# Please let the assault weapons ban sunset.



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Please know what you are banning.

What is an assault weapon?

Quote:

Rifles
Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock

Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor or threaded barrel

Grenade launcher
Aside from the "grenade launcher" non of these features make the weapon any more lethal than any other rifle. And Grenades and the items needed to make them are very heavily regulated, so essentually they are a non-issue.

Quote:

Pistols

For a pistol to be considered a "SAW," among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:

Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip

Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer*

Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned

Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded

Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

*Note: "the ability to accept" a silencer does not mean these firearms are so equipped. Silencers have been as heavily regulated as machine guns since the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Features such as the barrel shroud and "semiautomatic versions of an automatic firearm" were obviously written to target copies of the TEC-9 and MAC-10 and similar type pistols. Again it seems obvious that the authors of the law were targeting the "aggressive appearance" of firearms, instead of functionality or lethality.

You can find the complete code here:

Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code states http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html

and here:

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

How many drive-by bayonettings happen in your neighborhood?


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

In other words, despite the propaganda, the AWB did not ban "machine guns", fully automatic weapons, AK47s, UZIs, AR15s, .50 caliber guns, or anything of the sort. Fully automatic weapons are allready heavily regulated under other laws.

I can still go out and buy an AK47 clone any time I wish as long as I am over 18, can pass a criminal background check, and have enough cash to do so. The ban just means I can't attach a folding stock to make it easier for someone of my stature to shoot, unless I skip the bayo lug, threaded barrel, and the grenade launcher. However, I don't have much need for these features, anyway.









Edited for spelling errors...


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

A very informative page on the AWB. Gives a comparison to what is an Assault weapon, history of the assault weapon ban, and why would anyone want to own one? among other issues.

http://awbansunset.com/

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

From the second link.

Quote:

Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.
The assault weapons ban realistically does nothing other then to make it harder for law abiding citizens to aquire the firearms they love to own and shoot. The criminals will still have access to the weapons of choice.
To the quote about AK47's, 18 y/o can now legally buy any rifle or shot gun they choose that is not affected by this ban. The AK47 itself has been banned from import since 1989. These weapons will not be for sale in the trunks of cars after the sunset of the current ban, because they were not affected by the current ban. AK clones are on the market, and sold legally depending on state laws.
People ask "why would you want to own one of those?" The answer is as simple to the ones wanting to own them, as the answer is to us who want cloth diapers, breastfed babies and home schooled children. (Just to name a few things)
It is a matter of choice, a choice that is protected by the second ammendment.
It was mentioned in W&P someones neighbor goes shooting as a family event with a Machine Gun. Well the AWB that is due to sunset has nothing to do with Machine Guns. These have been highly restricted since 1934. People wanting to own a Machine Gun must go thru the BATF and pay $200 tax on the permit to own these. It can take as long as 6 mths for the BATF to do the background checks etc to ensure the person buying this weapon is not a criminal.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Just a friendly bump....

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances, and tendencies PROVE that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indespensable. The very atmosphere of firearms EVERYWHERE restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of HONOR with all that's good!"

President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790

"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were ALL the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrible mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.............the weak will become prey to the strong."

Thomas Paine


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

No offense, Cat, but this is about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT weapons, not all guns.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
No offense, Cat, but this is about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT weapons, not all guns.

No offence taken, but actually this isn't about particular guns at all, it is about certain cosmetic features that can be added to guns in order to make them look scary. Putting a pistol grip on my rifle will not make it any more dangerous.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
No offence taken, but actually this isn't about particular guns at all, it is about certain cosmetic features that can be added to guns in order to make them look scary. Putting a pistol grip on my rifle will not make it any more dangerous.

Just to add a little here cat.
A pistol grip, folding stock, flash hider & hi-cap mags. All these things are what consititutes the ban on these semi autos. Almost all semi autos affected by the ban have been reproduced WITHOUT the evil cosmetic features. But did you know, you can have any two of these evil things on your firearm and still be legal? So why keep the ban? Really no sense in it at all. The weapons are still out there in less evil looking forms. The ban is really all about an evil looking gun.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
No offense, Cat, but this is about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT weapons, not all guns.

No offense, IslandMamma, but what is an "assault weapon" as defined by this ban? Can you explain what banned features make the weapon more deadly? The bayonette mount? The flash supressor? The pistol grip?

IMHO, if a person wishes to fight to have something banned, that person should know what they are actually banning, and the benefit of enacting the ban. What will you gain from banning a bayonette mount?


