so hot to get this bill overturned...because it didn't do anything.</sarcasm>

My other favorite bit of hooey is the "only we who love assault weapons REALLY know what they are."

The amazing thing about most of this crap the gun nuts shovel is that any of them actually believe someone else will buy any bit of it.

[slackmaster]

10. You screwed up on that one, MrBenchley

<sarcasm>Yes, that's why the gun nuts and the gun industry are so hot to get this bill overturned...because it didn't do anything.</sarcasm>

As a matter of fact, the fact that it didn't do anything TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY is exactly why it should be allowed to expire. All it did was artificially inflate the price on pre-ban weapons in the secondary market.

The ban does not need to be "overturned" because it contains a sunset clause. You really ought to become more familiar with the subject before commenting on it in public.

And you forgot to say "corrupt gun industry".

BTW - One of your favorite sources of anti-gun propaganda agrees that the AWB accomplished nothing because gun makers simply removed a few offending cosmetic features.

In 1994 Congress passed a law to ban certain models of semiautomatic assault weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law. Today, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban.

Source: http://www.vpc.org/press/0305officer.htm

[CO Liberal]

11. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

In 1994 Congress passed a law to ban certain models of semiautomatic assault weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law. Today, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban.

Makes you understand WHY MrBenchley refers to them as the "corrupt gun industry".

[Wild Bill]

12. call me stupid.

Now how the heck is compiling with AWB considered corrupt?

[CO Liberal]

16. Compliance Isn't Corrput....

...but a concerted effort by an industry to circumvent a law is.

[slackmaster]

17. CO, would you agree that the law is poorly written?

I believe the authors thought they had identified a class of scary-looking military-"style" weapons that ought to be banned, but they failed in the details.

I say anyone who complains about the gun industry "getting around" the AWB is making excuses for a poorly written law.

[Wild Bill]

18. ok call me stupid again.

How is complying with the law circumventing it? The manufactures have followed the letter of the law correct?

[slackmaster]

23. Yes, and the intent of the law is unfathomable

n/t

[CO Liberal]

24. The Only Thing That's Unfathomable......

...it the extent that some people will go to in order to defend the gun complaies and their fellow pro-gunners.

[slackmaster]

26. Would you be so kind as to respond to #17 directly?

I'd welcome a RATIONAL debate on this subject.

[CO Liberal]

33. I Don't Know Enough About the Particulars Of The Law...

...to respond to #17 directly.

It's just very interesting to me how often a group of pro-gunners are in such synchronous lock-step. Like they've memorized the Wayne LaPierre talking points........

[Superfly]

34. We're in lock step

because we have a common goal and that is to see the restoration of our second amendment rights, without compromise.

[slackmaster]

49. I don't want to see us slip into one-party rule

Extremism in the quest for gun control, with ever-increasing restrictions and no clear end-point defined, threatens to further weaken the influence of the Democratic Party.

The more kinds of guns that get stigmatized, the more pointless inconveniences imposed on a broader group of gun owners and users with the support of either the party or prominent individuals, the more difficult it becomes for Democrats in general to get elected.

My agenda does not come from Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt, etc. I accept input from anyone who can present their ideas in a reasonable manner, but always do my thinking on my own. If I happen to make a statement that seems to parallel something Mr. LaPierre has said, I assure you it is a coincidence.

[CO Liberal]

65. I'm Sorry......

....but there seems to be far too many "coincidences" like that on your side. To the casual observer, it looks like a lot of pro-gunners are taking their marching orders from the likes of LaPierre, Nugent, and Pratt.

And when pro-gunners support assholes like that who march in lock-step with teh GOP, they're working AGAINST the Democratic Party, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

69. WADR to you personally, FUCK the casual observer

If someone is inclined to make a knee-jerk assessment of my positions, my philosophy, my viewpoint on a particular issue based on such a superficial examination, I cannot regard that individual as a serious participant in the debate.

My thoughts, opinions, etc. on this subject are far from casual. I see no need to alter my views or the manner in which I present them in a vain attempt to distance myself from people with whom I share very little other than a commitment to the RKBA.

[CO Liberal]

73. And I See No Need To Alter My Views.....

....to please a bunch of assholes at the Nuts Ruining America.

[slackmaster]

76. Nobody is asking you to alter your views or appease the NRA

CO, I truly believe and appreciate that you personally are not an extremist on gun control. I've been reading your posts for several months and cannot say that your positions on specific issues of laws, regulartions, public safety, etc. are unreasonable. I do not share your fears of what MIGHT happen with liberalized concealed carry, and I do not agree that prior restraint e.g. the AWB are proper paths toward public safety.

My mission here, if I have one, is to ensure that gun owners' views, needs, thoughts, and desires are considered when the real policy of the Democratic Party is formulated, refined, revised, etc.

[CO Liberal]

82. And My Mission Here......

....is to ensure that the Democratic Party doesn't totally surrended to the NRA in the hopes of picking up a few votes that we'll probably never get, at the risk of eroding our base.

[DoNotRefill]

136. What about the pro-gun Democrats.....

who are revolted at the stuff you're pushing for? Don't they count?

If the Democrats changed their position on the Confederate Flag and sponsored a constitutional amendment to incorporate the "stars and bars" into the National flag, do you think black voters would largely continue to support the Democratic Party? Gun control is just as repugnant to a LOT of Democrats as that idea is.

[MrBenchley]

142. Who are you trying to kid, refill?

"f the Democrats changed their position on the Confederate Flag and sponsored a constitutional amendment to incorporate the "stars and bars" into the National flag"
They'd capture the gun rights crowd. And black voters overwhelmingly support gun control.. They're not fooled by Ted Nugent.

[DoNotRefill]

144. Not quite....

The only way to capture the gun rights crowd is to be for gun rights. Most gun owners I know could care less about the Confederate flag.

Where do you get the idea that "black voters overwhelmingly support gun control.."? Or is this more of "almost everybody overwhelmingly supports more gun control"? We've seen where that got us...that "overwhelming support" cost us HOW many seats in Congress?

[Superfly]

19. Why don't you just call them fascist pigs, while you're at it.

You area gun manufacturer and you produce the Mark III 30 caliber semi-automatic rifle. It has features on it which the AWB forbids, say a pistol grip and a bayonet lug.

Your rifle sells so well and is a quality product, so you want to maintain production.

In order to do so, you must COMPLY with the AWB (not circumvent it) and you produce your rifle without the pistol grip and bayonet lug. It's the exact same rifle, but omission of those two items means you are, once again, in compliance with the AWB.

Now, how in the hell is that corrupt?

B

[MrBenchley]

14. Yup....

"Corrupt" fits these scummy folks perfectly....and shows why they have to wrangle a liability immunity waiver for themselves.

