Supporters of the Assault Rifle Ban please explain why you support it?

[TexasMexican]

Please no ad hominems against gun owners in general or other similar childish remarks.

Just please explain why you support the Assault Rifle Ban (AWB), the more specific you can get the better.

If you just plain hate guns and support the AWB because its a law against guns be honest and say so.

If you support the ban because of specific things it restricts say so aswell.

[OpSomBlood]

1. Good discussion in progress here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x52104

[fudge stripe cookays]

2. I do not begrudge hunters the right to hunt....

I know the populations of deer etc must be kept in check, and it's a hard fact, but I accept it. I just don't dwell on it if I can help it.

But I think it's asking WAY TOO MUCH to use an assault weapon to kill anything. Why does ANYONE need that much firepower except to blow things apart, in a horrible, brutal manner. These are weapons of war, not leisure. And the thought that people are defending the right to use them makes me a little nauseated.

Hunting is one thing. Overkill is quite another.

[Superfly]

3. Do you know what an assault weapon is?

Really, describe an assault weapon...you can give a model, caliber, etc.

[Wickerman]

13. Yes, for gawd's sake, let's drag the bayonet lug into

the debate. I for one, am outraged that I can't have a bayonet on my squirrel hunting AK47.

[Superfly]

15. Did I mention bayonet lugs?

And, BTW, when was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting.

[Wickerman]

16. I'm sorry, I thought that was one of the bemoaned

factors on the AWB - that any weapon with a lug got the axe. Perhaps I have been mis-reading these posts for months now. My apologies.

Can't say I have heard of a one. Then again, until Bush* came into power I heard scant little about drive-bys of much any type - gee, it seemed like it was about an 8 year lull.

[OpSomBlood]

17. AWB has nothing to do with drive-bys.

The preferred weapons of drive-by shootings are pistols and fully-automatic sub-machine guns that use pistol ammo like the Uzi and MAC-10.

None of which are affected by the AWB.

[Wickerman]

23. I didn't bring up drivebys - I responded to a query

but, lets get as far off topic as possible

[Superfly]

19. Bayonets adversely affect

the long-range performance of any rifle (by changing the harmonics of a rifle barrel), and for that reason, I am personally opposed to having one.

Having a bayonet lug does not a more scary weapon make.

[Wickerman]

24. No but the bayonet lug argument

is great subversion in any discussion about AWB. See, there is nothing wrong with bayonets, the AWB is a piece of crap. We always argue about the particulars of the ban - not about the fact that people die.


Having a bayonet lug does not a more scary weapon make.

I have to argue that point - a bayonet does make a weapon more scary. That would seem to be its only point - a cosmetic device to appeal to those who want a scary-looking weapon. Don't want one when target shooting, ain't worth a damn hunting wild turkeys - what the heck else might you want one for excepting appearance?

[Superfly]

27. So, does a "scary" weapon

make it more dangerous than your standard deer rifle?

The AWB is a piece of crap because it was written as feel-good legislation "See we're doing something to keep AWs off the street, vote for us"

It did nothing to affect the functionality of any of the weapons or weapon families it targeted.

[Wickerman]

30. Actually, by your own words, yes

it would be more dangerous. By affecting the harmonics, it would be less accurate. Therefore, when you as a good citizen, bring your AK47 with you while dining at Luby's, only in case you need to stave off another attack by a Hennard wannabee, and need to crouch behind the salad bar and squeeze off a round at the would be assailant, risk missing an otherwise clean shot and having that bullet ricochet all around around until it finds the skull of a child.

Yes, the bayonet is scarier looking AND more dangerous. Again, what do you conceivably need a bayonet for?

[Superfly]

32. You got me....OK, that's one...

bayonet lugs no good.

What's next on the list?

[leanings]

50. What threat

does the bayonet possibly pose?

Why have a bayonet? Historical accuracy, basically. As far as lethality goes, I can duct tape a butcher knife on the end of my rifle and have a fully functional bayonet. But I did buy a bayonet for my 1943 IBM-made M1 Carbine, for the same reason I bought the original sling and oiler kit and stock mag pouch and have an original box of military .30 Cal Carbine ammo; they're historical, collectable items.

That may not be a particularly persuasive argument. It wouldn't be persuasive at all if there was some sort of argument for passing a law that prevents me from having a bayonet lug on my firearm. That's the thing about the AWB; it's so damn ridiculous. There isn't one thing in the law that in anyway impacts the real world.

Imagine if Congress passed a law banning dark colored cars, reasoning that they were more difficult to see at night, making them particularly suitable for criminal misuse. It's a pretty damn far-fetched scenario, and you could argue that darker colored cars still have lights on them, are still massive, reflective objects, that someone could easily spray-paint their car to circumvent the ban, etc. But why does anyone really "need" a dark blue Corvette? You don't, of course, but there's no earthly reason Congress should take away your liberty to own one.

[Wickerman]

51. What threat?

Asked and answered. That was the purpose of this string of posts in the thread.

Thanks for reading along.

[leanings]

52. I read along just fine, sport.

I would say that the "threat" of a weapon losing accuracy due to barrel harmonics is, at best, tongue-in-cheek, and the "scariness" of a weapon's appearance is beneath discussion. Methinks this question has yet to be answered in anything approaching a serious manner.

[Wickerman]

77. Methinks that calling me Sport is a Personal Attack

and I'd like a second opinon on the harmonics issue. Again, I think the bayonet issue is yet another subversion that the NRA uses as a method to avoid discussing any sort of meaningful consideration of gun restriction.

Like it or not, scariness of a weapon's appearance IS an issue as appearance is the only reason so far cited to allow bayonets and many folks do consider the bayonet "scary" - scary enough that it makes one wonder why it is worth fighting over. Again, why beyond appearance should a bayonet be allowed? Outside of appearance its a bullshit talking point meant to detract from discussion. If you want to remove appearance then whatcha got?

[Superfly]

84. The harmonics issue...

I should have expanded on my earlier comment.

For my purposes, basically methodical, aimed long-range marksmanship, a bayonet would adversely affect the performance of my rifle. During competitions, I like to be able to predict the behavior and trajectory of a bullet, a bayonet would only add an unknown for which I could not compensate.

At close to intermediate ranges up to 100 yards, the affect of a bayonet will be minimal. Even beyond that, we're talking MOA (minutes of angle) difference from a predicted flight path. And when your dealing in 10's of inches to determine a winner, that is unacceptable.

