Gun 'enthusiasts' flock to gun stores to buy assault weapons.....

[zanne]

Redneck yahoos fear that Obama will reinstate the ban on assault weapons; flock to gun stores to fill their closets with them. http://www.sltrib.com/Utah/ci_10912220?source=rv

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. so if they are outlawed, we have a large new number of outlaws?

or are they going to be grandfathered in? hahahah

[MercutioATC]

14. The last AWB prohibited sales of new guns, not existing ones.

Manufacturers couldn't sell or import certain firearms, but people were free to keep (or privately sell) existing firearms.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

22. Ah, thats right... we'll just strip marriage rights from CA married couples

[yodoobo]

116. hopefully, that loophole will be closed

I support a buyback program.

[greguganus]

118. Buybacks in the past allowed ppl to trade in guns for $ and then they bought better guns. n/t

[yodoobo]

134. yet another NRA loophole

If the weapon is banned from purchase then selling them back to the government will only put money in peoples pockets, which would by the way, provide economic growth as well.

I suppose that some people, once they turn in their machine guns, could go and use that money to buy a shotgun or hunting rifle. I suppose that would be ok.

[Hangingon]

155. AWB didn't cover machine guns

[yodoobo]

159. Which was one of many failings of the AWB

[Dimensio0]

163. Please explain and substantiate your assertion.

[Edweird]

172. You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Google "National Firearms Act"

Then Google "get a clue".
"Machine guns" have been very tightly regulated. WHICH IS WHY IT WASN'T IN THE AWB.

[yodoobo]

177. $200 bucks and you get a machine gun.

and the awb did nothing to stop it.

[Edweird]

185. Fully automatic firearms are addressed in the National Firearms Act.

It is very thorough and quite draconian.

You are correct in that the AWB failed to stop illegal acts. No law will stop a criminal from committing an illegal act. Drugs, sexual slavery, murder... all against the law and it still happens.

What's your point?

[WindRiverMan]

192. Hell no it won't.

Do you have any idea WHAT is involved to get a license to own a truly fully automatic weapon? It takes about fifteen thousand dollars just to get the permit, you have to subject yourself to intense background checks (and just about any blemish will disqualify you), and AFTER that you have to purchase the weapon itself, and then keep meticulous records which are inspected frequently. I have been around guns my whole life, and I know of only one person who actually has the damned things, and he keeps them under wraps. The liability of one of them getting stolen and used in a crime is tremendous.

[Pavulon]

195. You are talking out your ass

it is generally advisable NOT to talk to subjects you have zero concept of.

The shittiest NFA regulated weapons are in the $4000, after a complex process involving a background check and long wait.

[Redneck Socialist]

175. LOL! How much more regulated do you want them?

Google the NFA 1934.

[yodoobo]

178. I would like to see private ownership of machine guns banned

I realize thats a hard position and those on the right disagree, but thats the answer to your question.

[Dimensio0]

179. Why?

What is the rational justification for your position?

[yodoobo]

180. Its the right thing to do

saving lives and ending violence (to the extent we can) are goals I support.

[Dimensio0]

182. Declaring that your proposal is "the right thing to do"...

... does not constitute a rational justification of your position.

Demonstrate that a total ban on "machine gun" (as defined by Federal law) ownership will "save lives" and "end violence". Cite the number of violent incidents involving legally owned "machine guns" per year, and show that these incidents will not occur through other means should such a ban be enacted.

[Pavulon]

184. 2 lives in 70 years..

ban lightning. It kills more than nfa weapons.

[Edweird]

186. You've absorbed WAAYYY too much propaganda. You have no grasp of the facts.

That is typical of the shrill zealots here. So far you don't seem to be all that shrill, just misinformed. Do yourself a favor and get real facts. (Hint: Gun guys is just as biased as NRA. Go to impartial 3rd parties ie: Department of Justice or FBI stats.)

[spin]

158. Please read post 157 (n/t)

[polichick]

2. I heard a discussion about this with a gun shop owner on NPR today...

...and had to turn it off ~ how crazy!

[TWiley]

94. These gun nuts are dangerous .... read this

http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_3 ...

When you look at the picture, you will notice the little militia man painted on the building. Locally, this store is known as the Militia's arsenal. For those with a short memory, Timothy McVeigh was a member of the Michigan Malitia Story here:


Local shop flies American flag upside down

Hampel's employees call it a signal of 'distress'

By SHERI McWHIRTER
[e-mail]


TRAVERSE CITY -- Not everyone is excited about the nation's first black president. Some are downright hostile.

Employees at Hampel's Key and Lockshop on Randolph Street in Traverse City flew an American flag upside down Wednesday in protest of Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election.

And one employee directed a racial slur at Obama during a telephone interview with a Record-Eagle reporter.

"(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n----- got in," said Hampel's employee Rod Nyland, of Traverse City.

An hour later, Nyland apologized for the comment.

"I regret my choice of words. That was a poor choice and I apologize," he said. "It's probably not appropriate."

Hampel's Inc. is a gun and lock shop licensed by the state since 1989, according to state records. City tax records show the shop is owned by Karl Hampel of Traverse City, who could not be reached for comment.

<snip>

complete story here

http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_3 ...

[surrealAmerican]

107. Yuk.

and Traverse City always seemed like such a nice, civilized place.

[TWiley]

110. It is, local Michael Moore holds his film festival here.

We vote Democratic, the county votes RepubliKKKlan, but that does not mean we do not have pockets of ignorance here.

[surrealAmerican]

113. I guess that's the point, that you can find people like this ...

... even in places where you would least suspect them.

[Critters2]

138. It's PROBABLY not appropriate?!!

That's not how an apology works, asshole.

[yodoobo]

181. What a NUT! Isn't that illegal?

Flying a flag upside is a sign of distress. I would think that it would be prosecutable under certain circumstances (i.e. causing a panic etc)

Although I suppose there is a freedom of speech component here as well.

[billyoc]

3. A little infusion of cash into the retail sector. I wholeheartedly approve.

[Taverner]

106. Yes, since ironically most will sit and collect dust

[El Supremo]

4. Here is one in Grand Junction yesterday >>

http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2174742

I hope he left his correct information so we can confiscate it later.

[SteveM]

11. What do you mean by "we?" (nt)

[El Supremo]

13. You want people to be allowed to buy an assault rifle?

Then I will personally take it from you when we reinstate the ban.

[SteveM]

15. Assault rifles are full-auto, and already heavily regulated and legal...

Now that I have cleared up your ignorance on the subject on that topic, let's turn to so-called "assault weapons." These are merely clones of full-auto weapons, and only capable of semi-auto fire. Many millions of Americans already own them. Further, the 1994 AWB did not actually ban ANY semi-auto carbine (what you are actually talking about), but merely some cosmetic features (bayonet lugs, extended grips, muzzle shrouds, extended or folding stocks, etc.).

You, El "Supremo," will neither personally nor impersonally confiscate anything from me. You're awfully brave when acting from within the anonymity of the internet, but you don't have the juice in person. And you know that, of course.

[El Supremo]

26. I sure have a way about me that makes some people call me names.

Something that I don't do to others.

I hate ALL guns. But guns of any sort that are only designed for killing people I hate especially.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[SteveM]

29. Who called you names?

I merely said you didn't have the juice; you know, the "fortitude" to do anything?

And you won't do anything.

BTW, "your way" is typical culture-war trolling. You and your indignant ears can't ignore that.

[Mojorabbit]

84. You can add me to your list too

I am a female gun owner and I would like to see you try to take my guns away from me.

[mr blur]

35. You little boys and your toys -

careful you don't hurt yourselves or you'll never grow up.

[MercutioATC]

16. Before you get excited about this, define "assault rifle".

...and explain why an "assault rifle" is any more dangerous than any other rifle. (I'm assuming you mean "assault weapon")

[depakid]

23. I think any reasonable person knows the difference between assault weapons and legitimate hunting

rifles and shotguns.

Capacity of the magazine or clip, rate of fire and what they're designed for makes the difference.

[SteveM]

25. If you are so reasonable, tell us the difference...

Be sure to include in your answer how you would differentiate between your so-called "assault weapons" and the new model semi-auto carbines chambered in hunting rounds, with camo, with extended grips, with muzzle shrouds, etc. Also, after several millions of these latter weapons are sold to hunters, how you would devise a law/scheme to ban, "control," or confiscate them?

[depakid]

33. How about I show you?

This is an assualt weapon:



So are these:



This is a hunting rifle:



This is a hunting shotgun:



This is not:



-----------------

The smart way to do to implement responsible gun policy would be the way Australians did:

The legislation was prompted by a firearm massacre in Tasmania in 1996, when 35 people were killed and a further 18 seriously wounded.

The reforms banned the use of semi automatic and pump action shotguns and rifles, destroying more than 700,000 weapons taken from a population of 12 million adults.

The study shows that in the 18 years before the legislation was passed, there were 13 mass shootings in australia, in which 112 people died and 52 were wounded.

There have been no mass shootings since the law came into force.

The fall in the number of deaths associated with the use of firearms, including suicides, rapidly accelerated after the law took effect.

The decline was at least twice as high (6%) as it had been before the reforms were introduced.

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Massive-gun-buyback-doubled-fall-in-Australian-gun-deaths-2145-1/

Realistically, that probably will never happen in the states- so you'll have to accept that you've doomed your culture and your children to repeated mass shootings and an appalling homicide and firearms accident rates-

[Pavulon]

36. Australia implemented an internet "filter"

for everyone. Lets not jump out our ass to copy their model of civil order.

Second the problem is with cosmetic makeup of the idiot ban. You see a semiautomatic rifle that costs over $750 from benelli can shoot from a magazine. So can a cheap sks. You want to ban scurry looking guns and let us keep the same function in expensive ones?

You want to ban pump shotguns and the beretta al391 with a fixed capacity of 3 rounds that costs 700. not used all that often.


Lets adopt the SWISS model.

[depakid]

42. Nothing has been implemented yet

and likely won't be, because Greens hold the balance of power in the Australian Senate.

[Pavulon]

61. Great precedent..

ban it all.

[plaintiff]

48. If you knew how to spell "assault", your drivel might actually be taken seriously

by fellow-travelling gun-grabbers. Regular people who believe in the constitution won't give a shit either way, though.

[depakid]

54. Focusing on typos is usually the hallmark of weak arguments

or in this case, perhaps paranoia, which the NRA has harnessed so successfully in America to twist and exploit the Second Amendment beyond recognition.

[apocalypsehow]

59. Welcome back. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

55. "There have been no mass shootings since the law came into force" - There you go again,

upsetting our RKBA Democrats* with pesky things like facts. Tsk, tsk.






(*the only reason I do not put quotation marks around this word is because doing so apparently causes too much distress to the tender little feelings of the well-armed 'enthusiasts' in our midst, and their alert-button vapors over said quotation marks are often indulged just to stifle the non-stop weeping. Or so I can only figure. Just FYI.)

[DrCory]

149. Or Perhaps...

"upsetting our RKBA Democrats* with pesky things like facts. Tsk, tsk.
(*the only reason I do not put quotation marks around this word is because doing so apparently causes too much distress to the tender little feelings of the well-armed 'enthusiasts' in our midst, and their alert-button vapors over said quotation marks are often indulged just to stifle the non-stop weeping. Or so I can only figure. Just FYI.)"

You were told to stop? Somehow I doubt your stated reason is true.

[aikoaiko]

63. What about the Monash University shooting in 2002?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

[Tallison]

78. What's that weapon in the last picture

Looks like a shotgun, but isn't? Scary looking...

[MercutioATC]

90. Let's take a little test....

What is the difference between these two firearms?









One is an "assault weapon" and one is a "hunting rifle"...why?

[WindRiverMan]

193. One of those could actually put a bullet somewhere acurately at 300 yards

The other is a piece of shit.

[benEzra]

98. This is an "assault weapon":

This is an "assault weapon":



and the guns in the first two photos you linked to are as tightly controlled in the USA as 105mm howitzers, 500-lb bombs, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Try again.

[Xithras]

164. What type of rifle is that?

Just curious.

[Edweird]

171. A Ruger Mini 14.

[benEzra]

276. Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, 188-series, circa 1989. They've been on the market since the 1970's

and would be banned by name by the "renewed and expanded" AWB, H.R.1022 et seq, even though the gun-control lobby designated it "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" in the original 1994 Feinstein non-ban.

An AR-15 is functionally identical to a Mini-14, and I guess the gun-ban lobby got tired of having that pesky fact pointed out, so they decided to ban the Mini-14 too.

[jeepnstein]

99. What part of the 2nd Amendment...

mentions hunting? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't.

The 2nd Amendment was about the right of able-bodied lawful citizens to own arms. Arms that are intended to be used in the defense of a free state, more specifically. That means that lawful citizens are free to own fighting guns if they see fit.

The man that murdered the trick-or-treater was a criminal and a drug dealer. He's the one who committed murder and the one who should be punished. Would you surrender your free speech because some yahoo stood on a soap box screaming hateful words to incite violence?

I've seen the damage done in this country, first hand, at the hands of criminals who prey on our poorest neighborhoods, our elderly, children, anyone who presents an easy target. I've witnessed the casual indifference they have to the criminal justice system. Perhaps we should focus more on what has become a culture of violence among the criminal set and leave lawful citizens alone.

