As of right now...

[FatSlob]

It is 55 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes and some seconds until the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[CO Liberal]

1. 55 days, 12 hours, 20 minutes and some seconds...

...for sanity to prevail.

[FatSlob]

8. Could you pleae tell us how it will make a difference?

I'm waiting with interest.

[CO Liberal]

11. Can You Please Tell US....

...how the world will be better without the ban? We're waiting with interest.

[FatSlob]

12. I asked first.

Please, no answering a question with a question.

I'll give you my personal answer, though. I'll be able to replace the stock on my rifle with an adjustable one, making it easier for my wife to shoot.

The world will not change at all with the expiration of the ban, as it only bans cosmetic features.

[CO Liberal]

16. OK - Here's Your Answer

The way I figure it - since the pro-gunners have been bitching about its existence and trying to get it repealed since Day One, it must be worth keeping.

[FatSlob]

17. In other words,

"If other people don't like it, then I should" Is that your sentiment? Do you have anything to add about freedom, crime, etc?

[CO Liberal]

18. Nope

The AWB has nothing to do with freedom. Just because a few pro-gunners get their panties in a bunch because they can't buy what they want really doesn't matter to the majority of people in this world.

[Sandpiper]

19. 70% of Americans support the AWB

Its biggest opponents are the wannabe Rambos.

Telling, isn't it?

[FatSlob]

21. I don't know about that.

I want it to expire so that I can put an adjustable stock on my rifle so my wife can better use it.

[FatSlob]

20. So, will the expiration

have any effect on anything? What negative consequences do you see?

[CO Liberal]

22. I See More Crimes and Killings Committed.....

...with guns with what you call "cosmetic features".

[slackmaster]

23. Statistically speaking you are probably right

When the prices come down and the proportion of firearms in circulation that have evil features relative to all firearms increases.

But what really matters is whether or not the overall rate of violent crimes committed with firearms will be affected. I don't believe it will.

[FatSlob]

24. Which "cosmetic features"

Will cause more killings?

[CO Liberal]

25. Whichever Ones...

...you pro-gunners keep saying are immaterial.

[FatSlob]

26. I'll give you a list.

Pick out which ones will cause more killing.

Flash-reducer
Bayonet/bipod lug
Adjustable stock
Threads on bbl.

[FatSlob]

33. Any response?

<chirp chirp>

[CO Liberal]

35. It's Hard to Say

But I can't see any good coming out of letting the ban expire.

[FatSlob]

39. Can you see any bad?

What, specifically, will be the negative consequences of building rifles with the prohibited parts?

[CO Liberal]

40. I Don't Know Enough...

...about the mechanics of gun construction to respond. All I know is that any law that's hated by so many pro-gunners has to be a good one.

[FatSlob]

45. I would be happy to educate you on the issue.

Wayne, you are far too intelligent to be using that as the basis for your opinion. Perhaps you should take a neutral stance until you know more. From experience, I can say that a flash reducer really doesn't hide anything, it redirects it. In my case, (using a borrowed preban) it came in handy to prevent a fire (firing prone over dead grass...directed the blast away from the ground). A bayonet/bipod lug really does not affect me or folks I know too much, but if I wanted to do some long range shooting without sandbags, it might come in handy to mount a bipod. A threaded barrel aids in changing between flash reducers and muzzle brakes, and is a convenience factor more than anythig. Adjustable stocks make it so that tall folks and short folks can share the same rifles by adjusting the length of the stock to fit the individual. Not one of the above features is "evil". Having them on rifles will have no negative effect. The reason that the ban is so hated, is that it is a completely unreasonable infringement. The ban serves no purpose at all.

[CO Liberal]

49. Thanks, But I Have No Interest....

...in learning about gun mechanics. It's a subject that would have about as much impact to my life as the sex lives of snails on the floor of the Meditteranian Sea.

You may find it fascinating, but I don't. When you pro-gunners start talking about things like flash reducers and magazines, all I hear is "blah, blah, blah".

All I know is this - anything that assholes like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent want to see expire, I think should be renewed and strengthened.

[FatSlob]

50. The old "enemy of my enemy" tact?

I thought you'd do better than that. I really thought that you would be able to look at the issue with some objectivity.

[mbnd45]

27. look here COLIB->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=71757&mesg_id=71813&page=
Click on the link. It explains how the AWB is B.S.

