The "assault weapon" ban is dead! by JCKnife

I am not trying to put a damper on your spirit, but it isn't over until Monday. The Anti's will try everything they can to keep it from sunsetting. They may even resort to lies.

I am on your side and have a collapsible stock ready and waiting.

Very good thread though, nice job!

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 3:54 PM

I have a question for you on a semi-related topic. I was told that it is illegal to manufacture silencers for firearms (as well as to own silencers) and I never bothered finding out if this was true or not. I figured you might have a better handle on this.

This issue came up back in the late eighties when my friends and I were modifying stock paint guns. We used to build our own silencers until we were warned that this might get us into trouble. They worked fine as silencers but about a third of the time the paint ball would burst in the silencer so it wasn't too big a hardship to get rid of them.

Sorry to divert the topic of the thread but it's something that has been on the back of my mind and it just popped up reading your post.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 4:02 PM

It is illegal to manfacture suppressors without a license. It is legal to own suppressors after applying for a permit and passing associated background checks, felons need not apply. Oh, and there is the tax stamp also. This pertains to firearms, I am uncertain on the subject of paint ball markers(guns) and suppressors, though it stands to reason. In my opinion there is a huge difference and should not be regulated the same.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 4:50 PM

Thanks for the information ByteTheBullet. I agree with you that there is a huge difference and I would hope the current regulations reflect that. We were told at the time that they were using firearm regulations and just applying them to the use of paintball paraphenalia since they were a new product. I thought that was silly and was irritated that someone could possibly think what we manufactured was for firearms. I mean, the materials were all wrong.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 7:26 PM

SGTGUMP

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
I am not trying to put a damper on your spirit, but it isn't over until Monday. The Anti's will try everything they can to keep it from sunsetting. They may even resort to lies. I am on your side and have a collapsible stock ready and waiting.

Very good thread though, nice job!

ByteTheBullet (-:

Quote:
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

You can read the whole story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131813,00.html

Chalk one up for Freedom.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 8:49 PM

QUICKSAND

Thank goodness grenade launchers are going to be legal again. Anybody know where I can pick one up? I have a duck-hunting trip coming up, and........

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 8:50 PM

QUICKSAND

P.S. I know you did NOT just use the words "Whole Story" and "Fox News" in the same post. Cuz that would be silly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 8:59 PM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Most importantly, it means a rollback of government interference and a step up for personal freedom.

DAMN RIGHT!!!

http://www.badnarik.org/

http://www.lp.org/

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 9:13 PM

SGTGUMP

FoxNews uses a lot of Associated Press news releases. That was one of them.

And I sell grenade launchers, maybe I can make you a deal.

www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
Vote Libertarian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Jayne would be proud. (j/k) In light of all that is going on in the world today, I find this topic to be way down on the list of things that matter to me. I don't own any guns, but I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I do find some of the fear mongering from those who are for the gun ban to be pretty silly.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 9:04 AM

btw, suppressors are only legal in 33 states and grenade launchers are not covered by the assault weapons ban. We do not want to confuse the nice people nor feed the anti's.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 9:11 AM

VILAVON

I'm still flying in 2021. How about you?

I never have been able to understand why you would want to keep any weapon out of the hands of someone who has no intentions of illegal use of them. Criminals will always find a way to buy or steal whatever kind of weapon to use for whatever illegal deed they wish. Remember two innocent passenger planes used as weapons three years ago?
Keep and bear arms. Or don't. Glad it's not up to the government to decide that one for me.
P.S. I don't own a gun. Got a nice sword, though. More personal.

Vilavon AKA Claude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 9:15 AM

VILAVON

I'm still flying in 2021. How about you?

Actually it was FOUR innocent passenger planes. Only two of 'em became famous. Ignore me. I'm "het up".

Vilavon AKA Claude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 9:36 AM

I consider myself liberal but this is one topic where my viewpoint is more libertarian. I agree with you, Vilavon, that these regulations most impact those who would purchase their firearms legally. All of my friends who own firearms are responsible owners who are safety conscious and take good care of their equipment. I personally don't own any firearms. But that's a choice. I don't see the need to take that choice away from people who do want to own certain types of firearms. So I guess that makes me pro-choice on this topic

.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 9, 2004 10:39 AM

DEADLYFOE

I hope everybody else can enjoy the afordable standard capacity magazines, and the sunset of this worthless and wrong-headed legislation. Here in sunny California nothing will change, I just hope they don't ban the 80 year old bolt-action 1917 "Enfield" rifle I just bought before I can pick it up next week.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 10, 2004 11:12 PM

DAIKATH

Guns dont kill poeple. Kids who play videogames kill poeple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 11:38 AM

Well, after a long awaited 10 years, the ban is officially dead!