[plaintiff]

17. How 'bout you try to take MINE, goober?

I'll email you the address.
:grr:

[Bluebear]

19. Well, aren't you the rootin' tootin' one.

[plaintiff]

21. Fuckin' a.

For once you're correct.

[TWiley]

40. fuckin A is not fuckin B

The lamebrain argument that pencils don't cause misspelled words overlooks the obvious fact that there would be no misspelling by pencils if there were no pencils.

If guns really make a community "safer", then why don't we give every grade school kid a MAC-10 to pack in his lunchbox? Won't that make schools safer? Hell, I bet immediate peace would break out in Iraq if we only provide an assult weapon for everyone who lives there along with a truckload of bullets.

[plaintiff]

43. You've blurred the fine line between satire and stupidity.

I see that a lot from people who think the Bill of Rights ends after the First Amendment.

[TWiley]

93. The First Ammendment is more important than the Second one

Odd how many gun nuts want to limit free speech but offer free bazooka's to the faithful.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

95. Also odd how many gun nuts

fervently supported George"just a goddamned piece of paper"Bush.

[michreject]

103. WRONG

Without the 2nd, there wouldn't be a 1st.

[TWiley]

112. WRONG ..... no need for the 2nd if the first is healthy

I suppose you will now sing the "freedom is not free" bullshit song.

[michreject]

119. I don't cherry pick

I support them all EQUALLY. Even your right to come up with an asinine reply.

[TWiley]

152. So, it is more important to shoot first then talk later?

Now, who is the asinine one?

First, lets talk. If political measures fail, then the 2nd ammendment is important, and the shooting starts. Evidently, you believe in the pre-emptive war strategy ....

[michreject]

160. Yes I would talk first

And talk only accomplishes anything when your adversary knows you have the means of another form of confrontation.

[TWiley]

162. Then we agree ..... the First Ammendment is the most important

because without it, violence would become the most viable option

[michreject]

173. No

I hold them all equally important.

With a special fondness for the 2nd.:evilgrin:

[LanternWaste]

151. I thought Absolutism resided only in the religious...

I thought Absolutism resided only in the religious...

[Bluebear]

57. Oh, am I usually wrong about things?

[baby_mouse]

245. Are you tripping?

A lot of the time you sound like you're tripping. In a bad way, I mean.

[depakid]

24. More likely a coward

living in irrational fear (which is probably true of the majority of people who feel the need to own such weapons).

[SteveM]

27. Just love that culture war, don't ya? (nt)

[depakid]

28. Not really- just calling a spade a spade

There's a reason why America has mass shootings every several weeks- whereas other, more sensible nations don't.

And that's firearms (and particularly high capacity, rapid fire weapons) proliferation.

[SteveM]

31. Just because you post in a liberal/progressive site...

doesn't mean you don't indulge in culture war hatred. Take a look at your threads and tell me that they are not motivated by cultural hatred. Millions of people own what you call "assault weapons," yet you have no problem referencing them as "cowards." It is one thing to describe an individual as such, based on that individual's beliefs and actions; yet another to slop your paint all over millions of people.

I see so much animosity from folks who claim to be motivated by peace, concern for political prisoners, and humane treatment of others. You want so much to pin a scarlet letter on people you cannot see how you have "become your own enemy in the instant that you preach."

And you still do not have the intellectual honesty to tell us the difference between "assault weapons" and assault rifles. I doubt you ever will. After all, it is a WAR to you.

[depakid]

47. Just my opinion

People who live in irrational fear and feel the need to arm themselves with these sorts of weapon are cowards, plain and simple. I'm not talking about bona fide gun collecters here.

Mnay of the people who were interviewed on the NPR stories are prime examples of what I'm talking about.

[DrCory]

120. The First 8 Rounds...

Fired from my M1 Garand are just as effective as those first 8 from a hi-cap magazine "assault weapon".

"People who live in irrational fear and feel the need to arm themselves with these sorts of weapon are cowards, plain and simple. I'm not talking about bona fide gun collecters here."

That being the case, how am I not a "coward" in your opinion?

[Greyhound]

52. Has no problem referring to them as cowards as long as he's safely anonymous

behind his firewall.

I'm fairly certain that he, as well as most of the authoritarian scolds, would not be so bold in person.

[depakid]

58. Sure I would- and have

It's hardly being an "authoritarian scold" to point out that America has a dysfunctional firearms policies- or that most of the people who want AK-47's et al. are cowardly and live in fear. Why else would you want to pack that sort of firepower?

It aint for hunting deer (though the occasional nut will make that claim).

[apocalypsehow]

60. Tough guy Mr. greyhound1966 is posting under HIS real name, so why shouldn't - oh, wait...

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

64. At least that keyboard ninja says which state he lives in, and we have a meeting

here in Portland almost every month, so come on down and join in.

Details are posted in the Oregon forum.

[apocalypsehow]

67. Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before: "I'm a tuffie, yes I am; come and kick sand in my face if

you're a man.

See, I filled out the coupon and signed it Yosemite Sam;
They sent me a little booklet, and it wasn't no spam.

And that made me a cyber-tuffie, ready to kick some can;
So come and out-type me, you anonymous little man."

You big, bad pixel-pushers are just too much bad for the rest of us, alrighty.

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

69. That's what I thought. You are the only one intimating any violence here,

In fact, you jumped in to something that wasn't any of your business any way.

How boringly typical. Did you even bother to vote, or was that just too lower-class for your artistic sensibilities?:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

71. Here's greyhound1966 "intimating" some tough guy talk he now denies saying:

"Has no problem referring to them as cowards as long as he's safely anonymous
behind his firewall.

I'm fairly certain that he, as well as most of the authoritarian scolds, would not be so bold in person"

Shoulda asked a mod to delete your original post, before getting caught telling a big windy.

"In fact, you jumped in to something that wasn't any of your business any way"

"Mommy, mommy, he jumped into the middle of me acting like a tuffie and my widdle feelers got hurt!!!" :cry: :cry: :cry:

Snivel us up a big 'ole river, sport.

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

73. Would you please pick one conversation? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

75. Golly, I've heard of one-track minds, and all, but, uh, REALLY? You can't keep up?

:shrug:

Gee. Alrighty, then. How about them Ducks?

[Greyhound]

66. Well come on down to the meeting, I'm told you used to come to them.

Perhaps in a face to face you can make your case instead of simply hurling invectives at people you know nothing about.

Oh and don't worry, I hardly ever come armed.
:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

68. I imagine he's laughing at the absurdity of a grown man acting like a twelve year old in public,

and who is apparently unaware of how ridiculous he looks.

As are pretty much the rest of us. But by all means keep typing; we'll keep laughing.

:hi:

[Greyhound]

72. Is there something that compels you to answer for someone else?

If you bothered to read the exchange, you might have noticed that Depakid is the one that called the poster a coward, I'm not sure what you think you are contributing.

You are apparently laboring under the delusion that anybody cares about your opinion on an issue you obviously know nothing about, but hey, enjoy it, I'm sure there is little enough joy in life for you and if this makes you feel better, I'm glad to help.

[apocalypsehow]

74. Awwwww. That's sweet, ain't it kids? greyhound1966 is just like most big talkers I've known:

call them on it, and they swell up like a poisoned toad and start pouting.

There, there - no need to cry. Just run loving hands over your assault weapon for a few minutes, pop in the "Red Dawn" DVD, and pretty soon it'll be all better, promise.

[Greyhound]

77. A. where's the "big talk". B. How do you imagine that you have "called me on it",

I believe that calling somebody on something involves actually putting yourself out there to back it up. Something you are loath to do.

C. Are you enjoying whatever this is?

[apocalypsehow]

79. A. Let your eyes wander up to post #52. B. Start at that post, and read down from there. C. Call for

adult assistance if you have further trouble. D. Rinse, wash, repeat.

It's pretty straightforward, really.

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

83. Well, you've proved the point of post #52 already and the only calling you've done is in your

imagination. Anonymously. Alone. In the dark.

I and my "person to notify in case of emergency" are going to watch a film now, enjoy your night.

ETA: Wait a minute, is that you, BuckheadBill? Wasn't the first tombstone enough?

[apocalypsehow]

85. Heh - your concession is noted and graciously accepted.

"I and my "person to notify in case of emergency" are going to watch a film now"


Go Wolverines!!!!





:rofl:

[greguganus]

136. I just read they're doing a remake of Red Dawn. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

88. It's just delicious watching meltdowns as a partial ego-salve - all that shrieking on the retreat.

Wait for it, wait for it:

"the only calling you've done is in your
imagination. Anonymously. Alone. In the dark."

Wounded ego-bandage #1: "I got my tail whipped on the facts, but by Gawd I can imply my opponent is alone in the dark."

"ETA: Wait a minute, is that you, BuckheadBill? Wasn't the first tombstone enough?"

And right on cue, Wounded ego-bandage #2: "Well, the facts be damned, and the person who proved me wrong be damned with them - but I can still hurl troll accusations with the best of 'em!!!!!11"

It is so predictable - and quite hilarious.

Edit: close tags.

[apocalypsehow]

82. LOL, and everyone check this out (more keyboard "manliness" on display):

"I believe that calling somebody on something involves actually putting yourself out there to back it up. Something you are loath to do"

You literally couldn't make this kind of silliness up. :rofl:

[Paladin]

76. And It's Not A WAR To You, Is It? Yeah, Right.

I've got a news bulletin for you about that "Culture War" you never, ever tire of whining about. This past Tuesday, November 4, 2008, there was a huge and decisive battle in that war. And my side whipped your side's ass.

And just because you post in a liberal/progressive site...sure as hell doesn't make you a liberal or a progressive. You're Exhibit "A" on that one.

[Dukkha]

32. every several weeks?

any links to stories on mass shootings with assault weapons?

so lets just repeat history and hand over congress to the GOP over a frivolous crime bill

[depakid]

34. AK-47 shooting on Halloween night

Just run a google search on AK-47 and see for yourself how often they come up:

http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=ak-47&btnG=Search+News

[Pavulon]

38. Crack is banned

so is possession of crack, possession of weapon while selling crack, shooting through doors at kids in banned.

So we had a crackhead with a gun. You think cracky will obey the rules.

I dont feel like giving up rights because of crackheads. I would rather ban crack. Oh shit we did, and people still have it.

[curse of greyface]

44. Yeah i pretty sure a black crack dealer shooting a kid isn't the meme you were looking for. nt

[depakid]

51. Click on the google news search

though dug dealers having easy access to these weapons is also part of the problem with proliferation. Just as the guy at Virginia Tech was- or last week's mass shooting at University of Central Arkansas.

These things have become so common that they're hardly even big news anymore.

Which should tell you something about the dysfunctional nature of your firearms policies.

Not that they're going to change- but people abroad look at Americans and think they're insane for tolerating (and perhaps even encouraging) such repeated and senseless violence.

[Pavulon]

62. Geneva and Zurich

lots of guns, very safe cities.

[benEzra]

129. The Virginia Tech shooter used an ordinary 9mm pistol and a .22 pistol,

not an "assault weapon" of any description. Pesky facts and all that.

[benEzra]

96. Only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle...

twice as many people are murdered using shoes and bare hands as with all rifles put together, including so-called "assault weapons."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

You are using the rarest of gun crimes to stump for bans on the lawful and responsible ownership of the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN THE UNITED STATES. Substantially more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt.

Police gun deaths are now the lowest they've been since 1960:

http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_MidYear_Report.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel08/leoka051208.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel07/leoka051407.htm



But fearmongering is SOOO much more fun, I suppose...gotta find some "other" group to hate, right?

[spin]

165. What shooting on Halloween night...

were you referring to?

Was it perhaps this story about a 12 year old child shot through a door while trick or treating in South Carolina?

http://www.thestate.com/154/story/577510.html

If it was, did you realize:

Patrick, 22, did not enter a plea to either the murder charge or three charges for assault and battery with intent to kill. He told police he opened fire because he feared he was being robbed by people approaching his home wearing masks.

He has been convicted three times for intent to distribute crack cocaine, Sumter police Detective Irene Culick said at the hearing.

***************snip*****************

Police aren’t sure how Patrick came into possession of the AK-47 rifle, which was fired at least 29 times through the doors, walls and windows of his home.

As a convicted felon, he is banned from possessing a firearm, police said.

I doubt that any gun control laws would have stopped this incident. Honest citizens obey laws, criminals do not. Since he was convicted of distributing crack cocaine, obtaining a weapon illegally would present not major problems.

I seriously believe that gun control should focus on taking firearms away from criminals. If we reduce the crime rate in this country, we will reduce the demand for firearms. Fewer people wanting firearms will result in fewer firearms on the street. Far better gun control than the last Assault Weapons Ban which merely increased the sales of these weapons.

[plaintiff]

41. Some say you go to hell for lying.

But I'm sure that doesn't worry you.

[Greyhound]

49. Watch out, dude, the keyboard ninjas are a comin' for ya.

:rofl:

We don't get that type very often over here, it's pretty amusing.

:rofl:

[VOX]

141. What earthly good can come from having this kind of hardware? Why do you feel you need it?

If you want to protect home and hearth, most sober shooters agree that a shotgun is superior to a handgun or some type of semi-automatic weapon.