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
No offense, Cat, but this is about SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT weapons, not all guns.

Also no offense, but saying that those quotes are irrelevant because this isn't about all guns would be like pushing for a bill to ban all slang forms of speech, then saying that it doesn't violate the first ammendment because we aren't banning ALL free speech, just slang. After all, no one really needs words like "n*gger", it only serves to incite violence.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Huge diff between speech and guns, dontcha think?

Too bad we have a democracy wherein 2/3 of the populace can want this ban to remain in place but our ever non-representatives will cow again to special interest lobby groups....................

Common Sense tells me why I support upholding this ban.

Tell me why you think it should not be continued? What diff does it make to a marksman or hunter? I honestly don't see a problem with not being able to pump 16 rounds into a deer!

Quote:

The problem is, the National Rifle Association wants assault weapons on our streets. Even if Bush is sincere in wanting to extend the ban, the NRA has threatened to withdraw its support for him. Richard Feldman, a lobbyist for gun manufacturers, told the San Francisco Chronicle it would be "close to his political death" if Bush signed an extension before the election, as the NRA and its fellow travelers would stay away from the polls. And the NRA has withheld its endorsement so far, waiting to make sure Bush plays ball. Feldman said that doesn't preclude future action by Bush:

"Come January, it's a different story. Then, if he's re-elected, he'd be forced to sign the bill, if he gets a clean one that just contains an extension of the existing law."

Quote:

But by that time, there will be plenty of new semi-automatic weapons on the street, as gun enthusiasts are already gearing up for the expiration. As the Post reports, major gun manufacturers are planning to bring back now-banned models, and are offering to sell 15-round magazines starting Sept. 14. Even the Israeli maker of the notorious Uzi is reportedly ready to introduce its guns to the U.S. once the ban is no longer in effect. Robert Ricker, a former leader of the American Shooting Sports Council, told the Post there will be a "buying frenzy" starting next week, helped along by the notion that a ban could be reinstituted at any point.

Quote:

Ironically, one of the NRA's arguments against the weapons ban is its admittedly arbitrary nature, which bans the aforementioned 19 guns while allowing others no less dangerous. That's true, as USA Today argues:

"The NRA is right. But the solution is to eliminate the loopholes, not the law. California has shown the way by banning the sale of large ammo clips and weapons with grenade launchers, bayonet mounts or other features that turn rifles into killing machines. Washington won't follow until it fears a return of dangerous weapons on the street more than the gun lobby."
Assault on Weapons Ban


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
Huge diff between speech and guns, dontcha think?

I don't think so, and neither did our founding fathers.

Quote:

Too bad we have a democracy wherein 2/3 of the populace can want this ban to remain in place but our ever non-representatives will cow again to special interest lobby groups....................
That's right, this country is not, and never was, a democracy. We are a republic. 2/3 of the population may want the ban renewed, but only because of the inflammatory title. I doubt even 1/3 of the population actually knows what the ban covers. I've met gun store owners who couldn't tell you what the AWB actually bans.

Quote:

Common Sense tells me why I support upholding this ban.

Tell me why you think it should not be continued? What diff does it make to a marksman or hunter? I honestly don't see a problem with not being able to pump 16 rounds into a deer!
I don't see anything in the second ammendment about hunting or marksmanship. Besides that, you can still buy normal capacity magazines that were manufactured before the ban, and have 30 rounds at your disposal while hunting. Personally, I prefer 30 round magazines because it means less reloading while I am at the range. AK clones are fun to shoot, as are ARs. I like lining up skeet on the berm and plinking them off. It is very satisfying.

Common sense tells me that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language. Common sense tells me that criminals don't too much mind what the law says in the first place, so gun laws only really affect law-abiding citizens. Common sense tells me that a person with murderous intent can kill me just as easily with a shotgun or a "sporting" rifle as a so called "assault" rifle. Common sense tells me that I don't want to live under the rule of a government that treats all of it's subjects as potential criminals.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

Common sense tells me that "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language.
Ah, yes. A well armed militia and all that.

Right.

Like, if the gov't declares marshall law and comes after your guns themselve you'ld be able to do a damn thing about it!

Quote:

Common sense tells me that criminals don't too much mind what the law says in the first place, so gun laws only really affect law-abiding citizens. Common sense tells me that a person with murderous intent can kill me just as easily with a shotgun or a "sporting" rifle as a so called "assault" rifle.
That's right. They can.