Your example of a bullet firing wildly off into an unpredicted direction due to a bayonet is a little exagerated. A bullet fired from a rifle will simply not go off into any old direction.

B

[Wickerman]

87. Ha! You have never seen Gary, my old AF buddy shoot!

He was a real hazard on the rifle range. Put the added weight of a bayonet on his weapon and I wouldn't trust him alone in a Luby's.

[TexasMexican]

56. "We always argue about the particulars of the ban"

"No but the bayonet lug argument is great subversion in any discussion about AWB. See, there is nothing wrong with bayonets, the AWB is a piece of crap."

Well I started this thread because I personally wanted to hear what particulars of the ban that it's supporters liked.

From what I've seen here so far is that most people who claim to support the ban do so only because its bad for guns in general.

I have yet to see an AWB supporter point at certain provisions of the ban and say "I support the ban because this is in there, and I support this because it keeps xyz from happening."

So if there is a particular provision of the ban that you particularily like please point it out.

[7th_Sephiroth]

60. if you really want to attach a bayonet to a gun

all you need is a roll of "freedon tape" yes "freedom tape" the best way to skirt around the AWB, also good when used in combination with a 2 litre soda bottle (silencer)

[FeebMaster]

34. Any weapong with a bayonet lug didn't get the axe.

The bayonet lug got the axe. The weapons are still around.

[FatSlob]

70. whoop

wrong place.

[Superfly]

71. Too late...I already read it...

Discarded rubbers, tubes of KY, and electric probes, what?!?!?

[Wickerman]

79. wasn't life easier when he was on vacation?

:evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

20. No one knows what an assault rifle truly is...

except we who truly love them...(snicker)

[enfield collector]

36. you're exactly right on this one. the only people who care

about them are collectors of military weapons. it makes about as much sense as banning spinner type hub caps on pre 62 corvettes.

[MrBenchley]

41. Yeah, surrrrrrrre.....

[Arkalius]

101. An assault rifle is...

An assault rifle is a military select-fire weapon that files rifle-caliber bullets. The M16 employed by the US armed forces is a prime example, and the very well-known AK47 and AK74 used by communist bloc countries is another example. The Germans used the first assault rifles in WW2.

Select-fire means that the user can choose a mode of fire, and options usually include single-shot (one round per trigger pull), burst fire (2 or 3 rounds per trigger pull), and fully-automatic (continues firing as long as the trigger is held down). The M16A2 currently in use by our military doesn't have a fully-automatic option. It has only single-shot and burst fire capabilities.

"Assault weapon" is a term that has no military origin, and was created by politicians to refer to semi-automatic weapons that have a resemblance to military weaponry.

[FeebMaster]

33. Bayonet lugs are at the heart of the AWB.

How can you talk about the AWB and not talk about bayonet lugs?

[Wickerman]

40. Ok, now that we have bludgeoned the obvious a couple of times

when is anyone going to give a good reason to have bayonets? What is a practical reason for having a bayonet? I've asked twice - So far I've got one guy who eventually conceded the bayonet issue is really a non-starter - they are dangerous and scary looking. No one has said in what way they are useful. And, of course, the cynically desired effect is acheived, as in all things AWB-related (both sides) we haggle over details and nothing is accomplished towards decreasing death by firearms.

[FeebMaster]

42. I'm not saying there's a practical reason

for owning a bayonet. But I don't think they're particularly dangerous or a public menace or anything. Certainly not to the point where bayonet lugs need to be banned. Bayonets are still legal, of course.

[Wickerman]

44. Outside of bad TV have you ever heard of anyone

being bayoneted in civilian life? I doubt we are in any danger of seeing a bayonet's in the news thread anytime soon.

[FeebMaster]

46. I don't think I've ever seen TV that bad

and if I have I must have repressed the memory.

[jtb33]

45. Bayo lugs...

Well, I can honestly say that I haven't ever used one (well, I did put on a *fake* plastic M9 bayonet once, just to see what it looked like), but I am a collector (never hunted in my life, but occasionally go target shooting), and an AR-15 just doesn't look "authentic" for collection purposes without the bayonet lug. I don't think the bayonet lug itself *looks* scarier, but with the thought of such a menacing looking *huge* M9 bayonet on the front, it does indeed look scarier. Before I sold my "postban" AR's, I had one that had the sides of the bayonet lug removed (so a bayonet couldn't be attached), but still retained the basic look of having a bayonet lug.

I think, what it comes down to, is that the only reason that bayonet lugs were mentioned in the AWB is that those who wrote the laws didn't really think that manufacturers would simple remove the lug. I think their hope was that manufacturers would just dump the AR-15's sice they had a bayonet lug.

[MrSandman]

53. Bayonet lugs?

Queation: What is the good reason for banning them. I know it is not an original statement, but I continue to believe banning a class of firearms based on cosmetics is a precedent for more sweeping bans.

See Rep. McCarthy's bill for an example. This is wjy I oppose the ban on firearms based on cosmetics, ballistics, etc. I don't have a reason for a 5.56 in any configuration. I do have semi's based on designs adopted by the military...McCarthy's standard, thus my opposition.

[slackmaster]

99. No, they're not weapons of war

No firearm classified as an "assault weapon" under US federal law is deployed as a combat weapon by any military force anywhere in the world.

"Assault weapons" were all specifically designed for the civilian, sporting arms market.

[liberalmike27]

4. Ban

I wonder, in the whole right to bear arms argument, what level shall we stop at. Do people get to own RPG's, or perhaps old used tanks? Should the super wealthy be able to own fully-armed fighter jets?

I think assault rifles are probably a bit over the line of what people should own, I doubt I'd want my neighbor to own a RPG either. Can you imagine the news: Man was killed by RPG after Mr. Smith in a fit of road rage, pulled out his RPG and fired it, killing Jones, and his whole family.

As a whole, I think the gun issue only loses votes to people who economically should be democrats, but I don't understand how people would vote against themselves based on this one issue, even though no one will ever take their guns away. But I think anyone who would vote for Republicans based on this one issue, when they agree with most other things the Democrats stand for, is among the least intelligent, the LCD of society anyway.

[Superfly]

5. All those things you listed, you can own...

In fact, a Blue Angels F-18 was just up for auction on Ebay about 2 months ago.

But, as far as the other things, you are allowed to own them, provided you pay the applicable taxes.

[Dolomite]

10. Time to play: “Pick the Assault Weapon”!

All the cool kids are doing it!