We've read over and over about some individuals believe in being prepared for "when the country gets taken over," as if people will band together in some goofy "Red Dawn" scenario.

I don't believe in "gun grabbing," but there's just not much common sense in owning hardware like this. IMO, it has no practical use, and it's equivalent to having bars put on all one's windows (thereby making the house a death-trap in case of fire) -- the potential for doing harm (accidential or otherwise) is far greater than for doing any good.

[Dimensio0]

143. If your concerns are rational, you can justify them.

If you want to protect home and hearth, most sober shooters agree that a shotgun is superior to a handgun or some type of semi-automatic weapon.

I own a firearm that would, under most legislation, be classified as a semi-automatic "assault weapon" that is a shotgun. I obtained it for recreational target shooting and for home defense. Nonetheless, my handgun is a far superior tool for defense outside of the home, as it is easier to conceal and to carry.

I don't believe in "gun grabbing," but there's just not much common sense in owning hardware like this. IMO, it has no practical use, and it's equivalent to having bars put on all one's windows (thereby making the house a death-trap in case of fire) -- the potential for doing harm (accidential or otherwise) is far greater than for doing any good.

Your assertion of "no pratical use" is demonstrably false; such firearms are used for recreational target shooting, hunting and personal defense. If your concern regarding "potential for doing harm" is viable then you should be able to substantiate it; please do so.

[LanternWaste]

145. What a buckaroo...

Bless your little heart. What a buckaroo you are.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bluebear]

148. Cute, isn't it?

[tuckessee]

105. Molon labe, moran! n/t

[DrCory]

147. Don't forget...

To have your brownshirt dry cleaned! Oh, and be sure to polish your boots and Sam Browne belt.

Then I will personally take it from you when we reinstate the ban.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. The redneck yahoos who buy those things would be the first ones

to line up for a fascist overthrow of the government, not to protect their or anybody else's freedom.

[SteveM]

12. Good to see you're still carrying on the culture war (nt)

[plaintiff]

20. That's right up there near the top of goofy comments ever written hereabouts.

jeezusfuckingchrist

[fascisthunter]

53. not really.... look at what the NRA and their Members say about Liberals

very extreme

PS - most NRA members vote Republican and voted for Bush. With Bush in office we have seen all our rights go down the drain and not one peep from those who bitch about their rights to arms. So yes, they would side with a fascist government because they ALREADY DID!

[alarimer]

223. Exactly.

They're really scared of a black president, the little chicken-shits, needing to arm themselves against some imaginary threat from the new government, when the REAL fascism always comes from their Republican darlings.

[InternalDialogue]

6. Ironically, that will stimulate the economy.

Come 2009, when there's no riots for the freepers to participate in or defend against, they'll have to sit at home with their new guns, stroke them softly, and watch the burgeoning economy, all spurred on by the impulse purchases.

[Dimensio0]

117. If the economy recovers, as you predict, ...

...they may be able to further contribute to it through ammunition purchases, as reduced costs on currently expensive ammunition would allow for more frequent and extended recreational target shooting sessions.

This will not occur, however, if certain unreasonable restrictions on firearms or ammunition are passed, however. For example, Senator Ted Kennedy has, in the past, proposed a ban on all ammunition capable of piercing body armour; such an unreasonable ban would prohibit all rifle ammunition, including hunting and target ammunition. A number of lawmakers have also proposed mandating "serializing" ammunition, which would increase ammunition costs while providing no demonstrable benefit; such increased cost would discourage target shooting and thus prevent economic improvement from the activity.

[aikoaiko]

7. I'm one of those people buying guns and accessories that might be banned under a AWB reauthorization

Its rednecks, city folks, people from the 'burbs, Democrats, Republicans, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

Its everybody.

I tell you all who revel in the idea of reauthorizing the AWB, Federal gun bans of any firearms will be a disaster for our party.

[DireStrike]

8. Obama's already helping the economy! Gun industry sales up!

Soon to be followed by hospital visits....

[JohnnyRingo]

9. A lot of it is speculation of a commodity

These guns aren't being bought to shoot, as that eventually devalues the weapon.

When the assault rifle ban took effect in the '90s my youngest son's Bushmaster almost doubled in price. When the ban expired a few years ago, the value dropped again. He should have sold it before the expiration, then bought another one later.

Meanwhile, as stated in an earlier reply, this is an infusion of cash into the retail market that may otherwise have been laying stagnate in a bank account. Can't be bad for the economy.

Many don't realize that collectors don't buy guns to hunt with or for crime, they take on the properties of art or jewelry, and can rise in value depending on rarity and aesthetics.

[RamboLiberal]

10. Here's an email I got today

BTW this is the site where the Virginia Tech shooter bought one of his guns. Now I don't blame the website, just find it ironic. They can't see that Bush didn't believe in the Constitution except for the 2nd amendment. I'm looking forward to in 4 years telling these idiots I told you so that Obama is not going to take away their guns.

That is what we got with the election on Tuesday. We've elected a man that doesn't believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and will do what he can to dilute it. We have taken a giant step backwards in our Constitutional rights. We have given ourselves up to socialism and leftist thinking. Our best hope is that this future President can so completely screw things up that he is remembered in the same sentence as Jimmy Carter and inspire a true conservative resurrection for the next election.

The pending gun legislation that is in the Congress is scary as all hell. With a democratic President, I shudder to think of the possibilities over the next 4 years. I will do my best to keep you updated.

Stay on our list for the latest updates. We'll inform you of your proposed Constitutional infringements regardless of your voting preference. Just remember, I reserve the right to tell you "I told you so."

That being said, our distributors tell us that all standard capacity magazines, AR15's and assault style weapons are being bought out. I haven't seen a shortage like this in many years. Although I think this is a bit premature, I don't blame anyone for getting the items that they think they should. Either way, the products are selling out and now is the time to buy.

Best of luck to all. You will need it in the next 4 years and the several years that will be needed to fix the mistakes of our next President elect. My many thanks to those of you that voted for this empty suit and sold out our Constitutional Rights.
Best regards,

Eric R. Thompson
President
TGSCOM Inc.
www.TheGunSource.com

[plaintiff]

18. Well, I for one will feel totally safe when only cops have 15 round magazines.

:eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

39. Big deal - so you're safer with only 10 round magazines?

You ever see how fast a mag can be dumped and changed by someone with practice? And since the old mags were grandfathered there were still plenty of high caps around - just more expensive.

That was another stupidity of the AWB because of a couple of high profile shootings. Dems should stay away from this stupidity this time.

[plaintiff]

45. I guess I should have used the sarcasm thingy.

Apparently it's more necessary than I imagined. :shrug:

[curse of greyface]

30. With the market the way it is... Assault weapons are a solid investment.

Any gun ban will create a nice windfall.

[TWiley]

37. These are not ordinary enthusiasts .... read this:

http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_3...

When you look at the picture, you will notice the little militia man painted on the building. Locally, this store is known as the Militia's arsenal. For those with a short memory, Timothy McVeigh was a member of the Michigan Malitia Story here:


Local shop flies American flag upside down

Hampel's employees call it a signal of 'distress'

By SHERI McWHIRTER
[e-mail]


TRAVERSE CITY -- Not everyone is excited about the nation's first black president. Some are downright hostile.

Employees at Hampel's Key and Lockshop on Randolph Street in Traverse City flew an American flag upside down Wednesday in protest of Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election.

And one employee directed a racial slur at Obama during a telephone interview with a Record-Eagle reporter.

"(The inverted flag is) an international signal for distress and we feel our country is in distress because the n----- got in," said Hampel's employee Rod Nyland, of Traverse City.

An hour later, Nyland apologized for the comment.

"I regret my choice of words. That was a poor choice and I apologize," he said. "It's probably not appropriate."

Hampel's Inc. is a gun and lock shop licensed by the state since 1989, according to state records. City tax records show the shop is owned by Karl Hampel of Traverse City, who could not be reached for comment.

<snip>

complete story here

http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_3...

[apocalypsehow]

46. Between that and doubling up on those monthly doses of EXTENZE, their male enhancement goals

should be amply met. :thumbsup:



( :crazy: )



Edit: yep.

[gatorboy]

50. The title should be, "Racist, Gun Nut Assholes Afraid Pres. Obama Will Show Up at Their Door

[fascisthunter]

56. you should add... "who supported a Fascist (BUSH) and Didn't do Shit about

all their other rights being flushed down the drain."

As if they gave a fuck about rights.

[Blue_Tires]

87. +1

i wonder what other wedge-issue crutch they will cling to a year from now when someone points out Obama has let them keep their guns...

[yellowcanine]

65. Good. This should help some of the rural economies. Not to mention keeping some of the good old

boys out of trouble as they blast away at targets in the woods and help keep the rat populations in check at the dumps.

[mgc1961]

70. This is a copy of an e-mail I sent...

...to my sister regarding assault rifles:

I went to the shooting range yesterday to pop some caps and while I wanted to pay a guy in line behind me was talking to other customers. The gist of his remarks were: He was glad business was so good because it wasn't going to be in light of the election results and he said he advised a young friend to buy a bunch of guns under his grandfather's name because he wouldn't be able to get them later. <head shaking>

I was so tempted to say something but decided instead to keep quiet. The comforting part of the encounter was the older couple in line behind him seemed to be blowing off his fear talk too.

:tinfoilhat:

[Shardik]

80. While I will rankle the hides of the contingent of pro-gun folks here,

I remember when Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his Manlicher via USPS and killed Kennedy with it. I remember too many murders with guns that are too easily accessible to too many people who have no real reason or business in owning a firearm.

People blowing 30 rounds though their doors on Halloween, Columbines, Stuart Whitmans... We are no longer emotionally capable to be a nation of armed people any longer. The cost is too high.

I don't want to take your guns, but I DO want to see legislation that demands a higher level of gun control aimed at keeping guns out of those who might be termed mentally unstable or who are stupid enough to leave access to their guns open to others.

I've heard the arguments, Cars kill people, the criminals will get their guns no matter what... But really, if the number of guns started shrinking, the number would start shrinking all over the map. As far as Home protection goes? Gimme a shotgun. It'll work. I promise.

[mgc1961]

91. Unrestricted ownership of assault rifles and the like...

...is an invitation to disaster.

[benEzra]

97. Assault rifles are as tightly controlled as howitzers and 500-lb bombs...

and have been for 74 years, under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act. Unauthorized possession is a 10-year Federal felony.

"Assault weapons" aren't military assault rifles. They are small-caliber, NON-automatic, civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out.

More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, yet only 3% of murders involve ANY type of rifle; twice as many people are murdered with shoes and bare hands. Methinks you've been spun somewhat.

http://www.tribtalk.com/showthread.php?t=16466

[mgc1961]

102. If I failed to make myself clear...

...let me try again. There are many gun advocates who firmly believe that any, I repeat, any restriction on their ownership of firearms is a violation of their Constitutional rights.

Unauthorized ownership? Speaking of spun, that's a rhetorical diversion from the issue of real ownership and I'm talking generally about gun ownership too. What does it tell you when you can walk into a gun shop and see an AK-47 hanging on the wall like a pair of sale priced khaki pants? Tell me please, what are the restrictions on ownership of said weapons? Having a pulse? Standing upright? A height minimum? Excluding a prior record of law breaking, does authorized ownership of these weapons include demonstrating a reasonable degree of responsibility beyond just money and desire?

I'd also be interested in knowing how many assault rifles are currently circulating in the U.S. and how fast is that number growing? Is there a thresh hold at which a well armed militia becomes a threat to community peace rather than a safeguard against rogue law breakers? What's to be done then, civil war? All things to consider.

Sorry, the NRA, gun manufacturers, and their industry allies are not reliable purveyors of truth.

[benEzra]

108. Real AK-47's and other assault rifles are automatic weapons, and as such are as tightly controlled

Unauthorized ownership? Speaking of spun, that's a rhetorical diversion from the issue of real ownership and I'm talking generally about gun ownership too. What does it tell you when you can walk into a gun shop and see an AK-47 hanging on the wall like a pair of sale priced khaki pants? Tell me please, what are the restrictions on ownership of said weapons? Having a pulse? Standing upright? A height minimum? Excluding a prior record of law breaking, does authorized ownership of these weapons include demonstrating a reasonable degree of responsibility beyond just money and desire?

Real AK-47's and other assault rifles are automatic weapons, and as such are as tightly controlled as 105mm howitzers and 500-lb bombs under Federal law. Possession outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first obtain a BATFE Form 4. Obtaining a Form 4 requires a spotless record, extensive BATFE paperwork, the signature of your local chief law enforcement officer, and around a six month wait. If you are granted a Form 4, you can only purchase the weapon from a specially licensed Title 2/Class III dealer, and only pre-1986 collectibles may be transferred to non-government civilians; a pre-1986 civilian transferable AK-47 will run you about $17,000 with a Form 4.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

"Assault weapons," on the other hand, are non-automatic civilian guns, and work like any other civilian self-loading rifle. If you see an "AK-47" hanging on the wall of your local gun shop, it is a non-automatic civilian carbine functionally identical to a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle, NOT a NFA Title 2/Class III restricted assault rifle. To own one, you have to be 18, have a clean record, not ajudicated mentally incompetent, and pass a Federal background check at the point of sale, just like any other civilian rifle.