Wonder what the paper trail on that would show, don't you?

[slackmaster]

15. And I have no problem with anyone feeling that way

If you think there ought to be a type or group of types of firearms designated as somehow especially dangerous to society, stigmatized by calling them assault weapons or whatever you want to call them, and subjected to especially strict regulation, I'd like to see the details:

1. Very specific definition of what kinds of weapons we're talking about,

2. Workable, enforcable code to define the restrictions, penalties, etc.,

3. A plan to "sell" the idea to enough members of Congress to get it passed on a FEDERAL level, and

4. Most important IMO, a cost-benefit analysis using real data to present a case for what benefits society would reap in exchange for the freedom sacrificed to implement the plan.

The present AWB is bad law because its authors failed miserably on points 1 and 4. The law is rarely enforced because by and large gun makers and gun owners have COMPLIED with it. On item 3, the present Sunset clause was the result of compromise needed to get it passed at all. Without such a clause it would have died in committee.

[a2birdcage]

20. Hey smart guy.........

They didn't evade the law.............they complied with it! Wake the fuck up!

[MrBenchley]

13. Gee, slack...

Tell us all again how right wing pieces of shit have a right to troll on any forum where someone disagrees with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=22570&mesg_id=22723&page=

[slackmaster]

28. Straw Man

n/t

[beevul]

3. Yes and no

"Can we not agree that the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Act was more about banning cosmetic features than guns themselves?"

Its "verbage" if you will, bans features, with the exception of the HI-CAP mags, which effect function in a miniscule way. In the sense of whether it is more about the features or the weapons to which those features are the issue, YES I agree. It focuses on features.


As to "Can we not agree that the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Act was more about banning cosmetic features than guns themselves?", as worded, my answer would have to be NO, I do not agree. It is ALL about the guns themselves. Not assault weapons, all firearms. It is about getting the public accustomed to firearm bans. Its just a little step in a series of steps that some banners have openly admitted to. Nothing more, nothing less.

So that noone can paint me or anyone who agrees a paranoid gun nut without looking dishonest and foolish, I'll add this nugget from one of the horse's mouths:




Nelson T. 'Pete' Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., "A Reporter At Large: Handguns," The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p.57-58

Although hes talking about handguns, the tactic is IDENTICAL.

Just in case this is not "credible" enough for anyone, or a cite is needed, do a google or metacrawler search for "gun control", "Pete Shields" and incrementalism, theres PLENTY of hits to enough sources that it shouldn't be an issue.

[madddog]

5. now beevul

no good can come from exposing "gun control" for what it really is lol. Not here anyway!

[beevul]

58. 'chuckles'

Lol. Yeah, HOW DARE I use any relevant facts,
furthermore, the fact that I did is irrelevant. :eyes:

[CarinKaryn]

21. Agreed - AWB did nothing.

We need to stop messing around and write a bill that will outlaw weapons of war for civilians. End of story.

No more "cosmetic/appearance" based bans. Set out a list of features that civilian should not have access to and outlaw them.

Someone should take a crack at it here.

For starters: outlaw large caliber semi autos and machine guns. Outlaw semi auto shotguns. Large capacity shotguns should be restrincted to the amount of bullets used legally allowed when hunting. No more 50 caliber rifles.

This woudl let target shooters have 22s (not the 22s the military uses in their machineguns, the low powered 22.
This would let hunters have double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles so they could play in the woods.

Now if we had politicians who weren't interested in being "Bush-lite" we could encat some real change for the better.

[Superfly]

22. This is going to be fun to respond to you...it might take me a while

so bear with me.

[slackmaster]

25. Why don't you take a "crack" at it yourself?

I advise you to study up on what current laws are in place before you get into any details. Your statements show that you are a long way from understanding the subject.

[Superfly]

27. For your assertion that only cops and military should have

AW (I take that by extension...you said civilians should not have them, that leaves cops and military)

Here are a few examples of our fine LEOs who should be trusted to use their AWs...

Student finds cop's gun at Elementary school

Constable's future in the air after effecting "straw purchase"

Officer, sworn to uphold the law, charged with sexual assault

Shall I continue?

[CarinKaryn]

31. No need to continue

Just throw the book at the cops who's carelessness or criminal activities endanger others.

Would you outlaw doctors because some are so poor they have their liceses revoked?

[Superfly]

32. You have got to listen to yourself sometimes...

Your quote:

"Just throw the book at the cops who's carelessness or criminal activities endanger others."

My quote:

"Just throw the book at the civilians who's carelessness or criminal activities endanger others."

After all, cops are civilians with a badge.

And, yes, throw the stinking book at them. Just don't punish the rest with post hoc legislation that does nothing but erode civil rights.

[CarinKaryn]

39. We ban people from practicing medicine with out licenses

So ALL the civilians who practice without licesnses should be prosecuted.


LEO and military have "licenes" (their badge or rank) and can possess weapons.
If they abuse their rank, punish them.

[DoNotRefill]

127. So, you want to make everybody who isn't a cop on in the military....

a second class citizen? That's what you call it when people are deprived of their civil liberties...

How is that progressive?

And aren't YOU the one who was talking before about how the Government is racist and has done absolutely horrible things? And you want THEM to be the only people with guns?!?!?! If they had all the guns, do you REALLY think they'd act BETTER than they have previously?!?!?

[Superfly]

29. Let's see, what's next...

"outlaw large caliber semi autos and machine guns."

1) What's large caliber, and WHY?
2) Semi-auto what?
3) Machine guns are already controlled by the 1934 NFA.

"Outlaw semi auto shotguns."

1) WHY? I am a duck hunter and I have 5 semi-automatic shotguns.
2) What would you have a substitute?

"Large capacity shotguns should be restrincted to the amount of bullets used legally allowed when hunting."

1) Well, here's where I know you don't know what you're talking about. Shotguns do not fire "bullets". The fire shot or slugs.
2) "Large capacity" shotguns are already restricted when hunting. You cannot have a shotgun that holds more than 3 shells when hunting migratory waterfowl.

"No more 50 caliber rifles."

1) WHY?
2) There are about 50 calibers equal to or larger than 50 caliber, and all have a serious, legitimate sproting use. For starters check out Accurate Reloading for real-life examples of these cartridges used in Africa.

[CarinKaryn]

35. Piece of cake - give it another shot

Large cal - (destructive/deadly), semi autos rifles should be outlawed. Machine guns should be outlawed (not controlled) so they don't fall into the wrong hands.

Double barrel shotguns or pump guns work fine for killing ducks.

I ment that any existing pump shotguns that hold more "shot or slugs" (see, I'm willing to learn) should be restricted to only 3 shells. All pump guns sold in the future for killing birds shoudl be resrtcited to 3 shells.