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Well, after a long awaited 10 years, the ban is officially dead!
ByteTheBullet (-:

Fantastic. Now I can go out and get that rapid assault weapon with the funky stock to defend my property, because that hand gun was just making the Bloods and the Crips laugh at me.

Fair enough, I come from a country where our police still have to shout "Stop!... Or I'lll shout stop again!" (thenk yew Mr Hicks), but...

can anyone give me a good reason why you need a bayonet? Expecting the red coats to come back again are we?

- grenade launchers if the grenades are illegal?

Honestly, its issues like this that make me think Michael Moore isn't a dick.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:02 PM

STATIC

You know. . .

You know I have to explain to parents who ask why I teach marksmanship as a part of my cadet class all the time.

"Guns are not toys. . .they are not fun, glamourous or cool. They are, rather, tools. . .tools that when used properly, do their job effectively. . .and when used irresponsibly, are dangerous."

I own several weapons of various types, some that are simply for hunting, others that I use for competition target shooting, and yes, I admit, more than one that I purchased because at the time I had more money than good sense.

I honestly have trouble seeing where limiting me and my friends to ten shots per magazine helped to reduce crime in the past ten years.

Oh well. *grin*

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
I own several weapons of various types, some that are simply for hunting, others that I use for competition target shooting, and yes, I admit, more than one that I purchased because at the time I had more money than good sense.

I honestly have trouble seeing where limiting me and my friends to ten shots per magazine helped to reduce crime in the past ten years.

You're right, it didn't. But tell me how allowing people 11 shots plus per magazine reduces crime.

No argument with people owning guns for sport or hunting if that's their thing, nor indeed collections. Equally, not sure where I stand on owning a gun for self defence - save that there comes a point it seems to me that the gun(s) being kept for self-defence cease to be that and become the NRA-equivalent of this week's I-Pod technology, owned because they can be.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:20 PM

STATIC

You know. . .

Having those extra rounds in my magazine won't help reduce crime either. And hopefully, they won't increase it.

I'm just hoping folks will realize one day that no gun legislation reduces crime.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:

I'm just hoping folks will realize one day that no gun legislation reduces crime.

Actually, not true. "No gun" legislation would reduce crime. I accept fully the argument you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but if you could, and guns were banned, I guarantee a reduction in gun crime.

The criminals would still get guns, as they do in the UK, but those rage killings would fall away some. Columbine would have been a hell of a lot more difficult for those kids to pull off in the absence of an arsenal in their parents' houses.

Still, the next time 11 people try and storm the house, be thankful you don't need to reload....

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:37 PM

GOJIRO

The most effective argument I've ever heard againt gun laws is also the shortest:

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

The only gun law I would like to see is one requiring gun owners to take a safety course, like we do for driver's licensing. Just one course in their life. I've seen too many stupid people who own guns.

BTW, last Friday, I became a criminal when a friend gave me a 13 round clip for my Sig P228. It was pre-ban, but still. Tomorrow I won't be a criminal. That seem right to you?

gojiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

can anyone give me a good reason why you need a bayonet? Expecting the red coats to come back again are we?

- grenade launchers if the grenades are illegal?

Honestly, its issues like this that make me think Michael Moore isn't a dick.
"I threw up on your bed"

No good reason to have a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher fitting, aside from just wanting to have them (which seems a perfectly good reason to me, BTW) but no good reason not to have them either. Haven't seen many news stories of robbers brandishing rifles with bayonets affixed, or threatening to shoot grenades they don't have.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:54 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

Actually, not true. "No gun" legislation would reduce crime. I accept fully the argument you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but if you could, and guns were banned, I guarantee a reduction in gun crime.
"I threw up on your bed"

If you made all guns in private hands in the US disappear overnight, the "gun" crime would go down temporarily, until the guys that now run drugs saw a whole new market segment open up. I'd guess that armed robbery (a guy with a knife or club is still armed), assault, rape and burglary would go through the roof.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 12:55 PM

STATIC

In all truth. . .the only reason I can think of for bayonet lugs and grenade launchers is to maintain something of an 'integrity' in the case of purchasing weapons for a collection.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Fantastic. Now I can go out and get that rapid assault weapon with the funky stock to defend my property, because that hand gun was just making the Bloods and the Crips laugh at me.