I personally own a non-automatic civilian AK, a Romanian SAR-1. It is slightly less powerful than a .30-30 Winchester, and fires no faster than a Ruger or a Marlin; I shoot recreationally and competitively with it, and if I ever take up hunting, it is suitable for hunting small to medium sized deer.

I'd also be interested in knowing how many assault rifles are currently circulating in the U.S. and how fast is that number growing?

Between 16 million and 40 million, depending on how you define the elastic term "assault weapon." For comparison, between 12 and 16 million Americans hunt. They've been on the civilian market since the 1940's (M1 carbine), the AR-15 hit the civilian market in 1961, but sales really took off after 1994.

AFAIK, the single most common centerfire rifle in U.S. homes is the SKS, although the AR-15 platform is gaining and may replace it as #1 in a few years. The AR-15 is currently the #1 selling centerfire rifle in America and has been for some time.

Is there a thresh hold at which a well armed militia becomes a threat to community peace rather than a safeguard against rogue law breakers? What's to be done then, civil war? All things to consider.

Despite the fact that more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, rifles are consistently among the least misused of all firearms. Only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle, and twice as many people are murdered with shoes and bare hands as with all rifles put together.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

The "assault weapon menace" is pure scaremongering, intended to make outlawing the most popular civilian rifles look "reasonable."

[mgc1961]

109. All very interesting.

What do you think about non-authorized ownership of these weapons such as by theft? Is that, in your estimation, a legitimate concern or would you classify that as a scare tactic?

You still haven't answered the question as to whether you think there's a thresh hold at which gun ownership becomes a danger.

[benEzra]

111. Which weapons? NFA Title 2 restricted assault rifles, or civilian "assault weapons"?

Obviously, criminal possession of ANY gun is a cause for concern. That is what I think the focus should be on, not whether or not small-caliber rifles in the homes and gun safes of the law-abiding have protruding handgrips, adjustable length stocks, or post-1860's magazine capacities. But criminal possession of NFA Title 2 assault rifles is extremely rare, and criminal use of NFA Title 1 rifles of any type is in the 3% range or less, as I pointed out. Unlike handguns, long guns are just not practical to conceal on the person or in the passenger compartment of a vehicle.

FWIW, I am OK with the point-of-sale background check for purchase, prohibition on ownership of any gun by violent felons, and the existing tight controls on automatic weapons. What I oppose is outlawing the lawful and responsible purchase and use of currently legal NFA Title 1 non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms because the repubs at the Brady Campaign call them scary names.

[mgc1961]

114. Agreed.

The gun is not by definition the danger but I'm not sure I'll ever be completely comfortable with the proposition that ownership of same will not become too popular, if you get my drift.

[benEzra]

127. They're already the most popular centerfire rifles in America,

if you're speaking of civilian "assault weapons." They dominate competitive and recreational target shooting, and are the second most common defensive long gun in U.S. homes, second only to the traditional 12-gauge shotgun.



Title 2 restricted assault rifles, on the other hand will never be widespread in the USA, because the supply of civilian-transferable guns was frozen in 1986 at around 100,000. Automatic weapons not already NFA registered by 1986 can only be sold to police, military, government, or their suppliers/distributors, and can never be sold/transferred to non-LEO civilians.

FWIW, here's a photo showing how shallow the "assault weapon" meme is:



Same rifle, 3 different stocks. The gun is no more dangerous wearing the second or third stock than it is wearing the first.

[mgc1961]

187. I'm talking about both the guns and owners.

Those are not mutually exclusive considerations. Perhaps Just a yeller Dawg put it more succinctly than I did. See remark #168.

Out.

[benEzra]

275. Any new bans on rifle handgrips that stick out...

would only affect people like me, who actually care enough about the law to obey it. And a protruding handgrip or a military-looking appearance have nothing whatsoever to do with rifle lethality.

Military automatic weapons are already ultra-tightly controlled; you are talking about legislating rifle stock shape and ergonomics, not capabilities, and such legislation would affect almost exclusively law-abiding shooters, not gun-wielding criminals.

[Shardik]

168. Our entire gun control paradigm is at the moment.

Too many people with too easy access.

[Dimensio0]

169. Do you have a proposed solution to offer?

[Shardik]

188. Licensing, for one.

Psychological testing and qualification testing. You can't own an exotic animal or even grow certain plants without extensive loops to jump through, why should you be able to own an instrument that is able to do more damage than a lion that is mishandled or uncontrolled?

[Pavulon]

189. Break out income of NFA owners...

then apply that to ALL firearms ownership. 50,000 - 75,000 above bottom would be a guess line income or 300k in real assets.

Sound fair? Break out most of our murders by income...

Just like ccw in NYC, money buys privilege right.

Just use that rather than a psych test. Real popular.

[Shardik]

191. Sorry, you'll have to explain that to me without the acronyms.

NFA? CCW? I have no idea what you are talking about.

OTOH, I would think that the rules would apply to all regardless of income unless you are implying that money has something to do with mental capabilities?

[Pavulon]

194. The NFA regulates real machine guns

it has since the mid 30's. You can buy a real browning M2 50 cal belt fed machine gun legally. You can also buy an M4 rifle.

They cost 50,000 and 20,000 dollars respectively. This for a weapon that costs $3500 - 5000 and $750 retail. So people who drop 20 large on a weapon don't use them in drive by shootings. There have been 2 murders with NFA weapons, one was carried by a police officer. 2.

All this assault weapon stuff is orwell for semi automatic rifle that looks scary. You can buy very expensive hunting rifles that operate on the same physics.

CCW is concealed carry. Technically illegal in cities like NYC ane some parts of SOCAL among other places. However if ou have the money to buy around the permit you get the permit. So a 5 grand donation to someones coffer speeds along the process.

So ban guns for poor people. If you live in public housing a trailer and your cant show income income in the 90th percentile, no weapon. That makes sense on paper..

However it is just as stupid as banning a replica. Assault weapon is a term made up by morons sold to morons as a solution to a real problem.

edit:clarity

[Shardik]

196. In United States military parlance an assault weapon refers to weapons designed for and used in

assault operations.

That could include any firearm. I have not brought that term up in my conversation until now. I won't get into a discussion based on semantics with you as fond as you are in doing so as evidenced in your many previous posts on this subject.

No, I don't want to ban weapons from poor people but do want to ban weapons of the ilk that are rapid fire, high velocity easily concealed from you and others like you. Where those weapons might be "safe" in your hands, they are not in the hands of the Columbine kids who steal them from your safe.

For sport, last time looked, the Olympics used 22's and Trap and Skeet shooters used shotguns.

Fuck the term "Assault weapon." They are all assault weapons.

America needs serious gun control because too much of the populace believe Red Dawn is right around the corner and masturbate over being the dancer Patrick Swaze.

[Pavulon]

197. Lets ban dope, booze, and hookers. People will just give up

oh fuck, wait we did that and it does not work. I can get a hooker from 200 to 1000 an hour, to deliver me a gram of coke or half oz, with a PHONE CALL and a VISA. Dont have to get off my couch.

All law is semantics, firearms are technical. They require technical language. Those to lazy to learn about what they want to ban get no voice. America needs to address root cause and stop falling for bullshit "were doing something" bills. I demand a real solution.

Gun control is for people to stupid to address root cause. What is root cause for minority over representation in murder. Why are cities like chicago and LA suffering crime and Geneva not?

I use several shotguns. One Remington pump in the rain and one H&H over and under in nice weather. The H&H was more expensive than my first car. I keep a beretta shotgun as well. Because I can. If I felt the need for a rifle that fired 556 nato I would not buy a replica semi auto. COLT M4's are on the market at $20,000. Legal.

I dont have kids, I do have a safe. I did serve in the NG and did time M2 machine guns and am quite familiar with how a COLT rifle and Browning machine gun function.

Assault weapon was never discussed, select fire rifle. co axial mounted weapons, yes. They are not the same, they are no where near the same. That is why this is a joke.

Your kid texting behind the wheel is a real danger. Fix that then start trying to ban lightning strikes.

[Shardik]

200. Don't flatter yourself.

"All law is semantics, firearms are technical." They all (guns) work on principals devised over a century ago. Law, on the other hand is not. It has been the culmination of human experience since we have been able to communicate.

You ask, "Gun control is for people to stupid to address root cause. What is root cause for minority over representation in murder. Why are cities like (SIC) chicago and LA suffering crime and Geneva not?"

People like you.

People who romanticize and deify the gun. People who make the gun a symbol of what makes us free. People who are afraid. There are the root causes, and too many of us are "to stupid" to acknowledge them.

You say, "Lets ban dope, booze, and hookers. People will just give up." Personally, I'd rather see someone with any of those three in my house than have them here with a gun. It's interesting that you include hookers with two physically addictive things in that there might be the most similar thing to gun fanaticism. Sexual... Wow. I didn't expect things to go there.

On a serious note, have you considered getting some help or other advice on this subject? I'm not being sarcastic here but I feel that there might be something you might want to address for your own happiness. I'm sure you're a very good person with very good intentions but you're exhibiting sentiments that could be best addressed in therapy. You can PM me if you would like and I can recommend someone in your area,

[DrCory]

228. Are You Suggesting...

That anyone who wishes to purchase an "assault weapon" is mentally ill?

"On a serious note, have you considered getting some help or other advice on this subject? I'm not being sarcastic here but I feel that there might be something you might want to address for your own happiness. I'm sure you're a very good person with very good intentions but you're exhibiting sentiments that could be best addressed in therapy. You can PM me if you would like and I can recommend someone in your area,

[Shardik]

231. I wasn't.

But now that you mention it, I do try to stay clear of the types that do and want to (own assault weapons).

But if you read the entire post that you quote from in its entire context you know darn well what I was addressing.

[DrCory]

235. Not Buying It...

From Your Post # 196

"No, I don't want to ban weapons from poor people but do want to ban weapons of the ilk that are rapid fire, high velocity easily concealed from you and others like you.

"like you" meaning what, precisely?

"But now that you mention it, I do try to stay clear of the types that do and want to (own assault weapons)".

Which, according to another statement made by you in post #196:

"For sport, last time looked, the Olympics used 22's and Trap and Skeet shooters used shotguns.
Fuck the term "Assault weapon." They are all assault weapons."

Would suggest you dislike any gun owner.

[Pavulon]

234. Aristotelian logic at its finest(nt)

[Pavulon]

233. Quite Happy in Chapel Hill

low crime rate, diverse community. Good jobs. Here is the reality. Gun bans and laws fail to address poverty mental health and sociological (cultural) issues that underpin MOST deaths. You have suicide and drug violence pushing those numbers.

Dont worry about me, I am a happy person, guns and all.

Most politicians who pimp gun control are way to scared to address those issues because they take work and years to fix.

It is as simple as that, really. Do something that looks good feels good, or actually fix problems?

As for bans I listed the most FANTASTIC failed bans I could think of. Prohibition and the war on drugs. Both bad ideas, but we still try the latter. Cant ban a problem away. The hooker part underscores the absolute failure of it all.

I'm not out murdering people. I an not ready to start throwing out constitutional rights because of assholes that do. I'm not the problem.

[DrCory]

237. Fear...

Of being victimized by violent crime is a prefectly reasonable judtification to own a firearm.

"People who romanticize and deify the gun. People who make the gun a symbol of what makes us free. People who are afraid. There are the root causes, and too many of us are "to stupid" to acknowledge them."

Romaticize? Deify? Sounds like the phrasology one might expect in a discussion of mental stability. If you were not attempting to make the OP seem unstable, why would you use such terms?

[Recursion]

222. I'm confused

do want to ban weapons of the ilk that are rapid fire

Already banned. Since 1934.

high velocity

Can you be more specific?

easily concealed from you and others like you

Oh, so you want to ban handguns? Those are the only "easily concealed" weapons. Also the only weapons used to any great extent in crime.

the Olympics used 22

The M-16 is a 22. Does that mean it's ok to own one?

[Shardik]

229. I thought the M-16 was a .223?

So is the 14. As you probably know, the main difference is in the load.

And yes, I see no reason for easily concealable weapons in polite society. I really don't like the fact that everyone has access to weapons/ammo that when they miss the deer, the projectile can travel and fell a kid nearly a mile away.

As to rapid fire, yes. A weapon that fires as quickly as you can twitch your finger is again not a thing we need in our society when too many are too unstable.

It's obvious, I don't like guns and you do. Neither of those facts make either of us good or bad. It makes us of different opinions. Neither of these opinions are a litmus test to be a Democrat.

But, it does make for a good party where we may have differing opinions.

[Pavulon]

236. In you field I am sure they have a technical language.

medicine, drafting, roofing. All have technical language to describe things specific to that area.

The M16 and M4 are variations of E. Stoners design. (Really). This is 50 year old technology. They fire a round called 5.56 nato which is a variation of Remington 223. 556 like all military rounds is designed to comply with the laws governing war. It is NOT a hollow point.

Basically stoner figured out you can carry more ammo and that 90% of rounds are fired for cover. So he used a smaller round.

I do NOT own the civi versions of these rifles because they are generally overpriced and do not perform their initial purpose. Select fire. That is the term for a rifle that can fire single aimed shots, or fire in 3 shot bursts or full automatic fire.