50 cal destrictive devices are outlawed as too dangerous. Hunteers haveaccess to other bullets that work just as well and won't shoot through toxic waste tanks.

[Superfly]

37. And how many times has this happened?

"won't shoot through toxic waste tanks."

Ha, ha, ha...you might as well ban phaser guns, too, because they might shoot down satellites!

Your concept of "too dangerous" does not mesh with my concept of "shall not be infringed."

And, there is no way in freaking hell I am giving up my semi-auto shotguns, ever. They are, IMO, the best duck guns out there.

I don't think you've thought your positions through very well, and sound eerily familiar with the tripe published by the VPC and Brady Bunch.

[CarinKaryn]

42. Thanks for playing

I don't think you've rebutted my very sensible restrictions well, but you made your position clear with the "no way in freaking hell I am giving up."

Pure emotion, no logic. I win the debate.

[Superfly]

45. Declaring yourself victor...

When I've shown that you cannot even string 2 thoughts together coherently in your arguments.

Your sensible restrictions do not jive with my concept of "no compromise". Funny thing is, people who espouse what you do are in the minority.

[CarinKaryn]

55. Come on. I expect more from you.

Don't stoop to insults. I've made a reasonable start. If you can't rebut, just say so. Attack the idea if its so bad.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

60. LOL

Erm you do know that just about any rifle used by a 'hunter' will shoot through 'toxic waste tanks'

[leanings]

83. Here's a quick question

See if you can get this one without hitting Google: to what does the term "caliber" refer? And how would this effect your proposed legislation?

[CarinKaryn]

85. Why would you suggest we enact bills without properly defining terms?

caliber - basically the diameter of the projectile. Not applicable to shotguns and maybe really big cannons.

Affects legislation by providing a line betwee what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Next?

[leanings]

98. The problem here

is that the diameter of the projectile and the bore of the firearm has little relation to the actual power of the round. For instance, a .40 caliber round is larger in diameter than a .30 caliber round but the .40 S&W isn't as powerful of a round as the .338 Lapau. Caliber is absolutely useless as a means of determining what is and isn't "acceptable" about a round.

[Superfly]

99. That would be the .338 Lapua Magnum

and a fine, fine cartridge. I was thinking about that baby chambered in a Remington 700 Sendero.

I've also read that the .338 is slowly replacing the .50 BMG as the preferred heavy-duty long range cartridge in some countries, including the US.

Here it is compared to a .308 Win and .300 WinMag

[CarinKaryn]

104. Just as an intellectual exercise

Somebody who knows about guns, write a definition of a cartridge that is less that .49 in diameter and has the same or less power than the .338 Lapua Magnum.

Everyone is telling me what an idiot I am cuz I don;t know all the proper terms. So can someone please help me?

I know someone could do it if they'd try.

[leanings]

107. OK

"write a definition of a cartridge that is less that .49 in diameter and has the same or less power than the .338 Lapua Magnum."

Like a .22 Short? You also have to realize that there are cartridges extant that fall between the .50 BMG and the .338 in performance, and that new cartridges are created all the time.

What is it that you're trying to accomplish with your definition?

I apologize for those who are calling you an idiot. It's admirable that you're making an attempt to understand. It's far better than most of those on your side who dismiss all the technical aspects of this issue as unimportant; I hope you can see how the technical aspects of this debate are pertinent.

[slackmaster]

109. The subject has to be discussed in technical terms

That's precisely why the language of the existing AWB failed to accomplish what its authors intended. They mistakenly thought that scary-looking characteristics were associated with some measure of dangerousness or lethality of a firearm, and tried to make us all safer by banning things based on appearance or name.

Firearms are made with a high degree of precision on the critical parts. Calibers are defined in dimensions measured in thousandths of an inch, minutes of arc, or less. Changing a gun so that it's a different model or changing a round of ammunition so that it no longer fits a given name often requires only tiny modifications.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

118. It depends

on what you are trying to achieve, why exactly are you looking to limit power and size?

[leanings]

123. Also,

you're not going to get the effect you desire by leaving .22 or lower caliber rifles alone. You're going to have to contend with the .22-250, the .218 Bee, the .20 TNT, the .17 HMR, the .17 Ackley Hornet and the .14-222, off the top of my head. I'm sure the number of sub-.22 cartridges will grow quickly once your bill is passed.

[1a2b3c]

86. are you saying

that a pump shotgun is somehow less dangerous than a semi auto? My semi-auto shotgun is plugged for 3 rounds. Should we ban AR-15's? They are a small caliber semi-auto rifle. Machine guns havent been used in a crime in decades. Are you saying control is not enough for all the machine gun killings that have been breaking out?

All in all, your post cracked me up. Email it to DiFi, she probably likes your ideas. Hell she might even try to get a few of these ideas out in the open come October. After all, getting Bush reSelected is the ultimate goal, is it not?

[CarinKaryn]

89. Clarify please

So is your claim that a pump is just as fast as a semi? Maybe pumps should be banned also. I'll have to reconsider.

I realise both shoot the same shot or slugs.

[Superfly]

96. It's not the speed with which a firearm can shoot

that you need to worry about. It's the person, taking his/her time and squeeeeezing off shots carefuly and one-by-one.

Maybe you should add single-shot weapons to your (growing) list of banned weapons.

[DoNotRefill]

125. Care to guess what the 2 largest sources of illegal machineguns are?

Hint: LEOs and the Military...

[Superfly]

30. My, you are generous...

"This woudl let target shooters have 22s (not the 22s the military uses in their machineguns, the low powered 22.
This would let hunters have double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles so they could play in the woods."

The military uses the .223 Remington. That's it. So all other 22s are fair game? Like the 220 Swift? One of the best varmint hunting cartridges ever made.

What rifle calibers are appropriate for hunters? What would YOU LET me use when hunting:

1) Elk
2) Brown Bears
3) White tails
4) Coyotes
5) Ground Hogs
6) Antelope

Serious. Can you answer that?

[CarinKaryn]

36. I'm banning large cal semi autos only.

22 semi autos are still ok.
bolt action hunting rifles are still ok
50 cal bolt action or semis are gone.

It seem like it'd be pretty easy to write a law that does as it was intended, unlike the easy to circumvent AWB.

[demsrule4life]

40. Not once have you mentioned lever action rifles

My favorites are the Marlin lever actions in 45-70 govt, are those ok?

[Superfly]

43. Or muzzleloaders...

some front-end-loaders in the .50 cal and larger range meet and/or exceed fixed ammunition rifles, especially when using smokeless powder. And these things are considered PRIMITIVE firearms.