Fair enough, I come from a country where our police still have to shout "Stop!... Or I'lll shout stop again!" (thenk yew Mr Hicks), but...

can anyone give me a good reason why you need a bayonet? Expecting the red coats to come back again are we?

- grenade launchers if the grenades are illegal?

Honestly, its issues like this that make me think Michael Moore isn't a dick.

1. The AWB limited(banned) cosmetic accessories on certain types of semi automatic weapons and the manufacture of these configured weapons and the manufacture of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Weapons and Magazines(not clips, those are different) manufactured in whole before the start date of the AWB were grandfathered and the price of these items skyrocketed. Grenades launchers were not part of this ban, they are regulated by other laws entirely and these laws are still in effect along with the laws pertaining to fully automatic weapons. These can be owned by civilians, in many states, after passing background checks and paying very large sums of money(they cost a pretty penny(quid)) as these types of weapons are regulated by different law altogether.

Do I need a bayonet, nope, I don't, and I won't buy one, but I have the right to. These rights were guaranteed to me by the blood of my forefathers. That is the part that most people just don't understand. We(Americans) had to fight and die for the freedoms we take for granted today.

There are many people that just blindly follow what people tell them without researching the subject, and believe it or not, alot of the politicians and 'celebrities' are simply regurgitating what others have told them, without researching it...see what I am getting at?
Oh, the ban did expire last night, check www.atf.gov for the official word, if you don't believe me or just want to research what I am saying. I know I have.

2. Michael Moore is a dick. He is only out to promote himself and make money. His 'documentaries' are not. You can take my word for that one. Time will tell.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

Actually, not true. "No gun" legislation would reduce crime. I accept fully the argument you can't put the genie back in the bottle, but if you could, and guns were banned, I guarantee a reduction in gun crime.

The criminals would still get guns, as they do in the UK, but those rage killings would fall away some. Columbine would have been a hell of a lot more difficult for those kids to pull off in the absence of an arsenal in their parents' houses.

Still, the next time 11 people try and storm the house, be thankful you don't need to reload....

Nope, you are wrong. Check the gun crime information on this type of crime in Washington D.C. and New York City and most of California. Gun are OUTLAWED there and it is next to impossible for law abiding citizens to even own a gun. Of course people like Dianne Feinstein(ever heard of her?) have to pull to get around those laws. Hmmm, did you know that? I would be surprised if you did. She must be above the law, right? Hey, where did that big bloody bank robbery with fully automatic weapons take place? Oh yeah, California. The bad guys had wepons that the general public could not even get. Does that seem right to you?(sorry, firefly quote)
I understand your feelings about guns and gun ownership, but you know what? It isn't about feelings. Have you ever been robbed at gun point? No, I would bet money you haven't, but I can tell you that having your very life in the hands of someone that puts money over human life and at any second could take yours as he robs you will give you a feeling that you will never forget, ever. Most theves and robbers are cowards and if they come up to equal resistance, ie armed person, he will look for a better, ie easier(unarmed person), opportunity. There will always be crime and I am certainly not the best 'street fighter' but I can shoot a gun very well and that means I have a chance to survive.

Edited to add: Yeah, Columbine would have been different without illegally obtained weapons(they were thieves too, they STOLE the guns). They would have probably worked harder to make sure all the bombs they made exploded like they were supposed to.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gojiro:
The most effective argument I've ever heard againt gun laws is also the shortest:

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

The only gun law I would like to see is one requiring gun owners to take a safety course, like we do for driver's licensing. Just one course in their life. I've seen too many stupid people who own guns.