This is not available to most people.

The whole fast as the finger can twitch is over 100 year old technology. You can not ban semi automatic weapons any more than you can ban morning coffee.

I dont like lots of things, but I bother to understand them before suggesting they be removed from others.

As for a deer rifle it is FAR more powerful and consistent than "assault rifles". They fire more powerful rounds and are effective at much longer distances. Many are issued into the military as "sniper rifles" that should make them more scary.

You can get started banning the remington 700 bolt action rifle.

[Shardik]

238. Pavulon, this whole "you don't understand" agument is a straw man.

I was at one time a gun dealer. I never suggested that 223's were hollow points. I live in the country and have seen the damage done by errant bullets. I have more knowledge of guns than I'd like to have :)

Believe me, I understand. Only too well.

It is fine and good that we stand on different sides of this issue. While I won't damn you for your position I ask that you offer the same respect.

[Recursion]

253. I read JAYD's comment as just joshin' me, as we say

I was being a little condescending and simplistic and he called me on it.

[DrCory]

225. In Regard...

"Psychological testing and qualification testing"

To the "psycological testing", who shall perform this evalution? The government, the police? Do you REALLY want these entities to have the power to determine who is, and who is not psychologically "sound" to exercise a fundememtal right as guarateed by the BOR? How would this be considered a fair process by powers who may have a desire to disarm the population at large.

Imagine the possibilities, if you will, of how this may be extended into other civil liberties.

[jabbothedog]

144. easy solution

Don't let violent criminals out of prison. If they can't be trusted to behave back in society (such as illegally obtaining a rifle and killing a trick-or-treater), don't let them out. Now, I know what people will say, "it's too expensive to have a high jail population". Well, that's because we let it be.

Turn prisons into for-profit work farms. 100% of Dept of Corrections funding can come from prisoner labor. If the budget falls short, turn off the cable, no more steak and ice cream at meal time. Make prison something that people don't want to go back to. If they want their cable back, then it's overtime in the gravel pit turning big rocks into little rocks.

Then, make criminal possession of a firearm an automatic "three strike" crime that results in a life sentence. Make ex-cons SCARED to be around a gun.

Don't get into the idea that the nation "can't afford gun violence" so we must have more gun control. For Obama to have a chance to change the country's direction, he needs a mojority in Congress. The last "sensible" gun control law swept the Democrats out of power and kept them out for the next 12 years. If Democrats want to get serious about gun crime they need to show they are tough on criminals.

[Greyhound]

209. Right, state sponsored slave labor, that's the ticket.

How about removing the motivations for crime? How about treating mentally ill people for their illnesses?

If you look at the statistics there is one sure way to bring crime levels down, ensure that people are able to live without deprivation. That means spreading the wealth around, a good economy and an assurance of security. These are the issues that have, and will, reduce crime.

[goodgd_yall]

81. Is that the reason?

Or is is something more sinister?

[verdalaven]

86. I wondered that too

Today at work, a young rw mccain supporter assured me that President Obama would never take the oath of office. She believes that "someone" will see to that, and said so with a smile.

It was stated like an opinion, not a threat. She wouldn't take her hatred that far, but it was clear she enjoyed the thought that someone in our country would.

These are small, one subject people who honestly believe the end justifies the means. It scares me that they are beefing up their gun collections.

[goodgd_yall]

89. yep n/t

[aikoaiko]

100. The run on guns is independent of the racists wanna be assassins.

Most of the people I know, including me, who are getting caught up in the buying frenzy merely want to make sure that we own the guns and accessories that we'd like to own and pass down to our children if a ban comes to be.

Almost any deer hunting rifle was make a superior "sniper rifle" to the guns listed in past or proposed gun bans. Not that an AR or AK couldn't be used, but most medium to large game hunting rifles would be better. And no one will ever propose banning them.

[Blue_Tires]

92. ugh...i've also been hearing whispers in and around my workplace

hinting at some kind of potential violence...i know it's just talk, but it still isn't easy to hear

[benEzra]

101. I was burned badly by the passage of the 1994 Feinstein law.

My father said of the original Feinstein bill in 1994, "That won't pass. This is America." I agreed. He, and I, were wrong.

So the stock that folds for storage I was going to buy but put off a couple months for financial reasons (newly married, bills to pay), I put off for TEN YEARS until the silly law expired. The stock was still perfectly legal, but it wouldn't have been legal for me to install it on my rifle (even though no one would have known), and I am pretty scrupulous about obeying even stupid laws, so I waited. I could have bought another rifle that already had a folder on it, but my rifle was the first centerfire I ever bought and I wanted to keep it. And, my wife ended up paying over $100 for a spare magazine for her 9mm pistol, that was less than $20 prior to the law's passage.

While I think Obama is too smart to repeat Clinton's mistake and go after lawful gun owners like that, I am not naive enough to think it couldn't happen again (or worse), given the continual fearmongering by the repubs at the Brady Campaign and some elements of the DLC. So I am looking at going ahead and threading the muzzle of my carbine for a brake or flash suppressor at some point, and installing a flashlight mount, just in case the DLC'ers manage to get a ban passed. I'm optimistic that they won't, though.

[jmg257]

104. Hmmm...do you mock all people who prefer to enjoy lawful secured rights, or only

those who appreciate a right you happen not to agree with? Or is it only those people you feel must be "rednecks"?

Hard to respect someone who doesn't even try to understand that others might have slightly different views, fears, lives, backgrounds, or interests then they do, but instead mocks them. No wonder propositions like #8 pass - pure bigotry.

[yodoobo]

115. Idiots are going to feel silly when they become worthless

If and when a new AWB ban is passed, it would make absolutely NO SENSE to make the same mistakes as in the past.

In the last AWB, people were still allowed to trade, sell and buy AWs if they were manufactured before 1994. Manufacturers then evaded the ban by renaming the weapons, and removing a few cosmetic features so they could continue to manufacture them (their killing quotient remained the same)

Together, there were plenty of "preban" weapons, and ban-evading "post ban" weapons which were essentially identical.

Obama is way to smart to repeat that mistake.

No. The next ban, will make it impossible to trade them, and hopefully will provide provisions to buy them back from individuals at the depreciated prices.

To allow the criminal gun lobby to continue to produce ban evading assault weapons, and allow the buying and selling of them would be a tragic mistake.

I'm very hopeful that we can get these criminal tools off the streets soon.

[piedmont]

121. The "next" ban will ensure another Democratic walk in the wilderness

For a class of weapon that causes less than 3% of all gun deaths, you would have Democratic reps and senators tossed out of office in almost every district we've recently made gains in. Let it go.

[yodoobo]

133. Most of the population wants these insane weapons banned

Its in the Democratic platform and the vote was VERY clear on Tuesday.

And 3% is way to many to sacrifice for a rich mans hobby.

And no, we wouldnt lose any reps or senators. In fact we would simply build on our gains.

[Dimensio0]

140. Please substantiate your claims.

Demonstrate that the firearms to which you refer are "insane". Demonstrate that it is the desire of "most of the population" that these firearms be banned. Explain how this desire, once demonstrated, supercedes the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Please demonstrate that such a ban would result in a "build" upon the gains to which you refer.

[spin]

156. sef delete

[beevul]

274. Most of the population...

Most of the population has NO CLUE what weapons any "assault weapon ban" actually covers.

You appeared to be one of those, thinking it had anything at all to do with machine guns.


It doesn't and it was never intended to.

[Dimensio0]

123. What rational reason exists for such a "ban" in the first place?

I'm very hopeful that we can get these criminal tools off the streets soon.

Please justify your assertion. Show that all firearms classified by "assault weapons" by any legislation are "criminal tools".

Please explain why current legal owners of such firearms should be subjected to confiscation of their property without full compensation.

[yodoobo]

131. I think that owners should be compensated

I thought I was clear on that, but no biggie.

Assault weapons are criminal tools. Unless you are on your local swat team, or in the military, if they are a tool at all then they are being used for criminal means.

Granted, there are many people who buy them for hobby purposes and thats legal, but they arent tools then. Until they get stolen and then used by criminals.

[Dimensio0]

135. The compensation that you suggested...

... results in a net loss for the owner.

Assault weapons are criminal tools.

Please substantiate this assertion. Demonstrate that "assault weapons" are frequently used by criminals as "tools" and provide a justification for banning them.

Granted, there are many people who buy them for hobby purposes and thats legal, but they arent tools then.

Why not? Are you attempting to redefine the meaning of "tool" when applied to "assault weapons" so that the term is only applicable when the firearm is used in a criminal act? Why is an "assault weapon" not a tool when used for personal defense, target shooting (whether recreationally or in competition) or hunting?

What rational reason exists for a ban on "assault weapons"? What current demonstrable harm exists as a result of their legal avaliability? Please show that this harm would not occur if such firearms were not legally available. Explain how such a ban does not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[yodoobo]

154. Government should not provide a windfall for speculators

When they are bought back, they should only pay the fair depreciated value. However, if that were the only obstacle to getting this common sense law passed, then I would be ok with paying the full purchase price if the former owners could document what that was.

As to semantic arguments I see no need to go there really.

Its not useful to get into nuts and bolts when we're talking about weapons of mass destruction that are killing thousands of children and adults every year.

I trust that the administration will be quite reasonable and use a good deal of common sense in getting rid of these unneeded weapons.

[Dimensio0]

166. You have provided no rational justification for your position.

When they are bought back, they should only pay the fair depreciated value.

Why should firearms owners be required to accept a loss on an investment?

However, if that were the only obstacle to getting this common sense law passed, then I would be ok with paying the full purchase price if the former owners could document what that was.

Please substantiate your assertion that such a ban is "common sense". Please provide an actual justification for such a ban.

As to semantic arguments I see no need to go there really.

I am not requesting a semantic argument; I am requesting only a logical justification for the legislation that you advocate.

Its not useful to get into nuts and bolts when we're talking about weapons of mass destruction that are killing thousands of children and adults every year.

Please demonstrate that such firearms are "killing thousands of children and adults every year". Please justify your usage of the term "weapons of mass destruction". Please provide a rational justification for the prohibition that you advocate, and explain why such a prohibition does not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I trust that the administration will be quite reasonable and use a good deal of common sense in getting rid of these unneeded weapons.

Please justify your assertion that the firearms that you advocate prohibiting are "unneeded" and demonstrate that "getting rid of them" is "common sense" and "reasonable". Thus far you have provided no rational justification for what you advocate; why should your claims be considered viable?

[hack89]

224. How many people are actually killed by assault weapons per year? nt

[Recursion]

247. Tell me how often assault weapons are used in the commission of crime

I know the answer, incidentally, and want to see if you do.

The funny thing is, people who know the answer to this question almost to a person do not support banning assault weapons, and people who support banning them grossly mistake the answer to the question.

[jeepnstein]

130. I'm no criminal...

as a matter of fact, I'm a cop. Yeah, I'm an able bodied lawful citizen. Under what logic do you propose stripping me of a constitutional right? Do I get to pick one for you to lose?

What makes you think the 2nd Amendment is less than any of the others? The Bill of Rights is not a menu for the government to pick and choose from.

[yodoobo]

132. There is no constitutional right to an assault weapon

the supreme court was clear on that.

You are entitled to hunting rifles and shotguns of course.

The fact that you are a cop is indeed an important distinction. I don't really have an issue with cops having them.

But for the rest of population, they are either criminal tools, or hobby devices waiting to be stolen and converted to criminal tools. (never mind being accidently used to kill family members or friends)

[jeepnstein]

137. Where does it say hunting rifles and shotguns?

There's no mention of hunting in the 2nd Amendment. What ruling are you citing to assert you claim that citizens are not permitted to own fighting arms as opposed to sporting arms?

Cops are citizens with no more rights than any other citizen. We are not some kind of protected class of Samuri by virtue of the trade. Lawful citizens own untold thousands of AR15's. They figure in a small fraction of the use of guns in the conduct of a crime. Hunting arms are much more associated with accidental shootings.

I see no reason for a ban on the AR other than some kind of hysteria or projection of personal issues on an inanimate object. The fact that it is lawfully owned as a Constitutional Right makes it even more incredible to me that anyone would even consider another ban.

[Dimensio0]

139. Please cite the United States Supreme Court ruling to which you refer.

Which United States Supreme Court ruling stated that the Second Amendment applies only to "hunting rifles" and to "shotguns"? What of "assault weapons" that are used as hunting rifles or shotguns?

But for the rest of population, they are either criminal tools, or hobby devices waiting to be stolen and converted to criminal tools. (never mind being accidently used to kill family members or friends)

Please substantiate your assertion.

[jabbothedog]

142. You need to go back and read the USSC decision

The Supreme Court was clear that the right to keep and bear arms (ALL arms) is an individual right. It never mentioned hunting.

That fact that you are a cop means jack. It is up to the local electorate (who elect the Mayor who is the Police Chief's boss and who elect the Sheriff) as to whether officers and deputies can have them.

As for the rest of the population, the 2nd Amendment was just clarified by the USSC as an individual right. The local population still has say-so in who can get a Class III weapon (such as a select-fire AK-47); again, through voting for the Mayor (see Police Chief) and Sheriff, they control the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" who must sign the Form 4 allowing the transfer of such a weapon.