[CarinKaryn]

44. Essentially single shot, relatively low powered.

Ok to keep.

[Superfly]

46. I just told you that

these things meet and/or exceed the performance of their fixed ammunition counterparts. They are definitely NOT low powered, once again highlighting the limit of your knowledge.

[CarinKaryn]

50. I don' t have time for a detailed discussion of ballistices

I'm only restricting 50 cal (the kind used to snipe with by the US military). the 50 cal muzzle loaders and other 45 and smaller preloaded bullets are lower powered and ok.

[Superfly]

51. But you do have time to spew VPC talking points

....

[CarinKaryn]

56. I'm made a valid attempt at a bill

You haven't explained why my proposal doesn't work other than to say "hell no, I wont do it"

[DoNotRefill]

137. OK...

first off, where's the constitutional authority to do such a thing? the ICC ain't gonna cut it.

Secondly, what happens to the guns you've banned that are already out there? Ever hear of the constitutional prohibition on the seizure of property without just compensation? 300 million guns, figure an average value of $500 each (which may be low), is a LOT of money to shell out, in the neighborhood of 150 BILLION dollars. How would we pay for that? Hell, how could we enforce compliance? Build enough prisons to house the 10 million people who wouldn't comply? You'd have to imprison them, because if there was just a fine, NOBODY would comply. Look at California's AW registration program...they estimate they had a FIVE PERCENT compliance rate, and there IS jail-time associated with violations of that law.

Thirdly, what about the Second Amendment? Are you going to repeal it? Remember, the ONLY guns that are protected by the Second Amendment are guns with military value, per the Supreme Court in Miller. Unfortunately, the low-powered guns you want to leave us with are the same exact guns that have no military value. You'd have a much better chance banning the guns you'd let us keep than banning the ones you want to ban.

Fourthly, your program would irritate HUGE numbers of voters. How could you implement such a plan when even suggesting it would guarantee that you couldn't get elected dog-catcher? The 1994 AW ban was silly. People KNEW it was silly. And it cost us both houses of Congress. With "victories" like that, who could AFFORD a defeat? Ten years later, we STILL haven't recovered from that stupidity.

[beevul]

139. Powerfull stuff

"Thirdly, what about the Second Amendment? Are you going to repeal it? Remember, the ONLY guns that are protected by the Second Amendment are guns with military value, per the Supreme Court in Miller. Unfortunately, the low-powered guns you want to leave us with are the same exact guns that have no military value. You'd have a much better chance banning the guns you'd let us keep than banning the ones you want to ban."-DoNotRefill


Never seen it put ...just that way, NICELY done!

[a2birdcage]

59. Are you banning .308 caliber too?

It is still the primary sniper round for the military and one of the most popular deer rounds in US. What is your feeling on this caliber? You have got a lot of banning ahead of you if you want to achieve what you say you do. You have only discussed the tip of the iceberg but to your knowledge you believe you have the whole iceberg is covered. Also what is it about semi-auto that scares you?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

62. How about air rifles? -nt

[CarinKaryn]

68. .50 cal or less; bolt, lever or single shot - ok

[a2birdcage]

72. Now it's .50 cal or less.......

Just a minute ago you said you were going to ban all bolt action and semi-auto .50 calibers. Now a .50 is okay as long as it's bolt action? What the hell Carin?

[CarinKaryn]

79. OK,ok I ment 50 cal or greater.

My freaking mistake.

[CarinKaryn]

80. Another freaking mistake.

50 cal or greater -no
I'm taking a break

[DoNotRefill]

145. Please come back...

and answer some of my posts. I'd like to see your rationale to the issues I raised.

[slackmaster]

74. My AR-50 and I thank you

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

129. "OK to keep"????

Who made you God?

Will the REAL God please protect us from well-meaning but misguided fools....

[CarinKaryn]

48. The action is basically the same as bolt action

You can keep as long as its magazine capacity is no larger than the shotgun restrictions permitted for hunting (I'm thinking 3 bullets at a time? feel free to correct).

Caliber is ok to hunt with.

[jhfenton]

53. You mean cartridges, right?

The bullets are the little metal things at the narrow end of the loaded cartridges. I have a 155gr .40S&W plated bullet in my pocket right now. I can throw it, but it's not going to do much else unless I load it into a case with some powder and a primer.

I'm also wondering how our timed shooting competitions are going to work when we are limited to 3 rounds.

[CarinKaryn]

57. Yes, cartridges, thanks for th e corrections

The AWB only address rifles and shotguns so that is all I am addressing here.

[a2birdcage]

70. Carin, once again..............

you proved your lack of knowledge about this subject. The AWB addresses not only rifles and shotguns but handguns as well. This is the general problem with freedom haters. They love to start banning without even knowing what it is they are banning.

[CarinKaryn]

81. Well I'm rewriting the AWB cuz it didnt work.

And I'm starting with rifles and shotguns.

You could try to reply constructively instead of just attacking me persoally.

How would you rewrite the ineffective AWB so all were happy?

[a2birdcage]

93. So that all are happy?

Couldn't be done. If it were me I would let it sunset and be done with it. We tried the experiment for the 10 years written into the sunset clause and it didn't work. Why would I let it sunset and be done with it you ask? For many reasons, one being that it has proven ineffective to deterring crimes committed with this class of gun. 2) These types of firearms were hardly used in the first place. The most preferred firearm was, is and will always be the handgun. 3) It made felons out of people who just wanted their firearms to be cosmetically correct. 4) Most criminals can't afford the premium prices these guns already demand therefore the only ones who suffer are the law-abiding citizens. I can go on and on but the most important reason of all is it's in direct violation of the second amendment! It's that simple.

I have a question for you Carin. Why do you feel so compelled to take away the rights of the law-abiding American just because you personally dislike guns? None of these laws have ever been effective in stopping the criminal and never will be since they are only written to make criminals out of the law-abiding citizens of this nation. Why do you want to create a whole new class of criminals for no reason at all? It's all about control isn't it? You would rather have feel good laws in the book that do nothing but make you feel good rather than study the statistics and accept the facts. I know that I will never change your mind but that doesn't mean I won't continue to try.

[DoNotRefill]

130. Simple....

"§922 is hereby repealed."

That's all there is to it.

[MrSandman]

143. Three round shorgun magazines

May be the limit for waterfowl, but five round magazines are common for non-migratory waterfowl e.g. rabbit, squirrel, deer, grouse.

The Browning AUTO-5 is a sotgun named for its mag. capacity.

[Superfly]

41. You go right ahead....

ban .50 cals. The first thing that's going to happen, is the development of a .499 cal.
----------------
See, I think you are tripping up over yourself...

"I'm banning large cal semi autos only."

then, one microsecond later...