Below are two pictures of two different rifles. One model has been perfectly legal to own through out the entire ban and has been used successfully to harvest whitetail deer in northern Wisconsin (and may I remind anyone that cares to listen that deer/vehicle collisions are responsible for the death of many more people than any gun I’ve ever owned), and the other model fits the legal definition of ASSAULT WEAPON (as per Title 18 of the US code, section 921a). Possession of which by a civilian could be a felony – that is – until this stupid goddamn ban goes into sunset in exactly 146 days.

OK, pick the AW! (tic-toc-tic-toc)




Time's up! Which one did you choose? I’m afraid that I made it too easy (I mean the one with the post-ban muzzle brake really gives it away)! If you choose the one with the bayonet lug – You’ve won!


"At these town meetings over the years, I've heard a lot of people say there might have been some misinformation about what these weapons - guns - really are. There are some semi-automatics that really aren't assault weapons."
- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Well put Russ, and thanks for voting against Feinstein and Schumer when the vote for the AWB extension came up! This will no doubt secure your re-election in Wisconsin! (The repubs are putting up a very pro-gun opponent don'tcha know).

[MrBenchley]

21. Time to put the gun porn away

[Superfly]

22. You getting turned on?

[MrBenchley]

49. No, I haven't got the gun fetish the RKBA crowd has...

[enfield collector]

37. that's a sweet looking L1A1 on top, I have a Belgian 50.00

that looks very similar except for the combo device flash hider/apple corer bayo mount.

[MrSandman]

102. Doesn't Mike Dillon own most of those?

[bowens43]

6. The is no logical reason for a person to need an assault weapon.

The only purpose for these guns to exist is to allow someone to kill more people more efficiently in a shorter period of time. The line has to be drawn somewhere (or some folks would be walking around with bazookas, shoulder fired missiles and the occasional battle field nuke) and this is a good place to draw it.

[Superfly]

7. I will thank you not to prescribe my needs to me....

What I, or any other citizen, need or do not need are none of your concern.

[liberalmike27]

11. S-fly

What, do you live in a bad neighborhood, or what?

I hope you are wrong about people being able to won RPG's and jets. I'm doubting if the jet is fully-armed with missiles and rounds.

I never get the whole unhealthy obsession with weapons. It seems a rather unimportant exercise, a waste of money, and a promotion of some of the worst traits of mankind.

But, we had a gun-show at the fairgrounds (I think "show" is to be replaced with "sale") and judging from the heavy traffic on the road that passed by my neighborhood, a lot of folks like the idea of owning these weapons. personally, I'd rather buy books, and read. Perhaps I could whack a burgler on the head should he break in while I'm home. At least books can allow you to become a more well-informed person. Shooting guns doesn't provide anyone with much of anything, but a drain of income for munitions, but I suppose we all need a hobby.

[Superfly]

14. Actually, as it turns out...

my neighborhood has produced 2 crimes against yours truly, in which I was armed, both cases. But, I had guns long before I moved here.

Unhealthy? Why is it unhealthy and/or an obsession? A gun is nothing but a piece of metal and plastic/wood. It takes somebody to ascribe a stigma of "bad" to guns, in order to consider a collection unhealthy and/or an obsession.

Is collecting stamps an unhealthy obsession? "Why no, Superfly, because stamps don't kill people." Well, neither have any of my guns, nor do I plan on using them to that purpose.

But, as the saying goes: better to have and not need, then need and not have.

[iverglas]

39. damn right

What I, or any other citizen, need or do not need are none of your concern.

Definitely.

Of course, what an individual does in attempting to meet his/her perceived needs very often *is* some of a society/state's concern.

And a society/state not infrequently has perfectly valid reasons for limiting what individuals get to do in attempting to meet their perceived needs.

Red herring, slit and gutted.

.

[OpSomBlood]

8. What's next, ICBM's?

Comparing the legality of a semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) rifle to that of a nuclear weapon is a little beyond ludicrous, isn't it?

[jtb33]

47. "..."

Doesn't it get old repeating the same old stuff that you've heard from others? In what universe is an AR-15 "Assault Rifle" more powerful/dangerous than a Ruger Mini-14, a 30-06 Remington, etc...?

[iverglas]

48. and of course

In what universe is an AR-15 "Assault Rifle" more powerful/dangerous than a Ruger Mini-14, a 30-06 Remington, etc...?

What basis might you have for imagining that the person you are addressing would not advocate that those things be subject to the same restrictions?

Doesn't it get old repeating the same old stuff that you've heard from others?

I'd think that misrepresenting things people say, stating conclusions about what people say that are not supported by what they actually said, asking questions for which there is no evidentiary foundation in what people said, etc. etc. etc., would get old really fast, but time and again I am proven wrong.

.

[MrBenchley]

9. Lots of reasons why the AWB should be renewed and strengthened

Here's some good ones...

Tom DeLay wants assault weapons on the market
Orrin Hatch wants assault weapons on the market
Trent Lott wants assault weapons on the market

It's a helluva good issue to use to show what lying scum the Pirates of Halliburton are...

David Duke wants assault weapons on the market
The Reverend Moon wants assault weapons on the market
John "Mary Rosh" Lott wants assault weapons on the market

There's no good reason police should be easily outgunned by the criminal element

The Aryan Nation wants assault weapons on the market
The NRA wants assault weapons on the market
Larry Pratt wants assault weapons on the market

After years of lying that the ban was "only cosmetic," the gun lobby showed America that was an outright lie by shutting down the "immunity from liability" bill when an AWB renewal amendment was attached--and the amendment passed handily in the Senate to general approval from the public.

Pat Buchanan wants assault weapons on the market
Sean Hannity wants assault weapons on the market
Larry Craig wants assault weapons on the market

70% of voters want an assault weapons ban.

Ann Coulter wants assault weapons on the market
John AshKKKroft wants assault weapons on the market
Wayne LaPierre wants assault weapons on the market

One in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from January 1998 through December 2001 was slain with an assault weapon, many of which were “post-ban” models that will remain untouched by a renewal of current law.

John Kerry supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban
Ted Kennedy supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban
Carolyn McCarthy supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban

A post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the gun industry’s success at evading the ban. The guy who manufactures the Bushmaster headed Chimpy's fund-raising efforts in Mainein 2000--until his name became public and he had to resign.