[-..__...]

161. Uhhh... are you reading the same SCOTUS decision everyone else has?

There is no constitutional right to an assault weapon.
The supreme court was clear on that.

Where in the Heller decision did the majority state that "assault weapons" can be regulated/banned?

I'll tell you where... nowhere because they said no such thing.

At worst, there seems to be no clear indication of what the court actually had to say about "assault weapons".

At best, they are allowed and protected by the second amendment.

Regardless... an incorporation case has already been filed. Unfortunately, it's going to take a long time before any case reches the court (Heller took 5 years).

That's why it's imperative that if there are any court vacancies coming down the road, that any nominees have a strong 2nd amendment position and/or agree with the Heller decision.

In any event, looks like I'll be keeping up with my NRA membership for some time to come.

[derby378]

280. For God's sake, pending, sit down...

You haven't read the Heller ruling, otherwise you wouldn't bore us with this drivel.

[Paladin]

282. If The Heller Ruling Is So Goddamned Wonderful......

....how come you gun militants rejoiced about it for maybe a single day and then went right back to your paranoid, black helicopter caterwauling? I mean, how much bigger a favor could Fat Tony Scalia have done for you?

[derby378]

283. The Black Helicopter Department is five doors to your right, and mind the precipitous drop

It's not that Heller was a bad ruling - the primary reason for it was to address the DC handgun ban, which it struck down. But some of the wording in Heller, in retrospect, has emboldened some gun-control activists to pretend that it doesn't even exist, so they're pressing on full speed ahead and hoping that the average American won't even notice.

[Redneck Socialist]

176. Manufacturers didn't "evade" the ban, they complied with it.

For the most part all the original AWB "banned" were certain combination's of cosmetic features. Manufacturers removed the bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and pinned the folding stocks and exact same guns were now perfectly legal. Sales continued, if anything even higher than before.

I will admit that the law did cut down on the rash of drive by bayonetings that had been plaguing the country. I for one was immensely relieved.

[aikoaiko]

257. Is there any legal precedent for saying you can own something but not transfer it?

serious question.

[Orsino]

122. "From my trembling, fearful hands." n/t

[backscatter712]

124. Am I the only one who thinks there's not going to be a new AWB?

Sure, there's gonna be some agitating for one, but our Democrats in Congress know perfectly well the last AWB was badly written, deeply unpopular, and contributed to them losing Congress in '94.

They're not going down that road again. Dianne Feinstein might try, but many of the new Democrats from the West, who have seriously pro-gun constituencies, aren't going to allow it - they'll cross the aisle and filibuster with the Republicans.

Even Obama doesn't want to take our guns away - he's stated he believe the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and stated that even if he wanted to implement gun control, Congress wouldn't let him.

But hey, if you're an owner of a gun shop, if you take your own politics out of the picture and look at the sales, it's gotta be like Christmas right now!

Now if we have some reasoned legislation - beefing up the Brady background checks, for example, requiring additional training and background-checking for those who do want to buy full-auto type weapons (yes, there are legitimate entertainment uses for them, though I'd hardly consider hunting with a full-auto weapon to be sporting, but hey, if you want to use them for fun on your own property, you're law-abiding, and won't hurt anyone with them, let 'em have full-auto.) and cracking down on illegal transfers of firearms so criminals have a much harder time obtaining them, I'm all for that.

My interpretation of the Second Amendment does say that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms (or to meta-analyse the 2nd, it confers a right of individuals to use lethal force for legitimate self-defense), but there is plenty of leeway to implement laws for the purpose of public safety and order. Just as the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the Second doesn't confer the right to possess a nuclear device or go on a homicidal shooting spree. Laws that are in that spirit, I'll support.

[piedmont]

128. No, you're not. Hopefully the lesson was learned from 1994. nt

[Greyhound]

210. No, I don't think there will be either, but this story really brought 'em out.

Gun shops may be the only part of the retail sector to have a great season this year.

Oh, the irony.

[jeepnstein]

125. I bought my latest AR15...

back when I started reading Obama's campaign finance reports. It was obvious to me from the beginning he was not going to be denied the office. As I learned more about him I became less concerned about the whole thing but I kept the AR. Amazingly, it hasn't killed anyone. I'm reasonably sure it never will.

Things have changed since then, mostly in the form of the Heller decision. The next step is full incorporation. It's every much a civil right as any of the others. I don't care to surrender any of my rights to the state.

I'm no redneck and I'm no yahoo. I do take civil rights very seriously.

[maxsolomon]

126. Clingy McClingerson!

bitter? check.
angry? check.
fearful? check.

tell me again how Obama misspoke?

[DS1]

146. Barack Obama: Stimulating the economy within 24 hours of election

[Jack_DeLeon]

150. I'm not buying guns because I cant afford them, but will buy magazines...

I feel I have enough guns for now and I cant really afford more right now, but I will stock up on some more 30 round magazines and the like.

[yellowcanine]

153. Sounds like a rationalization to justify blowing the grocery money on a new gun.

[spin]

157. I challenge those who are against assault weapons...

but have little knowledge of the subject to watch this video. A police officer explains the differences between assault rifles and semi-auto rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

If you chose to watch the video you will waste 11 minutes of your time, but you will gain some information that will at least enable you to discuss the issue of an Assault Weapons Ban on an intelligent level. Your opinion may not change, but your level of debate on posts involving "assault" weapons will improve.

If you consider research unnecessary, read some excepts about arguing on the internet from a individual with a lot of experience:

I had wandered into a discussion area on gun control, and read a couple of posts. Nothing really representative, just what had been posted recently. I then quite naively decided to post my own beliefs on the issue. Now, such discussion groups were relatively new (it was in the very early 1990's, when web pages were just being invented), and I had no idea what was waiting for me. Worse, I had not before engaged in public debate, nor had I carefully studied the topic in detail. I just had some uninformed personal opinions, untested by opposing listeners--in other words, weak views, not founded in fact, just casual opinions. And I publicly posted them in the gun control forum.

I might as well have just walked into a maximum security prison stark naked and shouted, "fresh meat!"

**************snip******************

As I've mentioned, the first thing you should do is to research your topic. Relying on what you think you know without checking can be perilous. Your opponents have search engines ready and waiting, not to mention their collective experience--you will be writing in opposition to dozens, if not hundreds of people; though few will come out and reply, it will more often be those who know more about the particular facts of the case that you have brought up. If you get your facts wrong, there will be several people ready to jump down your throat, point out all your errors, and proclaim you to be their bitch.
http://www.blogd.com/archives/001579.html

If you read the entire article, it may help you make better arguments on DU.

[TWiley]

167. So your argument is a cosmetic one then

The video revealed nothing new. What exactly is your point?

[Dimensio0]

170. The video addresses common misconceptions regarding "assult weapons".

Many supporters of an "assault weapons ban" believe that "assault weapons" are fully automatic firearms. Correcting these misconceptions is useful in demonstrating that bans on firearms classified as "assault weapons" have no rational basis.

[spin]

183. Very true...

If we can move past these misconceptions, we can finally have some good discussions about gun control. I'm definitely pro-gun and oppose useless "feel good laws" like the Assault Weapons Ban.

I could post on a more pro-gun forum but since everybody would agree with me, it would no challenge. Also, I would have to sort through all the right wing bullshit about Obama.

Both sides of the gun control issue have valid arguments, but all too often on DU you find the anti-gunners believe that "assault weapons" are fully automatic. They will argue that no one needs a fully automatic weapon to hunt deer. I throw up my hands and say, "No shit, Sherlock!" I'm not aware of any state that permits hunting with a full auto weapon.

Hopefully a few posters will take the time to learn the difference between true assault weapons and political assault weapons. A lot of time will be saved by the pro-gun posters explaining the distinction.

[spin]

203. My point is...

I get frustrated when the people who post on DU do not understand the subject they are arguing about.

As I said, there are good arguments on both sides of the gun control issue. I enjoy and learn from intelligent discussions on this issue, but when I discuss banning semi-auto rifles and I get replies about fully automatic weapons, I wonder why I am wasting my time.

Perhaps the video revealed nothing new to you. If so, you are apparently far better informed than many of the posters on DU. Many here apparently think that people are able to purchase fully automatic weapons without any problem and use them for hunting deer. While it is true that in many states you can purchase a fully automatic weapon, these weapons already are restricted by the federal government and many requirements have to be met before an individual can obtain one. And as I pointed out, I know of no state that allows hunting with such a firearm. It's definitely true that no one needs a fully automatic weapon to hunt deer. But that fact has nothing to do with an reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban.

The Assault Weapons Ban was directed toward firearms that cosmetically resembled real assault weapons as the video showed. Indeed, as you suggest, my argument is a cosmetic one. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. You can change the appearance of a semi-auto rifle but that doesn't turn it into a true military assault rifle.

I can understand why many people are opposed to citizens owning weapons capable of murdering other people. However, I support reasonable requirements for the purchase and ownership of such weapons. I believe in the Second Amendment and feel it is important for the future of our country and allows honest responsible citizens to use firearms for self defense.

If you or other posters oppose or hate guns that's fine and I will respect your opinions and reply hoping I receive the same consideration. I believe that all opinions are worthy as long as they are based on evidence and fact not merely emotion and misinformation.

[TWiley]

212. The problem is they "look alike" but not function alike then.

I think many gun opponets are not interested in how many bullets per second a weapon can discharge. A single bullet or two is sufficient to kill most humans. Adding a dozen more does not make much difference. The crime is set at the first trigger pull.

Fully automatic weapons have a different use. They can aid an escape, or assualt attempt when matched against other firearms. This scenario is typically what? Drug smugglers and police? Bank robbers and Police? Lunatics on a shooting rampage? Exactly what is the legitimate scenario, outside of military combat, that these devices have? They have no place in domestic society. Even the militia has no compelling argument for owning one. Most militia people these days are paranoid and have serious delusional episodes. They make our country LESS safe and not more safe.

Case in point. Go to http://www.michiganmilitia.com/ You will notice that these dipshits held a post-election "readiness" meeting and claim that "10 weeks may be all we have". Before what? Before a Black Man takes the presidential oath? And you want to give these assholes automatic weapons? You sir, are also a dipshit. They are threatening the predident-elect of the United States of America, and you support their right to do so? Without guns, they are nothing.

Nobody should sleep better at night knowing that these fuckwads have the right to bear arms.

Seperate from hunting, and target shooting what is the precise purpose of even look-alike assault weapons? The intimidation factor? The fact is that guns make civilization LESS safe, and not more safe. The fact that militia bozo's support the constitutional threat of George Bush and threaten the genuine constitutional support of Obama proves there is a fly in the "defense against all foes foreign and domestic" ointment argument. Like religion, the most important parts are open to interpretation.

[Recursion]

230. safety mostly

Seperate from hunting, and target shooting what is the precise purpose of even look-alike assault weapons?

That's easy:

The pistol-style grip (which seems to be what really scares people) is much, much safer (orders of magnitude safer) to use than a more traditional "hunting rifle" grip -- that's why military rifles have them, to prevent accidental shootings.

The matte black finish prevents glare and and glint from messing with your aim, and makes spotting rust easier.

The flash suppressor keeps your own shot from blinding you, and actually makes it easier for other people to see your shot.

The barrel shroud ("shoulder thing that goes up") keeps you from burning your hand when you are done firing the weapon.

The other characteristic is a bayonet lug. If it's really, really important to you to keep bayonets off the street, I would be willing to sign on to banning those.

[TWiley]

243. well, at first glance, those seem to be good reasons

Buttt, would you be opposed to banning bayonet lugs on imitation assault rifles?

[Recursion]

246. Like I said, no

If you want to ban bayonet lugs on rifles, if you really think that's important, if the rash of bayonet deaths on the streets of the cities in this country troubles you that much, I'd vote for it if that would end this silly issue of banning rifles based on how they look. Not that I think it would end it.

[TWiley]

248. what about the rash of deaths on the streets

due to guns? Or, are bayonets different because they look different?

[Recursion]

249. That's handguns. You want to talk about handgun restrictions, I'm listening

If you want to talk about the guns that actually kill people in this country, it's handguns. If we stopped chasing our own tail over silly, pointless restrictions on rifles that are use less than bare hands and feet to kill people, we could actually come up with something.

But nobody will take us seriously if we can't admit that our wild-goose-chase after modern civilian rifles was an unmitigated disaster, and that our party cognoscenti need to learn about firearms before they start trying to regulate them.

[TWiley]

251. I suppose it is the emotional element

the emotion created by a really wicked looking rifle that is the cause of legislative attempts on rifles. Big is dangerous, small is laughable. Its little, how much can it hurt? I can see the "cosmetic" argument.

On the other hand, which argument is more winable among voters who do not understand detailed construction differences.

[spin]

267. I doubt that the Michigan Milita...

has many legal full auto weapons.

(note: I said legal)

The requirements are daunting:

Federal Firearms Regulations

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

I agree with your statement:

Fully automatic weapons have a different use. They can aid an escape, or assault attempt when matched against other firearms. This scenario is typically what? Drug smugglers and police? Bank robbers and Police? Lunatics on a shooting rampage? Exactly what is the legitimate scenario, outside of military combat, that these devices have? They have no place in domestic society. Even the militia has no compelling argument for owning one. Most militia people these days are paranoid and have serious delusional episodes. They make our country LESS safe and not more safe.