[CO Liberal]

42. The Only B.S. I Keep Seeing....

...is the B.S. generated by a few mindless pro-gunners.

Like the imbeciles I have to deal with here in Colorado.

[RoeBear]

32. Since you give no actual reason to...

...extend the AWB can I assume that the only reason you support it is because it will make the next step of gun banning easier?

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. So whats the difference?

Do you somehow think that being killed by a rifle that has a bayonet lug, flash supressor, and collapsable stock is worse than being killed by a rifle without those?

[Wild Bill]

2. cool

We should have a daily countdown thread.

[Renew Deal]

3. Why is that a good thing?

Who are you going to shoot?

[Sandpiper]

5. Because more guns make us more safer

Haven't you read any of Mary Rosh's "research?"

[FatSlob]

6. Because I'll be able to mount an adjustable stock on my rifle.

This will make it easier for my wife to shoot. I'll also be able to buy newly manufactured full-capacity magazines so that I won't have to reload as often when I visit the Gun Club. It will also be the end of one of the dumbest laws in history.

[Sandpiper]

10. delete

[Sandpiper]

4. Gun nuts everywhere

are counting down to their collective orgasm.

[MrBenchley]

31. Amazing isn't it.....

The AWB was "only cosmetic" and other LIES...

[Goldmund]

7. Whooptie-fuckin-doo.

[FatSlob]

9. I like you. (great sig line)

[Goldmund]

13. You know where it's from, right?

If not, I heartily recommend the Ali G show.

[FatSlob]

14. The what?

Where do I find it?

[Goldmund]

15. It's on HBO

Sundays at 10:30 PM. Only a half hour long, last night he started a new season. It's the only TV show I watch. He's super-intelligent and loves to bust on conservatives, and somehow gets access to characters like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump.

http://www.hbo.com/alig/?ntrack_para1=leftnav_category0_show3

[gatlingforme]

29. I think it's hysterical. he's sooo funny. great show.

[MrBenchley]

30. And if it sunsets

we'll start again next Congress....

[OpSomBlood]

34. With even less support when people realize that the AWB did nothing.

By all means, go for it.

[MrBenchley]

36. Gee, op...if it did nothing

there wouldn't be all these trigger-happy pinheads beating their meat all over the web....

[OpSomBlood]

37. You're absloutely right.

Law-abiding gun owners' excitement over the sunset of this worthless law is certainly proof of the law's effectiveness against gun crime.

That makes perfect logical sense.

[MrBenchley]

38. Yup....and the gun lobby scuttling

their disgraceful "save us from lawsuits" bill shows what a pantload this "it does nothing" argument REALLY is....

[OpSomBlood]

41. You're right, gun makers should be liable for crime.

That's fantastic. And people wonder why the Republicans' "Democrats love frivolous lawsuits" card is so effective.

The "disgraceful" rider clearly stated that the manufacturers would still be liable for mechanical defects resulting in injury, as well they should. The immunity was from liability in instances where the gun was used illegally.

Using your logic, if someone buys a Ford, gets drunk and plows over a bunch of pedestrians, you think that Ford should be held liable. It's the exact same concept.

[MrBenchley]

44. So far it's going over like a lead balloon...

against Edwards, and the "evil trial lawyer" crap is pretty much a flop. But count on our "pro gun democrats" to regurgitate mindless right wing talking points whenever possible.

"It's the exact same concept"
Yeah, surrrrrrre....now go snivel about how unfair it is the scumbags in the gun industry are getting sued to somebody who gives a crap. It sure ain'y me.

[OpSomBlood]

47. Suing a gun maker for someone else's criminal misuse is frivolous.

Like I said, you don't sue Ford when someone drives drunk and kills someone. You don't sue Anheuser-Busch when someone gets drunk and beats their wife. You don't sue Louisville Slugger when someone uses a baseball bat to crack a skull open.

But people like you, who believe otherwise, are a pretty good reason why the "evil trial laywer crap" sticks.

[MrBenchley]

48. Sez the gun industry. Judges disagree....

But then it's hilarious to hear that Chicago and New York City are engaged in "frivolity"....

"But people like you, who believe otherwise, are a pretty good reason why the "evil trial laywer crap" sticks"
With who...the sort of fuckwit who yells "ditto" to the flabby junkie on the radio?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Wild Bill]

46. you going have enough pants to last 54 more days? n/t