Diane Feinstein supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban
Jon Corzine supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban
Chuck Schumer supports strengthening and renewing the assault weapons ban

[OpSomBlood]

12. Guilt by association, I guess.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The features banned by the AWB have no corellation whatsoever to the immunity portion of the legislation. It is not unreasonable for gun makers to want to be free of liability from criminal abuse of their products by others.

Nobody "evaded" the AWB. The ban was a poorly-written piece of legislation and no one is responsible for the "loopholes" but the people who wrote it. The law banned specific features, and the gun manufacturers removed those features. How is that evasion?

[MrBenchley]

18. Is THAT what you guess, op?

"It is not unreasonable for gun makers to want to be free of liability from criminal abuse of their products by others."
The fuck it isn't....but it's noticeable that the gun lobby scuttled that bill immediately rather than call more attention to it AND a fight over the AWB vote they lost...AND a fight over closing the gun show loophole that they lost.

Sure shows that "it's only cosmetic" line to be the horseshit it is.

"Nobody "evaded" the AWB."
Yeah, and it's only cosmetic <snicker>. Peddle it to the stentorian...maybe he'll go along with that.

[OpSomBlood]

25. Stale.

The AWB made certain cosmetic features illegal. The gun manufacturers removed these features in compliance with the law and continued to sell their product. If you are unhappy with this, you have nobody to blame but the authors of the law.

Let me know when the Stentorian references will start getting old to you. It's a little strange that you are so preoccupied with a website that hosted an interesting image I referenced.

But then again, everyone who disagrees with you is a Glocksucking indecent scumbag.

[MrBenchley]

29. Peddlle it elsewhere, op...

"Let me know when the Stentorian references will start getting old to you. It's a little strange that you are so preoccupied with a website that hosted an interesting image I referenced."
Not at all strange...it's noticeable that for all these claims by the RKBA crowd that there are rootin' tootin' gun ownin' liberals who can make a bipartisan case for this or that triesome bit of gun nut hysteria and horseshit, the sites that the bullets for brains bunch dredge up in support are not just right wing sources, but often really pinheaded right wing sources. Like the stentorian.

[TexasMexican]

54. MrBenchley explain?

So are you saying that something should be taken off the market because people who have different political beliefs from you dont mind that they are on the market?

So if those same people like having bottled water on the market would you support the banning and restriction of bottled water?

I'd like to assume that you are a rational human being so please explain how that logic works? You cant just ban something because certain types of people like it.

"There's no good reason police should be easily outgunned by the criminal element"

I agree, police should have access to select fire machine guns. Keep them in the trunk of the cruiser or something if they are needed.

"One in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from January 1998 through December 2001 was slain with an assault weapon, many of which were “post-ban” models that will remain untouched by a renewal of current law."

If they were post-ban, then by legal definition they werent "assault rifles."

You claim you want to strengthen the assault rifle ban, so I assume you want to change the legal definition of an assault rifle. So what would your definition be? How would you seperate "rifles" from "assault rifles."

"A post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the gun industry’s success at evading the ban."

Please explain this further? They obviously were following the letter of the law? Are you suggesting that they werent following the spirit of the law, if so in what way?

Wouldnt it be more honest if you said that the AWB was poorly written and that it doesnt do as much as anti-gun activists hoped that it would, since it doesnt actually ban guns it just bans features on newer weapons?

[MrBenchley]

55. Explained it already, quite clearly...

If you think it's swell to parrot the same rhetoric as the scum of the earth, be my guest. But spare us the lame-ass "bottled water" crap...

"You claim you want to strengthen the assault rifle ban, so I assume you want to change the legal definition of an assault rifle. So what would your definition be? "
I'll stick with with S. 1431 and H.R. 2038.

"Please explain this further"
Why? So you can continue this chlidish "they're not really assault weapons" sophistry?

"Wouldnt it be more honest if you said that the AWB was poorly written"
No, it would be more honest to say that the 1994 ban was the best that could be passed, given the stubborn intransigence of the scummy gun industry and the GOP...and that the American people want and deserve a stronger ban.

[TexasMexican]

57. awww dont be that way.

Surely you cant get your point across without the condescending attitude that you always use.

"I'll stick with with S. 1431 and H.R. 2038."

Got linkage, I dont know them off hand. How do they define assault rifles.

"Why? So you can continue this chlidish "they're not really assault weapons" sophistry?"

No, I'm curious why you think that people who change to follow the laws are somehow wrong because they are evading the laws.

"No, it would be more honest to say that the 1994 ban was the best that could be passed, given the stubborn intransigence of the scummy gun industry and the GOP...and that the American people want and deserve a stronger ban."

Fair enough, but I think if the American people were more informed on firearms they would not support it. Alot of uniformed people think assault rifles = machine guns, when that is clearly not the case.

[MrBenchley]

58. Hey, don't cry to me

You wanted to know why, and I gave a shitload of very good reasons why any decent person ought to...

"I dont know them off hand."
This IS priceless....you want to have a debate about the AWB..but you don't even know what the proposals are about?

"I think if the American people were more informed on firearms"
Jeeze, most of us already know all we need or want to...

[TexasMexican]

59. ...

"This IS priceless....you want to have a debate about the AWB..but you don't even know what the proposals are about?"

I know about the AWB, I havent looked into what proposals there are for strenghtening it offhand because I dont think the assault rifle ban will be strenghtened.

"Jeeze, most of us already know all we need or want to..."

Its always good to know more, we would all be better served by knowing more than by knowing less.

I would be better off if I knew more about those proposals that you support. I havent had much luck looking them up on my own, so I would appreciate it if you could give me some linkage.

[MrBenchley]

61. Still priceless...

You don't know what the proposals are...you just know they're no good because the shitheels itching to sell assault weapons told you so....geeze, there's RKBA "logic" in action...

"Its always good to know more"
Yeah, tell us about it.

[OpSomBlood]

62. Nice.

It's pretty funny that you're ridiculing someone for their desire to learn more about an issue. Coming from someone who hasn't even bothered to learn what the definition of an assault rifle is.

[MrBenchley]

63. Jeeze, op...

If you care so much, why don't you tell him about it? I've said more than once I'm happy to stick with the definition offered in those two bills.

And yeah, it is pretty fucking funny that somebody spouting off about how wrong the bill is hasn't read the fuckiung bill and doesn't even know where to fucking find it if he wanted to.

But then that's the bullets for brains bunch in a nutshell (emphasis not on shell): They don't know dick about useful stuff a decent person needs to know (like how to find the text of a bill in Congress) but they're happy to spank their cranks over the tedious and useless details of gun porn all day long.