The fact that I agree with you may surprise you as you made an interesting emotional accusation when you said:

And you want to give these assholes automatic weapons? You sir, are also a dipshit.

Where did I ever say that I thought that militias or for that matter the average citizen should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons?

Having been a member of the gun culture for many years, I have on two occasions been approached by militia members who appeared to have some interest in recruiting me. I politely discouraged their efforts. None of the mainstream shooters I knew had any interest in associating with members of a militia group.

I suspect that the Michigan Militia is carefully watched and even infiltrated by federal law enforcement. Do they present a danger to Obama? Possibly, but it's a remote chance. Some research shows they have had their problems in recent years.

In the years after the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Michigan Militia Corp. Wolverine(MMCW) slowly declined and the leadership fell into infighting. The organization was essentially defunct on a statewide basis by 2000, but individual independent Militia groups continued on.

One of the groups maintains a website, www.MichiganMilitia.com open and available to the public, originally owned by Michigan Militia, Inc., a Michigan Corporation (now dissolved) conceived and created by Nick and Kristin Stoner.

One faction of the Michigan Militia currently enjoying growing numbers and positive press coverage is the SMVM (Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia). Led by Lee Miracle, the SMVM has an active monthly training schedule, annual "Militia Field Day" openhouse for public participation, a winter survival weekend called "Snow Dawg", monthly public meetings, and an openness not normally associated with "Militias."

A new Michigan faction, East Central Volunteer Militia (ECVM) has shown renewed interest and growth in central Michigan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia

If anything happens to Obama, I will immediately suspect a professional team possibly sponsored by powerful entities, not some group of yahoos running around in the woods in camouflage clothing with semiautomatic rifles. Some militia member might be chosen to be the fall guy, but the lone shooter scenario has been used far too often. I doubt if it will be employed again. If an assassination attempt were to occur, you can be assured that draconian gun laws would result. This would be the last thing any responsible gun owner would hope for. The results of any attempt to assassinate Obama would be so catastrophic to our society that I doubt that any group with the ability and connections to carry out the attempt would even consider it. I also believe that the ability of law enforcement and the Secret Service is up to the task of protecting him.

You stated:

Separate from hunting, and target shooting what is the precise purpose of even look-alike assault weapons? The intimidation factor?

To be honest, I don't own or want to own a semi-auto "assault weapon". I understand that they are often used by shooters for target shooting and for hunting small game.

Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber are often forbidden from being used to hunt deer because this small caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. (An example of rifle caliber restrictions are Tennessee deer hunting regulations. Click on "regulations" in the frame area.)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

It is possible that many people buy "assault weapons" because of the "intimidation factor". I've known many people who had only a slight interest in firearms and rarely went shooting, who just had to have an "assault rifle".

After Clint Eastwood playing Harry Callahan in the movie Dirty Harry said,

"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? "

the sale of S&W .44 magnums skyrocketed as did the price. Was this revolver especially accurate or useful for the average gun owner? I have owned several .44 magnums over the years and while they are fun to shoot a few rounds through, the recoil is significant and not for the amateur shooter. The weapon is a good choice as a handgun for hunting but not the best choice as a target revolver or a self defense weapon. However, an N-Frame S&W revolver is definitely intimidating.

The publicity about "assault rifles" both in the press and the movies definitely increases the sale of these weapons. Yes, there is an intimidation factor. Should these weapons be banned because they look intimidating? Other semiautomatic hunting rifles are far more dangerous and accurate at long range. Should we also ban these weapons?

Obviously you distrust militias, as I do. Does your distrust justify taking firearms away from all citizens?

[Edweird]

174. Like how gas and food 'enthusiasts' flock to the store before a hurricane....

[TWiley]

244. interesting thought

What exactly is the hurricane that the gun enthusiasts see that the food enthusiasts do not?

[Recursion]

250. HR 1022

[TWiley]

259. what is HR1022, or are you going to make me look it up?

[TWiley]

260. Ok, I read it .... and the problem is?

[Recursion]

261. The problem is you think that is "common sense gun legislation"

And you think that, I hate to be blunt, because you don't actually know anything about firearms.

[TWiley]

263. I watched your video, and I know enough about guns.

Banning semi-automatic assault weapons is a common sense law. What is the common sense argument for selling them to the civil population?

[Recursion]

264. See, that's *EXACTLY* what I mean

HR 1022 doesn't have anything to do with automatic weapons, but you are convinced it does.

Can you please please please stop forming die-hard opinions about this until you learn the subject?

[TWiley]

265. Goodness Gracious ....

2/13/2007--Introduced.

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 - Reinstates for ten years repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (the assault weapons ban).

Revises the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.

Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any such weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime, and of the nature and circumstances of the crime involved; and (2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile; and (2) the importation of such a device.


So, You are all fuzzied up about the revised definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon?

[Recursion]

266. See? you don't even know what you're talking about.

You said "automatic weapons".

That is basically the exact opposite of "semi-automatic assault weapons".

You are ignorant of the subject but passionate about it. Republicans like Sarah Brady are using that ignorance to further their anti-choice agenda, and making the Democratic party take the heat for it.

[TWiley]

269. hmmm

You still did not answer my question. What is the common sense argument for selling these weapons to the civil population? And, the elemination of which of these design features frightens you the most?

1) A detachable clip capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The common sense argument against this feature is that if you miss the deer with the first 10 bullets, a quick change clip will not help much. It will help with a bank robbery or drug shoot-out.

2) The collapsable stock which makes the weapon easier to hide.

3) The pistol grip which makes using the collapsable stock optional

4) The threaded barrel which makes it easier to attach silencing devices

5) The heat shield for the barrel which protects the user from burns. This is one of my favorites. It would take about 60 rapid fire rounds to make the barrel that hot. What are we shooting at now? Ducks? Oh, just screw on the silencer, have 25 rapid change ammunition clips handy, and we are ready to shoot at some deer.

Now let me ask you this Mr Gunn Expert. Given a choice, would you use a weapon in fully automatic mode, or in semi-automatic mode? Most people who really know how to use a weapon would choose semi-automatic. Why, because they can squeeze off a bunch of rounds pretty darn fast the old fashioned way.

Maybe it is the Uzi or the MAC 10 you feel needs defending more than the innocent people killed by people who own these things.

[Recursion]

271. God, this is predictable...

1) A detachable clip capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The common sense argument against this feature is that if you miss the deer with the first 10 bullets, a quick change clip will not help much. It will help with a bank robbery or drug shoot-out.

If we wanted to limit the discussion simply to magazine capacities, I would listen.

2) The collapsable stock which makes the weapon easier to hide.

You're simply factually wrong about this; a folded-stock rifle is still nearly impossible to conceal.

3) The pistol grip which makes using the collapsable stock optional

BUZZ... you just killed several dozen people. Thanks for playing.

Pistol grips are safer. Much, much, much safer. You people who insist on banning them are responsible for about 20 deaths a year.

4) The threaded barrel which makes it easier to attach silencing devices

Silencing devices which are illegal. And yeah, if you want to keep this to magazine capacities and threaded barrels, I'll listen.

Now let me ask you this Mr Gunn Expert. Given a choice, would you use a weapon in fully automatic mode, or in semi-automatic mode?

Being a normal civilian without a firearms dealer license, I have to stick with semi.

That said, in 7 years in the Corps I never fired on "burst". Automatic weapons are not very accurate.

[TWiley]

272. God, this is so predictable

1) We agree

2) You're simply factually wrong about this; a collapsable rifle is still easier to conceil than a non-collapsable stock3) The

3) Guns are dangerous arent they ..... we agree

4) We agree

I never fired on "burst". Automatic weapons are not very accurate......... we agree

************************************

Ok then, we only disagree on ONE point here.

Item 2) Which is easier to hide, a stick that is 4 feet long, or one that can be folded in half? SECRET CLUE: Shorter items are easier to hide.

[beevul]

278. In the interest of accuracy...

"You're simply factually wrong about this; a collapsable rifle is still easier to conceil than a non-collapsable stock"

Indeed. In exactly the same way as a bus is more maneuverable than a tractor trailer rig.

The point being made, is that the difference may as well be NIL.

[NNN0LHI]

190. I bet nothing would get your name on some Patriot Act list of people to be...

...to be put under surveillance by some Homeland Security agent than buying up a half a dozen assault weapons and a few thousand rounds of ammunition in a short period of time. Probably get your name forwarded to FISA too.

Good luck boys.

Don

[michreject]

232. In most states, no ID required to buy ammo nt

[Bozita]

198. That's the first story on ABC's Nightline tonight.

[CRF450]

199. While all of you anti-gunners are bussy painting the pro-gunners as scared rednecks...

Who cant wait to shoot someone, you fail to realise that most gun shootings are inner city gangs. Yes, thats right, blacks, latino's, and a number of whites.

I live out in the country where their are rednecks and the good'ol country boys who have numorous guns, to be honest I feel safer around them than a gangbanger toating around a 45.

This propaganda about what gun criminals are is just mind numbing here....

[baldguy]

201. Using gun nut logic, those in the inner city are the very people that need to have guns the most.

For PROTECTION, ya see.

[spin]

204. Reply from a gun nut...

although I prefer the politically correct term, gun enthusiast.

In the Town and Country area of Tampa Florida (a suburb not quite the inner city), my daughter used a revolver to stop an intruder breaking into our home.

Early one morning our burglar alarm went off. She left her bedroom looked around the house and found nothing strange, so she reset the alarm and went back to bed. Usually the alarm would trip on a windy night, but on this night everything was calm.

Fifteen minutes later the alarm sounded again. She grabbed her favorite revolver, a .45 acp S&W model 25-2 and walked into the living room to reset the alarm again. She encountered an intruder forcing the sliding glass door to the kitchen open. He was halfway through the door and when he seen her said, "I'm going to rape you."

She pointed the revolver at him. He looked at the size of the revolver in the hands of a young girl who weighed less than 100 pounds and wisely decided to leave.

She dialed 911. When the police arrived she told the operator that she still had the revolver in her hand and couldn't release it. The 911 operator told her to point the weapon at the floor and open the door for the police. A very kind and gentle police officer had to pry her fingers off the revolver while she sat on our couch.

The intruder was never caught and never returned. My daughter had always enjoyed going to the range with me and shooting her weapon so when she drew down on the individual she was confident about her ability and sill with her weapon. She also had five years of judo training.

When I asked a police officer why she couldn't release the weapon, he explained that it wasn't an uncommon reaction after an incident because of adrenaline.

I asked her why she didn't shoot the intruder and she replied, "Dad, you told me to only shoot someone if they were in the house. He was only halfway through the sliding glass door."

The incident ended without anyone being hurt or killed. Because she had access to a weapon and had trained in martial arts and shooting skills, I now have two wonderful grandchildren to enjoy.

[Recursion]

215. Reply from another "gun nut"

Yes, the guy living in the project in Anacostia has a lot more "need" for a gun than the guy in the burbs who likes to go hunting every few months. But both have an equal right to one.

[freethought gal]

202. Who called these people criminals?

These people are just acting idiotic, that's all. It's pathetic, really.

[CRF450]

207. Then why the hell is the blaim of gun violence being pointed at law abiding citizens!?

Who gives a fuck if they don't like Obama, those people pictured in the articles are still law abiding citizens! If we leave this issue alone and figure out a way curb the gang or inner city violence, that alone will bring down the total gun deaths ALOT. Only because we are democrats, it is so easy to point the finger at pro gunners and NRA members "as redneck yahoos", well I got news for you people. You are doing nothing more than adding fuel to the fire at keeping us divided and keeping them hating and fearing us.

Leave this issue alone, then maybe we can gain some trust from them.

[Suji to Seoul]

205. To quote the Arrogant Worms:

One, two, three, four...

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?
There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?
We wouldn't need the police no more, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Yeah!)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Nobody'd ever get shot, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Makes sense!)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We could go out and shoot things
We'd all feel safe, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Everyone'd be equal, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
Not me, I got me a rifle!

Well hang on, if you got yourself a rifle then I wanna get me a semi-automatic weapon!
You get a semi-automatic weapon and I'm gonna want an automatic weapon!
You get yourself an automatic weapon, I'm gonna get a super-automatic weapon!
Well if you get a super-automatic weapon, then I'm gonna get a super-duper-automatic weapon with a CD-ROM drive!
If you get yourself one of those I'm gonna get a super-duper-automatic weapon with a CD-ROM drive, and a big old hard drive, and a big guitar amp so I can play BTOs...

(rants on while the rest of the Worms sing)

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had the weapon of their choice?
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had the weapon of their choice?
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

(Still ranting..)

I'll go so fast I'll be able to chase you from here to Saigon, and then I'll shoot like little Nerf rockets at you and poke you in the eye 'cause it'll have automatic like finger-poking in the eye things and I'll get myself another guitar amp

[Mollis]

206. Because everyone needs an assault weapon at home...

ugh

[Greyhound]

214. Just like those homicidal maniacs, the Swiss. n/t

[Recursion]

227. Well, why not?

I don't know that anyone would ever require that (the Constitution makes provisions for persons "scrupulous of bearing arms"), but why shouldn't a low-power centerfire semi-automatic rifle with modern safety features (ie, an "assault weapon") be a normal part of an American household?