"50 cal bolt action or semis are gone."

[CarinKaryn]

61. My first post was clear, but thanks for helping me refine it.

"For starters: outlaw large caliber semi autos and machine guns. Outlaw semi auto shotguns. Large capacity shotguns should be restrincted to the amount of bullets used legally allowed when hunting. No more 50 caliber rifles. "

Instead of "No more 50 cal rifles" I should have said "outlaw the .50 BMG round and any weapon that it can fire from."
Clear enough?

[slackmaster]

63. Now you have gotten TOO specific

Outlaw the 50 BMG and someone will come up with a 12.7 x 98 mm or .499 BMG to "get around" the ban.

(FYI, the metric designation for 50 BMG is 12.7 x 99.)

[CarinKaryn]

67. stop jerking around

Instead of "outlaw the .50 BMG round and any weapon that it can fire from" add "and any other larger cartridge."

Get the picture?

[slackmaster]

71. No, I do not get the picture

Both 12.7 x 98 and .499 BMG would be SMALLER, not larger than 50 BMG.

[CarinKaryn]

78. What's unclear?

Smaller is ok. 50 BMG or larger -no.

If this is really tough to understand its no wonder the AWB was so hard too write clearly.

[DoNotRefill]

131. How do you define "larger"?

How about a .450 with twice the powder capacity?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CarinKaryn]

77. No I can visualize a world where "might does not make right"

Government is there to protect and enable its citizens and part of that is enacting reasonable restrictions on deadly weapons.

Thanks for the personal attack.

[slackmaster]

112. Are you familiar with the origin of the term "equalizer"?

"God made men, but Colonel Samuel Colt made men equal."

The word "equalizer" was coined as a euphemism for the handgun. Before the gun was invented the strong could always overwhelm the weak unless the weak happened to be in good company.

It's hard for me to imagine a nation, especially a very large one like ours, where the government's influence permeated our lives so ubiquitously that we could actually depend on it for protection in all circumstances. Whenever I try to picture such a world it rapidly evolves into a place with elements of George Orwell's 1984 or George Lucas' first feature film THX 1138.

Until someone, hopefully not another George, can assure me that I will always be safe and secure from attack by human predators I will keep my deadly weapons and resist all efforts to deprive me of them, however reasonably their proponents may think they are acting.

As long as I use my deadly weapons responsibly and keep them secure when I am not using them, what business does anyone else have telling me I shouldn't have them?

[slackmaster]

113. Are you familiar with the origin of the term "equalizer"?

"God made men, but Colonel Samuel Colt made men equal."

The word "equalizer" was coined as a euphemism for the handgun. Before the gun was invented the strong could always overwhelm the weak unless the weak happened to be in good company.

It's hard for me to imagine a nation, especially a very large one like ours, where the government's influence permeated our lives so ubiquitously that we could actually depend on it for protection in all circumstances. Whenever I try to picture such a world it rapidly evolves into a place with elements of George Orwell's 1984 or George Lucas' first feature film THX 1138.

Until someone, hopefully not another George, can assure me that I will always be safe and secure from attack by human predators I will keep my deadly weapons and resist all efforts to deprive me of them, however reasonably their proponents may think they are acting.

As long as I use my deadly weapons responsibly and keep them secure when I am not using them, what business does anyone else have telling me I shouldn't have them?

[solinvictus]

124. Carin

"Government is there to protect and enable its citizens and part of that is enacting reasonable restrictions on deadly weapons."

Carin, I do not know which planet you are from, but here on Earth, governments have been consistent and thourough in murdering their own citizens for much of the past two centuries. During the first World War in the Ottoman Empire, the Turks began the piecemeal confiscation of any implement owned by an Armenian that could have use as a weapon. It started with the confiscation of firearms and tools, ostensibly for the "war effort". Then, it escalated to include kitchen knives and about anything of conceivable utility for self-defense. With this, the Armenians were displaced, raped, and slaughtered by the millions. The exception was on the border of the Russian Empire where a large group of Armenians built a mountain redoubt. Turkish infantry could not take it as the Armenians were well armed with rifles and were manufacturing their own munitions. Can you see the lesson here, Carin? Possession of the effective tools of self-defense can save your life. You have a naive view of government.

[DoNotRefill]

132. Didn't you say recently something...

about the racist nature of the government? How do you square the two ideas?

[beevul]

138. You do understand that...

The police are NOT required by law to protect you?


Heres some cases which confirm it.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

[Wild Bill]

64. nevermind duplicate post

nevermind. Slackmaster posted the question before I did.

[DoNotRefill]

128. how?

"It seem like it'd be pretty easy to write a law that does as it was intended, unlike the easy to circumvent AWB."

Where will you get the Constitutional authority to do it? The Interstate Commerce Clause (this is the traditional place to get constitutional authority)? Since Lopez, that ain't gonna happen. Hell, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down §922(o) as unconstitutional in a case involving a MACHINEGUN!!! And the parts of the machinegun had ALL traveled in international AND interstate commerce!

You can write any kind of law you choose. That doesn't mean it would even come CLOSE to withstanding judicial scrutiny.

[jhfenton]

38. That's definitely a plan.

"Outlaw large caliber semi autos"

I will undoubtedly object, but please define "large caliber."

"Outlaw semi auto shotguns."

Why do you want to ban my Belgian-made 1952 Browning Auto-5? It's a beautiful old gun. They've been around for a hundred years. Semi-auto shotguns don't operate meaningfully faster than pump shotguns.

"Large capacity shotguns should be restrincted to the amount of bullets used legally allowed when hunting."

I don't hunt, so hunting is irrelevant to my need for a shotgun. However, shotguns, particulary short-barrelled versions are excellent home defense weapons. Who's to say how many rounds I may need to defend my family. Two shots from a double-barrel may not be enough. Shotguns, in many ways, are safer at home than handguns or rifles, because you have a choice of many shells that will not penetrate walls.

"No more 50 caliber rifles."

Now how many of these have ever been used in any sort of crime in the U.S.? They are so expensive to purchase and feed that only the wealthy hobbiests can afford them anyway. Anyway, there's nothing magical about .50 caliber rifles. If you ban .50 caliber rifles, someone will invent a .49 caliber rifle. So back to your first question? Where do you draw the line? Most current military service rifles use .223 (5.56NATO) and .308 Win (7.62NATO) caliber ammo. .308 Win is a very common, all-around deer hunting caliber. Do you want to ban that too?

It's very considerate of you to let the hunters "play in the woods," but again, I don't hunt. I sport shoot for recreation and for practice. I participate in self defense shooting competitions (www.idpa.com).

[Superfly]

47. I've got an A-5, that I just retired

Serial number is 7xx...that's one of the first thousand ever made and it shoots like a dream.