BTW, last Friday, I became a criminal when a friend gave me a 13 round clip for my Sig P228. It was pre-ban, but still. Tomorrow I won't be a criminal. That seem right to you?

gojiro

I agree with your post almost. I took gun safety classes without any laws requiring me to, but like you say, there are some stupid and negligent gun owners out there. You having a pre-ban magazine doesn't make you a criminal, they were grandfathered in, unless it is stamped 'Law enforcement use only'. In either case the ban expired Sun night so you are now legit anyway. Nice choice for a handgun too.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 2:57 PM

LTNOWIS

Quote:
can anyone give me a good reason why you need a bayonet? Expecting the red coats to come back again are we?

- grenade launchers if the grenades are illegal?

Honestly, its issues like this that make me think Michael Moore isn't a dick.

Good one! But, I think grenade launchers and bayonets make a gun look significantly cooler, but don't really add to it's killing potential. I personally think this gun stuff might be a good state-by-state issue. That way, murder-prone cities like DC can strenghten restrictions while other areas can relax them. If people whine, they're free to move.

Of course, if you want self defense, there are a lot of nice stungun and pepper spray options, which can painfully incapacitate home invaders.
I also think that tons of armed civilians who can become guerillas are a very effective invasion deterent. Saddam handed out tons of Kalishnakovs before we smited him. Our troops are still paying the price. No matter how much we argue, a stungun still can't hurt a helicopter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 4:17 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by gojiro:
The most effective argument I've ever heard againt gun laws is also the shortest:

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

The only gun law I would like to see is one requiring gun owners to take a safety course, like we do for driver's licensing. Just one course in their life. I've seen too many stupid people who own guns.

BTW, last Friday, I became a criminal when a friend gave me a 13 round clip for my Sig P228. It was pre-ban, but still. Tomorrow I won't be a criminal. That seem right to you?

gojiro

How about this one?; Do you think September 11th would have gone down the same way if the passengers on the planes had been allowed to carry personal protection firearms?

I'm not saying everything would have been hunky dory, but I guarantee you things would not have gone down the way they did.

News flash: The police and the government are not responsible for protecting you, the courts have already decided this. So, who does that leave to defend you? If you said you, then you're right. The sunsetting of this ridiculous, do nothing, piece of legislation has merely given law abiding citizens more freedom to choose the tools to do so.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 4:37 PM

THEGREYJEDI

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Well, after a long awaited 10 years, the ban is officially dead!
ByteTheBullet (-:

Fantastic. Now I can go out and get that rapid assault weapon with the funky stock to defend my property, because that hand gun was just making the Bloods and the Crips laugh at me.

Fair enough, I come from a country where our police still have to shout "Stop!... Or I'lll shout stop again!" (thenk yew Mr Hicks), but...

can anyone give me a good reason why you need a bayonet? Expecting the red coats to come back again are we?

- grenade launchers if the grenades are illegal?

Honestly, its issues like this that make me think Michael Moore isn't a dick.

"I threw up on your bed"

Good reason for a bayonet? Because it's more satisfactory to stab your mom in the face with the knife at the end of my rifle before I shoot her.

In all reality? Why do we need a good reason to put a bayonet on a gun?

--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com

http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 5:20 PM

THRAWN

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
Guns dont kill poeple. Kids who play videogames kill poeple.

I really, really, really hope you aren't serious about this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 13, 2004 9:03 PM

DAIKATH

, just a sarcastic remark about the media frenzy, but that is another topic ;).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you made all guns in private hands in the US disappear overnight, the "gun" crime would go down temporarily, until the guys that now run drugs saw a whole new market segment open up. I'd guess that armed robbery (a guy with a knife or club is still armed), assault, rape and burglary would go through the roof.

Where's the long term market value in an illegal gun? Its not addictive (scratch that, I've seen that documentary on the gun club that fires about as many rounds as got fired in the first Gulf War at a weekend).

The crime stats in countries where guns are outlawed don't have crime stats through the roof - do you have any evidence of a country that banned gun ownership where the crime stats you have quote went through the roof.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:

These rights were guaranteed to me by the blood of my forefathers. That is the part that most people just don't understand. We(Americans) had to fight and die for the freedoms we take for granted today.

I forgot, the British didn't fight and die for the freedoms that we (humans) take for granted these days.