[OpSomBlood]

64. I guess I'm indecent, too.

I'll stick to the definition of "assault rifle" that has been used since World War II, not the arbitrary one assigned by ignorant politicians ten years ago.

[MrBenchley]

65. You wanted an argument from me?

And for all your huffiness, you still haven't mentioned to your fellow "enthusiast" how to find the text of a bill in Congress...

Guess that really wasn't such a pressing concern as you made it out to be.

[OpSomBlood]

66. It must be tough...

...living in a world where everyone who disagrees with you is subhuman. But I admit, if I lived in New Jersey I'd probably be angry and bitter all the time, too.

[MrBenchley]

68. Actually, it's pretty easy to deal with...

their words and deeds give them away....

"if I lived in New Jersey I'd probably be angry and bitter"
I doubt you'd see folks in New Jersey turning handsprings over your arrival either.

[OpSomBlood]

67. Here.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN01431:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02038:

[MrBenchley]

69. Gee, op, I already know....

I'm not the one fucking mystified by how you might find the text of a bill in Congress...

[TexasMexican]

82. What spouting off?

"And yeah, it is pretty fucking funny that somebody spouting off about how wrong the bill is hasn't read the fuckiung bill and doesn't even know where to fucking find it if he wanted to."

Who is spouting off? I've never spouted off about those bills.

"But then that's the bullets for brains bunch in a nutshell (emphasis not on shell): They don't know dick about useful stuff a decent person needs to know (like how to find the text of a bill in Congress) but they're happy to spank their cranks over the tedious and useless details of gun porn all day long."

So whats with your ad hominem comments? Can you not talk like a normal rational human being? Why must you always demean others?

I'd venture to say that most Americans dont know how to look up bills in congress.

I wasnt particularily interested in looking up the whole bill, I was more concerned with getting down to the relevent portion, which is the definitions.

[OpSomBlood]

83. The Benchley Mystery.

>> So whats with your ad hominem comments? Can you not talk like a normal rational human being? Why must you always demean others? <<

Don't lose any sleep waiting on an answer to this little gem.

[MrBenchley]

90. The REAL Benchley Mystery

Is how I can manage to type at all laughing as hard as I do at some of the crap posted by the bullets for brains bunch...

[MrBenchley]

86. Gee, tex....

Weren't you telling me how wrong the AWB was and why it shouldn't be renewed and strengthened? You sure were.

Imagine my surprise when it turned out you not only hadn't read the proposals but didn't know where to look for them?

"Can you not talk like a normal rational human being?"
Gee, most normal rational human beings I know aren't itching to get their hands on an assault rifle...

[OpSomBlood]

88. King of rationality on who's rational...

>> Gee, most normal rational human beings I know aren't itching to get their hands on an assault rifle... <<

Maybe they are and they just don't share it with you. Not that it's any of your business.

[MrBenchley]

91. Gee, and yet the stentorian didn't fool me for a NY minute

[TexasMexican]

80. ...

"You don't know what the proposals are...you just know they're no good because the shitheels itching to sell assault weapons told you so....geeze, there's RKBA "logic" in action..."

No, I dont know what the propsals are because I never had a reason or desire to learn about them before.

I dont believe I have ever claimed on these boards that those proposals were "no good." That being said I do think in general that most new gun laws wont do any good. I generally support less restrictions and more freedom in all aspects of our lifes.

I think we have far too many laws and restrictions in our society. We need to toss out a whole bunch of them and just punish the few that we keep more harshly.

"Yeah, tell us about it."

What is that supposed to mean? Do you think there is no value in learning more?

[MrBenchley]

93. Says it all....

"I never had a reason or desire to learn about them"
Yeah, who needs to know what something says to oppose it? That's the stalwart intellctual acumen I associate with the RKBA crowd.

"I do think in general that most new gun laws wont do any good."
Yeah, we've heard Wayne LaPierre say that over and over again.

"Do you think there is no value in learning more?"
Geeze, I'm not the one claiming ignorance. There are certainly things not worth hearing, though, and this post was a stunning example.

[Arkalius]

75. Interesting...

"There's no good reason police should be easily outgunned by the criminal element"

Perhaps we should arm our police better. The criminals sure aren't going to turn in their guns if we make them illegal...

"After years of lying that the ban was "only cosmetic," the gun lobby showed America that was an outright lie by shutting down the "immunity from liability" bill when an AWB renewal amendment was attached--and the amendment passed handily in the Senate to general approval from the public."

I don't quite understand this... The simple fact was we were not willing to sacrifice the expiration of this useless and rights-violating law for the common sense tort reform that the lawful commerce in arms act would have brought. How does this "prove" that the allegation that the gun ban is purely cosmetic is false?

"70% of voters want an assault weapons ban."

That's because they are incorrectly informed on what an "assault weapon" is. They get their information from a largely anti-gun media. It's quite unfortunate really.

"One in five law enforcement officers (41 of 211) slain in the line of duty from January 1998 through December 2001 was slain with an assault weapon, many of which were “post-ban” models that will remain untouched by a renewal of current law."

That statisitic contradicts itself. It says they were slain by assault weapons and then it says that many of the guns were not assault weapons as currently defined in the law... At any rate, this doesn't really mean anything. Even if the criminals would give up these guns, they'd still use other guns. The current law has failed completely to reduce crime in any way.

"A post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the gun industry’s success at evading the ban. The guy who manufactures the Bushmaster headed Chimpy's fund-raising efforts in Mainein 2000--until his name became public and he had to resign."

The gun industry didn't evade the ban. They complied with it. They modified their weapons to be legal. And the DC sniper's weapon of choice is really irrelevant. Honestly, if I was of the mind to go out and snipe at people randomly (a completely insane idea as it is), I could think of many much better guns that are completely legal and do not even look anything like assault weapons to do it with.

[MrBenchley]

81. Been there, done that....

"The criminals sure aren't going to turn in their guns if we make them illegal."
And they're sure not going to have a problem getting them if scum like Tom DELay has his way. But hey, let's not let a few more dead cops interfere with gun industry profit.

"I don't quite understand this... The simple fact was we "
WE? Ho-kay....nuff said.

If the law was useless, as the gun industry claimed, would they really have cared? In a pig's eye.

"They get their information from a largely anti-gun media. It's quite unfortunate really."
Boo-fucking-hoo.

"That statisitic contradicts itself."
Nope.