Carin does not know what she is talking about.

[jhfenton]

52. Nice. I'd retired one that old too.

Mine is a 378xxx made in 1952. It does shoot like a dream. My father-in-law has a 16ga A-5 that's probably close to the same age as your's.

I do enjoy Carin's good-faith efforts. This is what the forum should be about, not screaming "racism" and "corrupt gun industry" every time someone mentions the 2nd Amendment.

[Superfly]

54. I didn't want to retire it, but it was about time.

I bought a Browning Gold Classic, and immediately wanted my A-5 back. Cleaning a gas-operated shotgun is a pain in the butt.

Carin's ideas seem, to me, to be in the "toddler" stages. She has some ideas, but they really haven't developed into coherent thoughts. I just wish she would take the time to educate herself on all aspects of firearms, and not just from what the VPC tells her she should think.

I think she should know that our lifestyle is under attack from both sides...from the criminals who give anti's ammunition and from the anti's who use that ammunition to further their cause. The 99.9999% of us who aren't criminals or incompetent are really starting to feel threatened.

[CarinKaryn]

66. Thanks for helping me develop my ideas

We were discussing the AWB and its failure due to defining weapons based on cosmetic appearance.
I propose banning weapons for civilians based on features and have laid our featuers and function:

1) .50 cal BMG and anything that shoots it - gone
2) Semi and full auto rifles larger than .22 long rifle and semi auto shotguns - gone.
3) Pump shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles holding more than 3 cartridges in the magazine - must be altered to only hold 3 cartridges. Banned from further manufacture.

I'd say this is a good start at a new AWB.

[leanings]

84. Lemme try.

1) The difficulty with this is that immediately after the .50 BMG is banned a new cartridge will be produced that almost mirrors the performance of the .50 but fits the law as far as the dimensions of the round. Where is the line drawn? What is the longest range that a sport shooter or hunter should be legally allowed to shoot at? How is any determination of that range by the government not arbitrary? Is the determination to be made by how far the round travels? The maximum range of a .223 round is around 3600 meters, although the maximum effective range is around 800 (depending on the firearm).

2) What's the point of this? I can get rounds out of my pump-action Remington 742 in .280 just about as fast as I can out of my semi-auto Reminton 760 and the magazine capacity is the same. Of course, the magazine on my lever action Marlin .30-30 is twice the capacity of my 760. Then again, I could go out in the shop and manufacture a 30 round mag for either Remington with a minumum of effort. What's the difference in the danger to society posed by these three different deer rifles? And of course there's the reality test-is there any evidence that banning these semi-auto rifles and shotguns would in any way make us safer or lower crime or gun related "harm" or in any way affect any standard you choose to use?

3) How will these firearms be "altered"? How can you prevent them from be changed back to full cap? Again, the only people who will abide by this law are law-abiding citizens, and there's nothing to fear from them in the first place. Again, I can MAKE a full cap magazine or other feeding device in an afternoon.

[CarinKaryn]

87. Answer

1) Ok, so lets take a cartridges smaller than the 50 BMG and use thta as the dividing line. Say anything smaller than .49 with less than xxxx ftlbs of muzzel energy is ok.

Somebody who knows more about cartridges jump in and tell us how to define an airtight definition of a cartridge that is too powerful using these basic guidelines.

2) My ban limits magazines to 3 cartridges or less for civilians. (we are not taking handguns yet - to be discussed later, I'm sure).

3) You can't prevent anyone from doing anything they want so yes, they could alter them back. Throw them in prison whey they are caught just like we do with other laws.
Law is necessary as we are all "law abiding citizens" when we are born and we can't tell when someone will cross the line and go off. This will help limit damage if they do.

[jhfenton]

100. Constructive advice

"1) .50 cal BMG and anything that shoots it - gone
2) Semi and full auto rifles larger than .22 long rifle and semi auto shotguns - gone.
3) Pump shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles holding more than 3 cartridges in the magazine - must be altered to only hold 3 cartridges. Banned from further manufacture."

Since you've been such a good sport, with all the ribbing, I'll try to offer some constructive advice.

First, we can approach this problem from several directions. You seem to want to ban anything that doesn't have a use in hunting. So you limit rifles and shotguns accordingly in caliber, capacity, and function. The problem with this approach is that hunting is not the only justification for firearms use. In fact, I have never been hunting, and may never go hunting. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. If the 2nd Amendment is about anything, it is about defense and security. Personal defense and security, and national defense and security.

A somewhat more reasonable approach is to take a public police approach and ban those items which are most dangerous and most often used in crimes. What you find, however, is that longarms of any kind -- rifles or shotguns -- are used in a small minority of crimes involving firearms. Handguns are much more commonly used in crimes. So any attempt to ban rifles or shotguns is going to be tough to justify. For example, how can you justify a ban on a caliber (.50 BMG) that has *never* been used in a crime? What harm are you trying to prevent? The fact is that the .50BMG is just a straw man, just like "partial-birth" abortion. It's something that should be banned because it sounds bad. And anyway, why would anyone ever need one?

Of course, I combine the public policy approach with the strong presumption of legality. This is (still in theory) a free society, and everything is (or should be) legal except those things that we decide pose an unacceptable burden or danger. And even then, we must narrowly tailor the means we choose to alleviate the danger.

With firearms, the danger is not the firearms, but rather what some people do with them. In almost every case, the appropriate, narrowly tailored remedy is to criminalize the conduct *with* the firearm, not the firearm itself. Most of the conduct we're concerned with is already illegal, and we already have in place laws to prevent those with prior bad acts from obtaining guns. So in my mind, there is little else to do, except to enforce the laws and to try to alleviate the root causes of violence. (Hint, the firearms are not the root cause.)

Give it some thought and let me know what you think. Why are you so anxious to ban so many guns?

[leanings]

102. Well

1) Again, totally arbitrary definition. Muzzle energy is a product of bullet weight and velocity, so you can have a slow heavy round and a fast light round with about the same ME. Again, what's the standard? How far away you can hit something? How much steel a round can penetrate at x distance? What about different types of bullets? If the .499 Wildass Magnum is at just below the legal standard, are handloaders who add an extra grain of powder legally liable? Isn't that sort of silly?

2) That doesn't have anything to do with how rapidly one can fire off rounds. And where's the reality test? What's the point of this law anyway?

3) Isn't this supposed to be a preventative law? Keeping these weapons out of the hands of evildoers and whatnot? If it's so easily circumvented, what's the point? Again, the reality test: how will this law limit the damage should someone decide to "cross the line and go off?"