Just because its old, doesn't mean its always good or right.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

People died for that part of the US Constitution to be enacted. As long as we're talking history lessons I mean.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:16 PM

Quote:

Of course people like Dianne Feinstein(ever heard of her?) have to pull to get around those laws. Hmmm, did you know that? I would be surprised if you did. She must be above the law, right?

I'm not sure the point you're making - you're right I don't know her. Having checked her website and the tone of your comment I'm assuming there was some scandal about her owning or having a gun when she appears to be vehemently anti-gun.

Quote:

Hey, where did that big bloody bank robbery with fully automatic weapons take place? Oh yeah, California. The bad guys had wepons that the general public could not even get. Does that seem right to you?(sorry, firefly quote)

Actually it seems very right to me. When a bank robbery goes down, I don't want a have a go hero trying to take the robbers out and making things ten times worse, or hitting an innocent bystander. I want the police to attend with the weaponry and the training to deal with the situation.

Quote:

Edited to add: Yeah, Columbine would have been different without illegally obtained weapons(they were thieves too, they STOLE the guns). They would have probably worked harder to make sure all the bombs they made exploded like they were supposed to.

Were they stolen? I thought they were legally obtained by the girlfriend of one of them and then given to them. They also had phone calls to the home of one of them from a gun dealer saying that his (Eric's) clips were ready. I'm taking my information from The Sunday Times and AP on those points.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:50 PM

Well, I read all your replies, but they seem to move away from the topic.

Never having had the rights to own almost any kind of gun you wanted I can understand why you're not getting it. No worries. Just don't let the voices misguide you because there is always at least two sides to the story. Asking questions and research will allow you(everyone, including myself) to make better, more informed decisions. Oh, yeah, they are magazines, not clips. There are only a few guns that use clips.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:23 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Factcheck.org already has an item about how Sen. Kerry's favorite 527 PAC is (to quote some of the ultra-liberals around here) "spewing lies" about the end of the ban.

"This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire "up to 300 rounds per minute." That's false."

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:25 AM

LTNOWIS

While I really like guns, I read somewhere that America has more deaths by guns than other nations. It's like 14 per thousand here, 11 per thousand in Mexico, and 0.05 per thousand in Japan. Of course, I read that in the 90s, so it's probably different now. Anyways, while I wholly support gun ownership, stunguns and pepper sprays are effective methods of self defense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 6:46 AM

I was doing some digging in the death by gunshot numbers a few years ago and found out something surprising. For the years I was looking at almost half, if not more than half, of the deaths were self-inflicted. And another chunk is spouse on spouse (pretty much always husband shooting wife). So you really need to untangle the numbers. It's far more likely to be in a car accident than to be shot by a stranger.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:01 AM

FAHQ

Quote:
Originally posted by gojiro:
The most effective argument I've ever heard againt gun laws is also the shortest:

Outlaw guns, and only the outlaws will have guns.

The only gun law I would like to see is one requiring gun owners to take a safety course, like we do for driver's licensing. Just one course in their life. I've seen too many stupid people who own guns.

>snip<
gojiro

CHEERS!

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Never having had the rights to own almost any kind of gun you wanted I can understand why you're not getting it. No worries. Just don't let the voices misguide you because there is always at least two sides to the story. Asking questions and research will allow you(everyone, including myself) to make better, more informed decisions. Oh, yeah, they are magazines, not clips. There are only a few guns that use clips.

The reason I'm not "getting it" is not that I haven't had the right (or indeed wrong) to own any kind of gun I want, its that so far nobody has provided a cogent argument as to why you need an automatic weapon by the side of the bed should someone break in.

Static raised the collector's point of view - fair enough, that's a different issue, as is the hobbyist - but you do not need those weapons in the house, or easily accessible. If you like the way the gun looks, it can be disabled, if you like firing a machine gun, keep it under lock and key at a gun club.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

The reason I'm not "getting it" is not that I haven't had the right (or indeed wrong) to own any kind of gun I want, its that so far nobody has provided a cogent argument as to why you need an automatic weapon by the side of the bed should someone break in.

Static raised the collector's point of view - fair enough, that's a different issue, as is the hobbyist - but you do not need those weapons in the house, or easily accessible. If you like the way the gun looks, it can be disabled, if you like firing a machine gun, keep it under lock and key at a gun club.

Ok, you may have answered your own question.