"The gun industry didn't evade the ban. "
Like hell....

[Arkalius]

92. Ok...

The criminals don't have a problem getting guns anyway. Guns in the hands of americans are used around 60 times more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. And since the people who will actually comply with restrictive gun laws are the law abiding citizens, and not the criminals, gun bans serve to make crime more prevalent, instead of reduce it. Look at Washington DC. They are the only place in the continental US that has a complete ban on ownership of guns, and the murder rate there is astronomical.

And when I said "we", I was referring to the pro-gun public. I'm not actually a member of the NRA. I also only own one gun, a pump shotgun, and didn't even own that until earlier this year.

I'm still not understanding your point however. The law is useless, so we want it to expire as scheduled. How is doing whatever it takes to forward that goal prove that it isn't useless?

"Boo-fucking-hoo" isn't exactly conducive to mature conversation. And it doesn't do you any favors to tell me I'm wrong and completely neglect to tell me why.

And plese tell me how the gun industry evaded the ban.

[iverglas]

114. why does it feel

... as if somebody maybe came here on a mission?

I'd thought I was just as obnoxious and irrational as thyself, but I'm not seeing any effort to engage moi ...

.

[MrBenchley]

117. A fool's errand...

How'd you like the link to the "Clinton gun ban"? THERE's convincing evidence that the RKBA crowd isn't a bunch of right wing loonies, eh?

[LadeJarl]

26. Who are you going to assault with it?

An assault weapon is a high performance semi-automatic rifle using various types of ammo. It's main purpose is rapid fire either in single shot or multi-shot configurations. Unless you plan attacks ala the military or bank hold-ups and shoot-outs ala the West Holywood shoot-out, there is no reason for you to own one. There is no sport usage for an assault weapon.

What part of 'assault' is it that you don't understand?

[slackmaster]

28. Let me fill you in with some facts

The most popular rifle used in highpower rifle matches is the AR-15, considered by some to be an assault weapon (even in post-ban configurations).

Manufacturers like ArmaLite and Bushmaster sell a wide assortment of parts for their rifles that are specifically intended for accurate shooting. Here is one example:

http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/components/223topends.htm

No sporting use my eye. Your post is 100% regurgitprop.

[OpSomBlood]

31. Misnomer.

>> There is no sport usage for an assault weapon. <<

Learn before you post. So-called "assault weapons" (like my AR-15 variant) are exceptionally accurate, comfortable, fun and cheap to shoot. Every person who has ever shot my rifle has instantly fallen in love with it. For sport usage.

>> What part of 'assault' is it that you don't understand? <<

Well, the fact that certain litigators have decided to falsely classify semi-automatic rifles as "assult" or "military-style" means nothing to me. Traditionally (since the Germans introduced them in WW2), the term "assault rifle" has been defined as a fully-automatic shoulder-fired rifle.

It was not until the mid-90's that this term was ever used to describe a semi-automatic rifle.

[enfield collector]

38. you're confusing semi-auto with machine gun here, machine guns were banned

by the great socialist ronald reagan. funny how the gun control people are in bed with the right wing.

[FeebMaster]

43. Reagan didn't ban machine guns.

He banned future civilian production of machine guns. All of the machine guns in civilian hands that were registered prior to the cutoff date in 1986 are still legal and transferable.

[Arkalius]

73. Some confusion

An "assault weapon" isn't a select fire weapon like you described. Every gun banned in the federal ban fires only one shot per pull of the trigger. Like every other semi-auto gun out there, these guns fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. There's nothing about them that makes them "rapid fire" or anything.

The second amendment wasn't about hunting or sporting.

Assault is a behavior, not a weapon.

[OpSomBlood]

78. Shoot from the hip.

I read one of the famous Brady ads supporting the AWB that claimed that pistol grips allow for more rapid "from the hip" shooting.

I just about fell off my chair laughing at that little fecal nugget.

[FeebMaster]

35. There were at least 2 McFeeb's Law violations in this

thread before it got to 30 posts. That's sad. Days like these make me think this whole rights thing is hopeless. Time to look into getting a job watching porn for the FBI.

[Arkalius]

72. Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?

The question in the title is an interesting one. Can you answer it? Well, before you try, don't bother. Why? Because it's an irrelevant question.

There are a lot of things in this country people do not "need". We do not need fast driving corvettes. We do not need large mansions. Perhaps we should ban these things as well? The thing is, the government doesn't have any right to tell us what we do and do not need. It's not the Bill of Needs or the Bill of Wants, it's the Bill of Rights.

The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer. It was made up by the anti-gun lobby. They decided that these guns were an easy target after efforts to ban handguns failed. They are simply semi-automatic rifles (like any other) and operate the same as other such rifles, but they have an image problem. They look "evil". Most resemble modern military-style rifles, but they are not. They are semi-automatic rifles that fire only one round per pull of the trigger, and are in fact perfectly acceptable for hunting (some people hunt with them). Most military guns are assault rifles (not the same thing as an "assault weapon") which is a select fire weapon (read fully-automatic, a machine gun) that fires rifle ammunition. Both the military M-16 and the civilian (and now banned) AR-15 look very much the same. They also fire the same ammo. However the AR-15 is semi-automatic only, and cannot be easily converted to fully-automatic (see aside, below). The round they both fire, the .223 Remington cartrige (often called the 5.56mm NATO) is illegal to use for deer hunting in most states because it isn't powerful enough. The bullet is the same size as a .22 rimfire bullet.

As an aside, anyone with the right skills and knowledge can modify any semi-automatic autoloading weapon to make it fully automatic. However doing so would make the gun very dangerous to use, as these guns are not designed for this mode of fire. The common crook or terrorist does not have the gunsmithing skill or knowledge to do this, and such a conversion is illegal anyway.

These guns are not more deadly than other guns. They cannot be fired any faster (any semi-automatic weapon fires as fast as the user can pull the trigger, period). The "evil features" that are banned in the law do not make it easier to kill more people with the gun.

In this country, when a party wishes to deny a person certain rights, the burden of proof lies on that party. So it is not up to us to explain why these semiauto rifles should not be banned. It is up to those who support the ban to explain why they should be. Unfortunately for them, they have little to work with. The justice department did its own study. They found that there is no evidence showing that the ban has had any effect on crime, or that it has reduced the average number of victims per shooting. The ban has had absolutely no provable positive effect since it was enacted. A law that does not serve some kind of purpose should not be on the books.