What you're trying to do here is reduce the number of traffic fatalities by limiting the amount of horsepower in cars. It's not going to work, for reasons both technical and practical. The only people that you're going to affect with laws like these are those who enjoy these items responsibly in the first place.

[beevul]

88. A bill like this with just those 3.......

proposals, if passed by a Democratic house,senate,and president(which is verry unlikely, even if we had all 3) would make the seats that were lost in the mid 90's over the initial AW ban look minor by comparison. The Democratic party would lose ALL control and clout, and the repugs would be back in power years, MAYBE DECADES, before that damage could be repaired. This is not a guess, but rather
a GIVEN.

"1) .50 cal BMG and anything that shoots it - gone"
While not haveing the effect of reducing crime or loss of life, this would reinforce the gun grabber image that the 2 proposals below would MOST DEFINITELY cause.


2) Semi and full auto rifles larger than .22 long rifle and semi auto shotguns - gone.

Kiss ALL the sportsmens votes goodbye for this one, period, and MOST if not all of them, for good. Sportsmen/hunters don't take well to being betrayed.

3) Pump shotguns, bolt and lever action rifles holding more than 3 cartridges in the magazine - must be altered to only hold 3 cartridges. Banned from further manufacture.

If in the case anyone/anything has managed to convince any of the sportsmen/hunters to "stay" with the Democratic party at this point, THIS would unconvince them.

All 3 fly in the face of the party platform, which, as in other threads has been pointed out, repects the rights of sportsmen and legit gun owners. I'm verry serious here, have you thought of the damage to the party this would cause, and for how long that damage would last, and what would be going on all the while?

[CarinKaryn]

90. Not correct - most of US supports reasonable restrictions

If you are going to write repugnent bills, and vote like repugnents, why not just define yourself as a repugnent? Seriously, if you are not willing to take a stand for progressive ideals, what's the point of calling yourself a progressive?

[demsrule4life]

91. Define reasonable?

What you have put up today would not be found reasonable by any majority of people. First thing you ever said on here is that all guns should be banned from civilians. I still take that as your most honest stance.

[CarinKaryn]

92. I'm not being dishonest.

We were discussing AWB's failure. I am writing a bill with rock solid definitions so no one can complain the bill is being circumvented.

[demsrule4life]

95. AWB

Only problem with your bill is that you are including firearms that even the VPC doesnt call assault weapons. (at least yet).

[Superfly]

97. And yet, we show you

that all your measures CAN be circumvented and the person would still be in compliance with your rock solid law.

[CarinKaryn]

103. Please explain this.

I don't understand how a bill outlawing these features would allw a person to circumvent them while still being in full compliance. Plese explain this.

[DoNotRefill]

146. Simple.

You look at what the law forbids, and change it so you don't meet the definitions.

[Superfly]

94. Now who's slinging personal attacks?

I'll give you one guess.

(Hint: it's you)

[jhfenton]

101. "progressive"

I don't understand what is "progressive" about banning guns. That seems pretty authoritarian to me.

[slackmaster]

105. Thanks for putting it that way

Progressive ideology does not have to entail ever-increasing restrictions on peoples' choices. If I thought that was what being a progressive was all about I'd be out of here in a heartbeat.

Putting forth a proposal and defending it by accusing everyone who disagrees with it as not being progressive is no better than using arguments based on your own opinion about what constitutes "common sense", "reasonable", "sane", etc.

[beevul]

108. Please name the states ...

Where you think your bill "as written above" would fly.

"If you are going to write repugnent bills, and vote like repugnents, why not just define yourself as a repugnent?"

Ok, I'm not going to take this as a thinly veiled personal attack,

BUT,

A. it certainly COULD be interpreted that way.

B. I didn't write ANY bills, repugnant or otherwise.

C. Do you think folks with defining issues such as being pro-choice, anti-drug war, anti-racism, and pro-gun ownership "vote like repugnents" or do you think it be more realistic to say they opt not to vote at all?

"All 3 fly in the face of the party platform, which, as in other threads has been pointed out, repects the rights of sportsmen and legit gun owners. I'm verry serious here, have you thought of the damage to the party this would cause, and for how long that damage would last, and what would be going on all the while? "-beevul

D. have you thought of the damage to the party this would cause, and for how long that damage would last, and what would be going on all the while? This was not a rhetorical question, so please ANSWER it directly.

E. "most of US supports reasonable restrictions"

Oh, you mean places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Alaska, Ohio, vermont, Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, Michigan, florida, Texas, and others which I have forgotten which are either popular hunting states, or CCW states, or both?

Please reconsile this statement-"most of US supports reasonable restrictions"- with the number of CCW states, and hunting states which number in the mid 30's or higher.

D. If you really still don't believe me, try asking in General Discussion about your 3 part proposal, OR , go directly to the horses mouth, and start calling senators and congressmen and representatives,all in different states, and ask them if if thier constituents would support your bill. Then ask them, if they did vote for it,hypothetically, if it would cost them thier seat in the gov.

Don't take this personally, but the truth is going to be painfull for you on this. 80 million gun owners, 90% of them with a big chip on thier shoulder and voting repug. Think about it.

[MrBenchley]

111. Too too funny...

"folks with defining issues such as being pro-choice, anti-drug war, anti-racism, and pro-gun ownership "vote like repugnents""
How many pro-choice people are toting guns? How many anti-racists are lining up with Ted Nugent?

"Please reconsile this statement-"most of US supports reasonable restrictions"- with the number of CCW states"
Easily...all you have to do is look at Missouri, where even a referendum rejecting CCW couldn't keep the GOP from ramming it through. Or Michigan, where it was rammed through lame duck, and then kept in place by a corrupt judge. Or Minnesota, where a majority of Minnesotans don't want it, and the GOP and the coirrupt gun industry is determined to force it through..

"80 million gun owners, 90% of them with a big chip on thier shoulder
RKBA fantasy at its wildest.

"Renew federal ban on assault weapons
Gun in Household: 72% support
No Gun: 85% support"

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,548198,00.html

"Sixty-seven percent of Americans favor a nationwide assault weapons ban, and 84% favor requiring gun manufacturers to install child safety locks on guns....Even majorities of gun owners favor an assault weapons ban and child safety locks. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/14/opinion/main195341.shtml

[BullDozer]

119. Misguided morons

Sixty-seven percent of Americans favor a nationwide assault weapons ban

BFD, probably 99%+ of them can't define that it is they are trying to ban. Saying they want to ban something that they don't even know what it is and I should trust them? Dream on!

[Man_in_the_Moon]

120. "Jointogether.com" is nothing but propaganda

I cant tell you the number of blatant and intentional misrepresentations they have in their articles.

They are many times worse than the Bradybunch, the NRA, or just about any other organization out there.