1. I like shooting guns and I have alway wanted to have an 'Army man' gun since I was a little boy. I shoot guns well. Gun safety and respect was taught to me from a very young age. We(Americans) have always been allowed to have guns in our homes(and on our persons, with permits) to protect ourselves. There are people in this world that do not give a rats ass about laws much less human life. I have had a very brief chat with one of these fellows once very late one night. It was not fun. I would rather have a gun and NEVER have to use it than to need a gun and not have one available. I keep the knowledge of my gun ownership and carry permit limited to family and close friends. You guys are my friends, right? Having a gun requires training and practice, which is why I go shooting, and as mentioned before I like guns. When I hear a bump in the night and call 911 it will take more time for the police to get to my house than it would take a 'bad guy' to get inside and kill me and my wife. Yes, we sometimes have break-ins and even though the victims do everything the bad guy says, they are murdered, without remorse. I will do everything to flee my house, with my family, but if someone gets in and I am afraid for my life or my families life, the armed bad guy will die. If he tries to flee he is welcome to, but I will be able to give the police a very good description and a direction for them to look for him because I am still alive.

2. The AWB had NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. It restricted cosmetic add-ons on specific models of semi-auto weapons. There is an arduous process that law abiding citizens must go through to procure full auto weapons(in states that it is allowed), not to mention cost. Bad guys do not care about laws and they have their own way of getting guns, full auto or not.

3. Collector's usually buy weapons as an investment, again with special permits, and in most cases shooting these collectibles lowers the value so they get cleaned and looked at alot.

4. As a hobbyist, suppose I get the itch to go shooting, maybe I just watched a gun nut movie and just needed to go blast something. I am able to pick up which ever gun I have that I want to shoot and go to any number of ranges in the area and shoot until my heart's content. I have the guns in my home secured how I see fit. They are not just propped up in the umbrella stand. This is how it has always been.

5. "If I like the way it looks I can have it disabled"...That is such a foreign concept to me and I am not trying to be funny. This could be where the problem lies. I do not understand why someone would settle for a replica that is non-functioning and I don't think I ever will no matter how you may try to help me understand. It is obviously a normal thing for you. Just as having the right to have guns is a normal thing to me.

In my gun safety class, the cop giving the class said that the decision to carry a firearm(or to possess any weapon) came with tremendous responsibity. If someone talks bad about your momma, you have to sit and take it, if someone gets in your face, you have to sit and take it. Until you feel your life is threatened and you have no way to flee, your gun must not be touched. Not only will I protect my own life and my families, but I also protect 'the good guys' if am am able to.

Sorry this was so long but I wanted to try and help you 'get it'. I think #5 shows that we may just have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you reading anyway.

Regards,
ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
While I really like guns, I read somewhere that America has more deaths by guns than other nations. It's like 14 per thousand here, 11 per thousand in Mexico, and 0.05 per thousand in Japan. Of course, I read that in the 90s, so it's probably different now. Anyways, while I wholly support gun ownership, stunguns and pepper sprays are effective methods of self defense.

I respect your beliefs, but if you are in stun gun range, you are already too close to the bad guy, use the pepper spray first as it has better 'reach'. Oh, Japan has ninjas and I hear they don't need guns to kill people.

Did what you read compare the murder rate regardless of weapon type for those countries also? I would be curious about those numbers in relation.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 6:22 PM

SIGMANUNKI

It is at this point that I am thankful that I live in a country with reasonable gun control laws, Canada.

To you guys down below, good luck.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:45 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Chalk one up for Freedom.

While I like the outcome of the ban expiring, I don't know if I would chalk it up for freedom. A special interest influenced key politicians to prevent the matter from being voted on.

Both parties engage in this kind of politics but I can't justify it when either one does so. I will not support 'ends justifies the means' morality.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 10:31 AM

LTNOWIS

Quote:
I respect your beliefs, but if you are in stun gun range, you are already too close to the bad guy, use the pepper spray first as it has better 'reach'.

Just so you know, I was against the renewel of the ban. Also, they've got some new pistol stunguns that are very long range, like 100 yards. A few years ago they paid some people $400 and a free stungun to get shot with it, for tests. The guy interviewed for The Washington Post claimed it was incredibly painful, and was thrilled to have one of his own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 1:42 PM