There is too much on this issue to be able to talk about in one post. For more info, go to www.gunfacts.info

[OpSomBlood]

74. Excellent summary...

...and welcome to the fold. Unfortunately, you'll discover that most people's minds about this pointless law are already made up, regardless of the facts.

I have to hand it to the anti-gun lobby. They couldn't get their way directly, so they just started calling semi-autos "assault weapons" and it stuck. Since this technique worked back in 1994, I'm intensely curious about what terminology abuse they are trying to come up with to scare people into banning pistols. "Police-style rapid-reloading portable death machines"?

[Arkalius]

76. Talking about making up names...

Its not called gun control anymore. It's called "gun safety". Get with the program ;)

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
Armed, we are citizens. Disarmed, we are subjects.

[MrBenchley]

85. Too TOO funny...

From the first fucking paragraph of your wowser of a link...

" If you are against gun rights, then you are in the same pack as the Klan"
Bzzzt! Wrong!!

"The Southern White Knights oppose:
- Gun Control"

http://www.knightskkk.org/aboutus.html

Here's a disgraceful inteview with a fucking pinhead named Jeff Berry, Imperial Wizard of The American Knights"
"What is The Ku Klux Klan's view on guns?
Berry: Have you ever heard of the Patriot's Prayer? This is The Ku Klux Klan's version: Give me the sense to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weapon to make the difference. Never surrender your firearms. Without the Second Amendment, we would not have the First Amendment. "

http://www.liberator.net/articles/KKKJeffBerry.html

[Arkalius]

89. That's nice but...

I think the analogy there was to compare both groups' predilection for intolerance, not because of their views on gun control.

At any rate, try reading the actual document, instead of writing off the whole thing because you misunderstood the first paragraph.

[MrBenchley]

94. So in other words....

There's a big honking LIE in the very first sentence, but who cares, it's about guns!!! Wheeeeee!!

"try reading the actual document, instead of writing off the whole thing because you misunderstood the first paragraph"
Gee, I didn't misunderstand a fucking thing. The site is horseshit from sentence one.

By the way, it's wonderful to see that bozo pimping for Mary Rosh at the bottom.

[Arkalius]

98. Last attempt

You seem prone to making things personal, and appear to have an extreme intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you, so I will only make one last attempt to get through.

Try reading the gun facts document that that site supplies. If you refuse then I can only assume you are afraid to be exposed to anything that might make a good point against your case. It would fit since you completely avoided discussing anything in my "Why do you need..." post and went straight for attacking the site at the link I supplied (a site over which I have no control).

Of course, it is probably best you didn't respond to that post. It is best to seem a fool and keep quiet than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

103. Too fucking funny...

"You seem prone to making things personal"
Not me....you were the one who put up a link to some numbnutz' website that said that if I supported gun control, I was just like the Klan...although in fact, AS I PROVED, the Klan doesn't support gun control in any way, but peddles the same gun rights horseshit the website does.

"If you refuse then I can only assume you are afraid to be exposed to anything that might make a good point"
Or you could understand that I see no reason to root through every cesspool in hopes that there's a pearl at the bottom somewhere. The site lies in its first fucking sentence and pimps for a guy synonymous with academic fraud at the bottom. You really need more than that to tell you what a pile of crap it is?

"you completely avoided discussing anything in my "Why do you need..." post "
What was worth discussing? You think any humhole should be able to menace the public with an assault rifle just because you think he has a right to. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Lotsa of luck peddling that beyond the usual suspects.

"a site over which I have no control"
You mean that mindless crap forced you to put up a link? What did it do, hold a gun to your head?

[MrSandman]

104. No one has the right to menace anyone...

Ownership does not qualify as menacing behavior.

Someone is trying to peddle but its not to whom you were referring.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

106. What point did you think you had?

"I already explained that the analogy there"
You can explain the analogy there until you're blue in the face...and it won't change the FACT that the position the KKK takes is EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION as the guy who put together that website.

"I'm sure you'll find some small little detail on each of those sites"
You mean you think there's only one? Jeeze, can't imagine how you left out stormfront.org and free republic on your list of links.


"People who legally own these so-called "assault weapons" are some of the most responsible law-abiding citizens"
Yadda yadda yadda.....tell it to the kkk. They eat shit like that up with a spoon...

"It would be nice if we could make this a mature discussion between two intellectual adults"
It'd be even nicer if your side of it wasn't totally constructed ouyt of horseshit and right wing propaganda.

[Arkalius]

109. My point is

My point is that you are as intolerant as the KKK. I have twice explained what that site was trying to indicate with it's analogy, and you have twice ignored the explanation and instead chosen to interpret it in the way that makes it look bad. So be it.

My side of it, as I said, is based on facts gleaned from acredited studies and statistics. If the truth is "horseshit" as you claim, then perhaps I should base my arguments on lies.

It is unfortunate that the anti-gun lobby has you on their side. You make them look bad. Instead of trying to convince people of your point, you simply tell them they're wrong and insult them. You use foul language far more than necessary, and you seem incapable of quoting any real evidence-supported facts that back up your claims. Your childish behavior does not reflect well on you or your side. I'm a little surprised that you have not yet been banned from this forum.

Personally I would like to be better informed. If my side is based on such "horseshit" and propaganda, please direct me somewhere with facts to prove that it is.

[OpSomBlood]

110. Arkalius...just stop.

Really. He'll just keep repeating it until you walk away, then claim victory for it.

It's just not worth the keystrokes.

[MrBenchley]

116. Swell new playmate you got here, op

between the "Clinton gun ban" and the National Review, he's sure burning through those nutcase right wing talking points.

Sure you don't want to tell him "Ditto?"

[iverglas]

113. the last resort

It is unfortunate that the anti-gun lobby has you on their side. You make them look bad.

I always find this entertaining -- how solicitous some folks seem to get when their opponents are allegedly making their own side look bad.

Taking that concern at face value strikes me as, well, kinda like taking that mobster's expression of approval of firearms control measures at face value.

Negative psychology, and all that. When all else fails.

.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

122. And with good reason...

But hey, it's always instructive to see what really lurks under the gun rights sheet, and what they stick up for....

"Arkalius (17 posts) Tue Apr-20-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's more honorable than Kerry
Whether or not Bush is any of those things, at least we know where he stands, which is more than anyone can say for Kerry."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x52658

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

115. Too TOO funny...

"I have twice explained what that site was trying to indicate with it's analogy"
And it's still a big fat honking LIE...doubly offensive because the site is pimping the exact same viewpoint that the KKK is.