Take my advice and either disbelieve ANYTHING they say and take it to be false, or totally out of context, or doublt check whatever they claim with a reliable source.

[MrBenchley]

121. Hahahahahaha....

Between you and jointogether, guess which one has the credibility? It's jointogether.org.

[MrBenchley]

122. Tell you what, dozer...

you stick with the scum in the NRA, and I'll stick with decent sane Americans.

[DoNotRefill]

134. Stripping people of their civil rights and violating the Constitution....

isn't a progressive ideal, at least in my book. It's much closer to fascism IMHO.

[DoNotRefill]

133. That would be struck down...

within the first month of being enacted. It's unconstitutional on a great many levels, even if we pretend that the Second Amendment doesn't exist.

[solinvictus]

141. Assault weapons?

What about the countless tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bolt action military surplus rifles that have (Gasp!) bayonet lugs, permanently attached bayonets, flash suppressors, or 5-10 round magazines? For all military purposes, they are counted as obsolete by the government, but they have any or all of those evil features that seem to make anti-rights people so upset. In your view, are these too worthy of banning? Also, what do you propose to do about the existing weapons? Are you willing to confiscate them? If so, are you willing to place yourself in harm's way to do so?

[BullDozer]

117. That's fine for you to want

We need to stop messing around and write a bill that will outlaw weapons of war for civilians. End of story.

Then please go ahead and define weapon of war for us and we can see exactly what it is that you are out to ban, everythingf else you said is fluff unless you want to ban more than what ever it is you will define as weapons of war.

[DoNotRefill]

126. And your suggested program would:

a): Cause every criminal to lay down their guns and live in peace and warm-fuzzies for their fellowman, or

b): Make a few "off-the-wall loonies" happy while pissing off the vast majority of the voting public, or

c): guarantee that NO Democrat got elected during that election cycle, or

d): (b) and (c)

I'd vote for (d)...

Sucessfully pushing for more restrictions on the Second Amendment is not going to happen. It would take an absolute MIRACLE to keep all of the laws we have now. And if we push this issue, it'll GUARANTEE Bush 4 more years in office.

[Valarauko]

140. Read my sig

that's all I have to say.

[RoeBear]

147. You're proposal would...

...flush the Democratic party down the toilet.

And do nothing to stop crime.

[leanings]

106. Hey CarinKaryn, wondering if you could address this.

Lemme tell you about my first "assault rifle". It's an M1 Carbine, made by IBM in 1944. 30 round mags, bayonet lug, flash hider, the whole bit. Quite an historic little firearm, carried by US troops throughout WWII.

My grandfather bought it mail-order thru the NRA back in the 60's. He was a WWII vet. After the war he drove a bus for the local school system. I still have people my father's age tell me about how he used to buy all the kids on his route ice cream on the last day of school. He retired as the head of maintenance for the school board. He played bluegrass music in a band, raised three upstanding children and was generally a beloved and respected member of the community. He was also a gunsmith, specializing in intricate inlay and checkering on wooden stocks.

He worked my carbine up really nice, inlaying it with three different types of rare wood and painstakingly hand checkering it. He gave it to my grandmother as a gift. She passed it on to me on my eighteenth birthday, about eight years after my grandfather died. My little cousin has a similarly decorated 1894 Winchester that's waiting for him when he turns 18. I'm going to have to give it to him, tho, as my grandmother passed away back in 2000.

Of all the things I own, I value that carbine the most.

Now, your proposed legislation, or any other that envisions having everyone turn in their "assault weapons", would have me give that carbine to the authorities so they can cut it in half with a torch. There's is no way in hell I would allow that to happen. So I, as a Democrat, a former law enforcement officer and a veteran who's never been convicted of a crime would become a criminal. This, and scenarios like it, would be the only impact of an "assault weapons" ban.

[CarinKaryn]

110. Surely you're not using that gun out in the woods?

As valuable as it is? What's wrong disabling it with a barrel plug or somthing. It still has the same sentimental value. And this way it will never be used for violence.

[leanings]

114. I shoot that gun all the time.

It's one of my favorite shooters as well as having the sentimental value. It's especially good for new women shooters or young people of small stature, owing to it's lightness and negligible recoil. And it's a lot of fun to shoot!

Disabling it with a barrel plug, or more likely torch-cutting of the receiver to comply with any law, would be unthinkable. If you had a dish you'd inherited from your mother, and I broke it in half and gave it back to you, would that be OK? After all, you've got all pieces. But you couldn't use it as a dish anymore, like your family used it before you.

That weapon hasn't been used for violence in the last 40+ years it's been in my family. Neither have any of the other 30 or so firearms that are in our collection. To take it away from me simply because it COULD be used for violence is patently unfair. What have I done as a citizen to deserve that sort of suspicion and lack of trust? The US isn't some sort of nursery that needs to be childproofed. The overwhelming majority, well over 99%, of the owners of these firearms are law-abiding, responsible, peaceful citizens who neither have nor will commit any crime or violent act with them. Why should a law be passed that will take away these people's right to own a particular rifle, especially seeing as how there's absolutely no data that such a law would in any way impact anyone else besides them?

The problem here is totally different approaches to the whole concept of firearms and firearms ownership. I suspect that you see violence and danger and evil as intrinsic in guns and shooting, while I see it them as recreation, a diverse and interesting hobby, a means of protecting one's self and one's family from harm, a means of putting food on the table, a skill which has been praticed and valued by myself and my ancestors from our initial landing on the continent in 1689 all the way up through my time in the military and in the tree stand. I see shooting as a fundamentally healthy excercise and you see it as fundamentally unhealthy. What can we do to bridge this gap?

[a2birdcage]

115. What's wrong with.......

keeping it the way it is and never using it for violence. You know what I do with my assault weapons Carin? I take them out to the range about once a month during the winter and maybe two or three times a month during the summer to shoot them at paper targets. I enjoy the feeling it gives me to shoot something that resembles a military weapon. Is there anything wrong with that? Is that reason enough to take them away? You know who else likes to do this very same thing? The rest of the 99% of law-abiding citizens who currently own assault rifles.

[jhfenton]

116. There's clearly something wrong with you.

"I enjoy the feeling it gives me to shoot something that resembles a military weapon."

You should probably join the military. ;)

Have you had an opportunity to fire an automatic weapon? I was given an opportunity to try out the police department's HK .40S&W submachine guns. :) Fun stuff.

[a2birdcage]

148. Yeah.........

I got to fire a full-auto M-16 "Commando" about 2 years ago. Awesome sensation.

[DoNotRefill]

135. Hehehehehe.....

"What's wrong disabling it with a barrel plug or somthing."

What's wrong with putting a big honking smiley face sticker on the Mona Lisa?

You're talking about an act of vandalism.