[Mollis]

254. There are just some people

that should not have any type of weapon. At all.

[Recursion]

262. Mm-hmm. Now tell me about the people...

...who shouldn't be able to speak freely.

[Mollis]

273. What are you talking about?

[Hubert Flottz]

208. Some of them don't think machine guns will be enough...

A Reading
from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:

Then did he raise on high the Holy
Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that
with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy
mercy.” MORE if you dare...

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=310

[Recursion]

216. Machine guns are regulated like artillery

Do you see people with artillery in their back yard? No. You also don't see people with machine guns. You see civilian rifles with stocks and grips that look like military weapons and mistakenly think these are machine guns.

[Cali_Democrat]

211. I guess they're stimulating the economy...

:shrug:

What a bunch of idiots.

[Political Heretic]

213. We all agree that, for the sake of public safety, we have to draw a line somewhere?

But that I mean, at some point we have some societal obligation to restrict the ownership of certain weapons to the public?

For example, would we mostly agree that civilians shouldn't be able to purchase and own surface to air missiles? I know that I would certainly be afraid to fly. I trust most of you but, um....

I realize that a SAM is not a personal firearm, but I'm just starting with the broadest possible area to find universal common ground.

Civilians should be legally prohibited from owning tactical nuclear weapons, correct?

Okay, if we agree that some restrictions on weapons must be made in the interest of the general public welfare, then we are conceding that we are okay with making some legislative decisions about weapons based on their potential harm. In other words, a .45 is fine, but a tactical nuke is just too risky for the public good.

Given that, and acknowledging that technology has exponentially advanced beyond anything that the framers of the constitution could have ever possibly dreamed of when writing that document - is there any possibility that, within the range of all weapons that would loosely be classified as "arms" (i.e. right to bear arms) we need to draw some line between what is reasonable and in keeping with personal rights and freedoms, and what is too grave a risk to the "general welfare" or the "life, liberty and happiness" of others to be allowed without restrictions?

[Recursion]

218. We did draw that line, in 1934

With the National Firearms Act. It was the exact kind of line you are talking about.

The following weapons were more or less excluded from general civilian ownership:
1. Grenades and explosive weapons
2. Machine guns and submachine guns (including assault rifles)
3. For the most part, weapons over 50 caliber (with a few exceptions mostly based on different standards of caliber measurement for different kinds of guns)

So, whenever people start talking about bazookas or flamethrowers or machine guns or assault rifles, a lot of us get really nervous because those are all already very, very tightly regulated.

What I think you don't get is that pretty much all the "gun nuts" don't have a problem with this 1934 law. People aren't trying to buy machine guns; but the Republican Sarah Brady is manipulating you based on your ignorance of that fact.

Civilians should be legally prohibited from owning tactical nuclear weapons, correct?

Well, if you get enough money and buy GE, you can own the nuclear weapons they make. But the Dept. of Energy would have to have a few talks with you first.

To reiterate: you wanted a line; we've had one for 74 years. Where would you like it drawn differently, and why?

[Political Heretic]

219. I don't necessarily have an opinion on drawing a different line - I just wanted to find some base

principle that we could all agree on. :)

[Recursion]

220. I think we have one: the 1934 NFA

The problem is a lot of us on the left don't see that the NRA, etc., are already there.

Nobody is talking about letting civilians buy automatic weapons or rocket launchers, and when we talk about that it makes us sound like we're making up policies we know nothing about. Which, in many cases, we are.

[Paladin]

239. The 1934 NFA: Proof Positive That Gun Control Works.

Gotcha, Gun Boy.....

[Recursion]

241. Yes, I think the NFA is outstanding gun control legislation

Crimes committed with NFA-controlled weapons are essentially unheard of in the past half-century.

[Paladin]

252. Congrats.

You're the first DU gun militant who didn't squeal about my pointing out this pertinent fact....

[Recursion]

256. I've seen lots of us "gun militants" say that

We're the ones who seem to know what the NFA says and why it's pretty much a good law; it's the people talking about mass rocket-launcher-ings in the streets that are troubling.

[spin]

277. What the DU gun militants get upset about is...

the idea that the weapons banned under the Assault Weapons Ban were full auto.

Full auto weapons are tightly regulated by a good law that has worked well. I really don't feel that many gun owners would believe that full auto weapons should be readily available in the corner gun store to be purchased by the average citizen.

But the media and the politicians who would like another assault weapons ban to pass, are more than willing to foster the misconception that the weapons they want to ban are fully automatic.

I have no problem with the gun control advocates attempting to ban evil looking semi-auto rifles. When they try to convince people that they are true military assault rifles then I get disturbed.

If an argument is so weak that its proponents have to lie to people to convince them to support their view, they deserve to lose. People are far more intelligent than politicians believe. Our educational system is in desperate need of improvement, but experience is a good teacher. The gun culture is familiar with weapons and terminology and understands the difference between semiautomatic weapons and weapons that are fully automatic. When they hear obvious bullshit about a simple issue they are intimately familiar with, they wonder if anything they hear from the same sources is true.

It's possible to make arguments that support the view that evil looking semiautomatic rifles should be banned or regulated. Tricky language and falsehoods should be avoided. It makes the people who support the AWB look no better than used car salesmen.

[foxer]

240. If machine guns are prohibited are excluded from ownership

Then how did the 8yr old kid blow his head off when his father
took him to the machine gun range a couple weeks ago?

[Recursion]

242. Did you notice how they advertised "we'll have an automatic weapon"?

If you're a specific kind of dealer and very very rich, you can still get one for collecting purposes. It's so rare that the one time or so a year a gun expo has them it's big news.

It's sort of like if you're a dental anaesthesiologist you can still get cocaine, and once every few decades someone will OD from that.

[Political Heretic]

268. Okay.... I like you. You're reasonable. I'll keep looking for your posts in "gun war" DU threads.

:toast:

[Political Heretic]

217. A second line of cautious reasoning:

I would like to make it clear. The one thing I loathe the most is blind ideology. When I find it in others, it ends all fruitful discussion. When I catch it in myself it shames me and embarrasses me.

Consequently I am not "anti gun" because I'm a democrat. I'm not "anti gun" because I've heard a lot of talking points from left leaning friends who are "anti gun." I don't look at any repeal of a gun law or failure to pass a gun law and instantly decry it without trying to understand that the law was supposed to do and whether or not it was working. I am not in fact "anti gun."

What I am for are laws that work. Whatever they are. Whether its more laws or less laws. Whether a republican suggested them or a democrat did.

We have a gun violence problem in this country. Don't read too much into that statement, there are no implicit conclusions being made by me simply be saying that. I see no compelling evidence to indicate that we would eliminate the problem by banning all guns. Truth be told, no one knows what that would do, because its never been done in America (and incidentally, it never will be done, but that's just me injecting my personal opinion). But the fact remains, as of November 8, 2008, we have a gun violence problem in America.

Consequently, I want whatever works to decrease that rate of violence. Is it stricter enforcement of existing laws? Is it the ban of certain deadly weapons? Is it more regulation? I don't care. What I want, are for politicians to set partisanship aside and simply acknowledge that we don't know what would "work" to decrease gun violence. I want politicians to start thinking about ideas that reflect a humility that says "this might not work." I someone wants to introduce a new gun regulation, then by god I want it to include a sunset clause and I want it to include the funding for rigorous non-partisan research and study.

I want to know, does this law work the way we intended it to work. And if it doesn't, then for god's sake, I don't want the law!" I don't want a single law on the books restricting any freedom - including the right to own firearms, unless it can be a) shown to be in the public interest and b) SHOWN TO WORK!!

But on the other hand, if there was overwhelming evidence that showed that a certain type of regulation or other legislation dramatically decreased gun violence, would anyone here oppose it?

Like I said, I'm not "pro or anti" gun. I believe in the right to own guns, but I also believe we have a social problem with guns that we need to address. All I want is for whatever actions we take to be supported by an evidence-base. I don't want laws that don't do anything.

[spin]

258. Gun control should be directed at the criminal element...

We have plenty of gun laws now, many which make good sense.

For example n Florida:

If you want to carry a concealed weapon in Florida, you need to follow the process of obtaining a proper license to do so. If a defendant is found to be carrying a concealed weapon without the proper authorization, he or she can be charged with a third-degree felony and be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
http://www.bocaratoncriminaldefenselawyer.com/topics/weapons.html

The problem is that all too often serious criminal penalties are plea bargained away. If the judicial system were to punish those caught carrying illegal weapons harshly, criminals would fear being caught with firearms. Fewer firearms on the street would lead to reduced crime and homicide rates. A lower crime rate would help reduce the demand for self defense firearms by honest citizens.

Does this work in real life? Read this excerpt from The Baltimore Sun:

Despite an increased emphasis on seizing illegal firearms, Baltimore police have taken about 25 percent fewer guns off the street this year and are making fewer gun arrests.

City law enforcement officials said they were unsure how to account for the decline, which has police on pace to recover far fewer illegal guns than in previous years, but were in agreement that it's probably not because there are significantly fewer guns on the streets. Instead, they said it is more likely that criminals are getting the message not to carry guns in public, which could be a factor in this year's drops in homicides and nonfatal shootings.

"The sentiment is that there is an acknowledgment amongst criminals in particular that they can't be just walking around with illegal weapons," said Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for the Police Department and Mayor Sheila Dixon. "They're still out there, but there are fewer people walking around with a gun tucked under their waistband or under the driver's seat of a car."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.guns04oct04,0,7081652.story

I believe that a serious effort to enforce existing laws would reduce the rate of violence far more than a "feel good" law such as the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. Honest citizens are not the problem, criminals are.

[benEzra]

285. Thank you...

It is nice to see some rational thought about the issue...

And that, IMO, is exactly why the "assault weapon" fraud needs to die, and STAY dead.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

[alarimer]

221. I guess they are re-arming the Michigan Militia

And other such organizations, now that Obama has won. Law enforcement really needs to be on the lookout for these terrorist groups because I am sure their membership will rise and the threats will increase. The racist redneck ignorant gun nut wing of the loony party seems to be out in force since the election.

[DrCory]

226. Only "Redneck Yahoos" Own "Assault Weapons" In Your Opinion? N/T

N/T

[agentS]

255. Time for a new gun law- the Freeper's can't own guns law.

Instead of banning weapons already banned or violating the 2nd Amendment, the Congress should come up with a law preventing the "stupid" or the "deranged" like those guys from buying guns.
Therefore, I have written this _(ultra snarky) bill ready for sub-committee input.

H.R. 0069: Total Weapons Ban To Prevent Violent Outbursts By Conservative Nutjobs
1. Purpose: Because being a McCain/Palin supporter has led to outbursts of racism in the workplace and runs on gun shops, the Congress shall effectively
a. Ban the sale of firearms to anyone who voted for McCain/Palin.
b. Ban the possession of firearms to anyone who voted for McCain/Palin.
c. Ban the sale and possession of anything more dangerous than a plastic knife to anyone who voted for McCain/Palin.
2. This law shall remain in effect until President Obama leaves office or McCain/Palin supporters GROW THE HELL UP!
3. Identification; McCain/Palin supporters can be determined by methods that they in the past have supported, such as racial profiling (Rush and the gang were BIG FANS of that, therefore turnabout is fair play) or by recorded IPs from owning membership in certain websites such as but not limited to, Stormfront, RedState, Little Green Footballs, Town Hall, Free Republic. People who attended the rallies AND held the stupid signs are also added on this list. People who donated to the McCain/Palin campaign or who volunteered for the campaign will be added to the lists of domestic terrorists under H.R. 1955.
4. Exemptions: The following people are exempt from the ban
a) anyone who didn't vote for McCain/Palin or didn't vote at all and didn't support that ticket in the slightest.
b) anyone who trolls/spies on conservatives or conservative websites.
c) McCain/Palin supporters who have grown up and realized having a black president doesn't mean you need to start Civil War #2.

In all seriousness though, the fact that the main thrust in gun ownership is being fueled by the election results is something that needs to be addressed. Obviously they're not buying guns because they've come to love hunting/skeet shooting/target shooting or home protecting.
I haven't forgotten what happened in Tulsa or in Freetown Florida.

[boozepusher]

270. What happened in Tulsa?

[agentS]

279. The death of "Black Wall St."

The Tulsa race riots of 1920.
http://www.tulsareparations.org/TulsaRiot.htm

[boozepusher]

281. What does that have

to do with gun sales? Are you suggesting people are preparing for race riots? Give me a break. People are buying guns because they fear the prices will go up or they may not be able to purchase them soon.

[agentS]

287. IF they were really worried about prices and availability

they would have bought the guns just before the Supreme Court gun case earlier this year.

Make no mistake; these crazy right-wingers are stocking up for war, not for 'home protection' or price gouging.

[pipi_k]

284. I wonder what would happen if they thought

Obama would outlaw ALL guns....

AND beer?



Would having to decide what to spend their money on make their pointy little heads explode?



:evilgrin:

[workinclasszero]

286. How many of these nutcases will become domestic terrorists

in the next eight years?