" If the truth is "horseshit" as you claim, then perhaps I should base my arguments on lies."
Gee, I yet to see anything you've said that has any resemblence to truth whatsover. But then I'm not the one trying to peddle crap from a shithole like Crazy Bill Buckley's Nazional Review.

"It is unfortunate that the anti-gun lobby has you on their side. You make them look bad. "
Deal with it. Meanwhile you seem to be a run of the mill "enthusiast" with a handful of dittohead propaganda.

"you seem incapable of quoting any real evidence-supported facts"
Gee, you mean like links showing what the KKK's position on gun control really is? One of us put those up, and it wasn't YOU.

"I'm a little surprised that you have not yet been banned from this forum."
Gee, maybe it's because I'm not peddling idiotic rubbish like the "Clinton gun ban".

[iverglas]

112. you sound like a clever fella

In your statement you referred to "gun rights horseshit". It would appear then that you feel that the right to keep and bear arms is a big problem. Do you feel the forefathers made a mistake?

I've already mentioned this to someone else today ... but here it is again, and so soon, and such a nice example of it.

Why don't you help us all out, and provide us with a succinct explanation of the fallacy of equivocation, and then explain how your thesis here turns entirely on that fallacy as you have applied it to the term "gun rights horseshit"?

I'm sure many would benefit.

.

[iverglas]

111. giving up so, uh, soon

Try reading the gun facts document that that site supplies. If you refuse then I can only assume you are afraid to be exposed to anything that might make a good point against your case.

A less, uh, inexperienced poster might assume (and anybody at all should be able to figure out this alternate assumption) that the person being addressed has already been exposed to every word and phrase to be found on the site in question.

Credible alternative explanation. Ergo, unfounded and unwise "assumption" otherwise.

It would fit since you completely avoided discussing anything in my "Why do you need..." post and went straight for attacking the site at the link I supplied (a site over which I have no control).

Yes, yes, my son. You are the very first person in history to have voiced those particular deep thoughts.

But hark, what can we have here?! Surely not mine own response to the exact same deep thoughts! Surely not right here in this very thread, available for the perusal of anyone who wants to join a conversation already in progress, rather than jump onto the heads of its participants feet first.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=52368&mesg_id=52502&page=

"What I, or any other citizen, need or do not need are none of your concern."

Definitely.

Of course, what an individual does in attempting to meet his/her perceived needs very often *is* some of a society/state's concern.

And a society/state not infrequently has perfectly valid reasons for limiting what individuals get to do in attempting to meet their perceived needs.

Red herring, slit and gutted.

.

[Arkalius]

119. A little better

At least you aren't rude like Benchley, but I'd appreciate it if you would reign in the condescending tone...

Yes, perhaps he has read this document. I suppose it was naive of me to assume he has not. However, he did not indicate that he had read it. Instead, he simply criticized the first paragraph of the site based on his interpretation of it and appeard to write the whole thing off. I do not know that he has read it or not. He certainly won't say.

I do not assume I am the first person to express these thoughts. However my post included more than the "need" statement. I also do not see it as a red herring.

"Of course, what an individual does in attempting to meet his/her perceived needs very often *is* some of a society/state's concern.

And a society/state not infrequently has perfectly valid reasons for limiting what individuals get to do in attempting to meet their perceived needs."

I do not believe that all rights are absolute. If they were, then many would conflict with each other. The most common example is that even though we have freedom of speech, it is illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater when there is no fire. It is prudent to limit the rights of the people when such specific instances of the expression of the right serve to do much more harm than good.

However, there has not been any proof that the availability of certain semi-automatic rifles to the general (law-abiding) public does much more harm than good. Criminals and terrorists certainly don't use these guns with much frequency, and even if they did, laws against them wouldn't prevent them from obtaining them. Contrary to what the anti-gun lobby would have you believe, some people find some of these weapons perfectly acceptable and even preferrable for hunting. They make for great target shooting rifles. Their usefullness for self defense varies depending on who you ask.

If someone could show me how the availablity of these guns to the law-abiding public creates a significant problem, and can also show me that the current AW ban as it is written can help curb this problem to any significant degree (I would like hard evidence, not theories and conjecture), I may reconsider my position. One may ask me to do the same for my side, and though I can, I do not have such a responsibility as the burden of proof lies on the side that wishes to limit the right.

[MrBenchley]

120. Why don't you ask pResident Turd?

Seeing as he's so "honorable" and all....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x52658

"Criminals and terrorists certainly don't use these guns with much frequency, and even if they did, laws against them wouldn't prevent them from obtaining them."
Especially not if gun manufactuers are going to evade the ban...as they have.

So tell us....does the gun faery leave guns under a cabbage leaf for criminals?

"One may ask me to do the same for my side, and though I can, I do not have such a responsibility"
Gee, that sure is a lucky break....<snicker>

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Arkalius]

96. I figured

I can see from his attitude and unwillingness to be open minded and have a mature conversation that he isn't worth the trouble. It is unfortunate that he will judge the book by its cover instead of actually trying to see what the site has to offer. I think he proved my point about intolerance.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

107. if only

if someone disagrees with you, they must either be a traitor or insane, and worthy of condescending ridicule.

... that statement were true, you wouldn't be saying untrue things.

And if only

I've found that the perfect analogy to describe him is as a Freeper.

... it weren't against the rules to do exactly that.

We know you can read ... why don't *you* try acknowledging it?

.

[MrBenchley]

123. Too TOO fucking funny....

Yeah, somebody on this board just might be a freeper....wonder if you can guess who?

"Arkalius (17 posts) Tue Apr-20-04 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's more honorable than Kerry
Whether or not Bush is any of those things, at least we know where he stands, which is more than anyone can say for Kerry."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x52658

[iverglas]

108. oh dear, too funny

It is unfortunate that he will judge the book by its cover instead of actually trying to see what the site has to offer.

Quelle newbie! </sarcasm>

Imagine thinking that Benchley was seeing that site for the first time ...

.

[MrBenchley]

118. Geeze, I suppose

if you're too brain-dead to know lies when you see them, pretty much every site has something "to offer."

[Wickerman]

125. Locking

well, we have had our fun with tonights version of Freddy the Freeper. I think this week's installment of Just what IS so wrong with the AWB is all played out.

Thanks for stopping, ya'll come back next week, hear?



DU Schoolmarm