And you can defend yourself just as well with said shotgun, sporting rifle, or your everyday 44 magnum...........

I'd much rather get and keep semi-automatics to a bare minimum. Period.

I don't give a shit about your shotgun or rifle or handgun.

Quote:

Common sense tells me that I don't want to live under the rule of a government that treats all of it's subjects as potential criminals.
Already there.

You've heard of the Patriot Act?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
Personally, I prefer 30 round magazines because it means less reloading while I am at the range. AK clones are fun to shoot, as are ARs. I like lining up skeet on the berm and plinking them off. It is very satisfying.


Cat, I disagree with you on the difference bewteen speech and guns, but I have a feeling that nothing either of us say is going to make much of a difference to the other.

But in MY OWN EXPERIENCE-- I am terrified of this ban "sunsetting". I have been the "skeet on the berm", quite literally. It's much harder to gun down an EMT trying to save a rival gang member when you have to reload then when you can "plink" them off with a semi. And yes, even with the ban these guns make their way to the streets, but WHY make it easier?

Again, don't think this will change any minds of folks reading these threads, but I just want you to hear out the perspective of someone who has lived and breathed "the other side".

As far as I know, not one MAJOR law enforcement association wants this ban to die, either. That should say something.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
Ah, yes. A well armed militia and all that.

Right.

Like, if the gov't declares marshall law and comes after your guns themselve you'ld be able to do a damn thing about it!

If enough people were armed, yes, we could resist. That was the goal of our founding fathers. They envisioned a society in which every man who was able would learn to shoot and keep weapons at his disposal. The militia WAS the people.

Quote:

That's right. They can.

And you can defend yourself just as well with said shotgun, sporting rifle, or your everyday 44 magnum...........

I'd much rather get and keep semi-automatics to a bare minimum. Period.

I don't give a shit about your shotgun or rifle or handgun.
The ban did not take away any semi-automatic weapons, you can buy the same gun tomorrow as you can on monday, you'll just have to wait to attach the bayonette mount if you buy it tomorrow. The bayonette mount doesn't magically turn the gun into something more dangerous.

Well, if the same effect can be achieved with any other gun, what difference does it make if I have an AK or a Ruger??

Honestly, the propaganda makes it sound like "assault weapons" will flood the streets on monday, and children will be buying them on streetcorners, but it simply isn't so. You'll still need to be 18 to buy a rifle, 21 for a handgun, pass a criminal background check, and they'll still cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars (depending on what you want to purchase).

Quote:

Already there.

You've heard of the Patriot Act?
Yes, I have heard of it, and I do NOT support it, but this thread is about the assault weapons ban and the 2nd ammendment. Just because our civil liberties have allready been infringed, does not make it open season to infringe upon them more.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Oh, and thank you Els. I was starting to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
Cat, I disagree with you on the difference bewteen speech and guns, but I have a feeling that nothing either of us say is going to make much of a difference to the other.

But in MY OWN EXPERIENCE-- I am terrified of this ban "sunsetting". I have been the "skeet on the berm", quite literally. It's much harder to gun down an EMT trying to save a rival gang member when you have to reload then when you can "plink" them off with a semi. And yes, even with the ban these guns make their way to the streets, but WHY make it easier?

You can still buy 30 round magazines, and semi-automatics are not illegal. The people shooting at EMTs are the problem, not the guns they are using. Criminals will find the illegal guns that they want anyway, bans just keep these guns from law-abiding citizens. IT doesn't make it easier for the criminals to get them, because they have an awfully hard time passing the mandatory background checks.

Again, the guns aren't the problem; a society and a legal system that not only hands down gentle penalties for criminal activity, but actually glorifies it is the problem. Get the criminals off the street. Honestly, If a convicted criminal can't be trusted with a firearm, why should they be trusted behind the wheel of an automobile?

Quote:

Again, don't think this will change any minds of folks reading these threads, but I just want you to hear out the perspective of someone who has lived and breathed "the other side".

As far as I know, not one MAJOR law enforcement association wants this ban to die, either. That should say something.
Again, how many of them have any idea what the ban actually covers? Even after explaining it to a lot of people, they still think the sunset will mean full-auto's sold to anyone who wants one.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

I agree with you on many points, Cat.

In many ways this comes down to "love of the gun". I just don't get WHY these types of guns (and things like bayonets) need to be on the streets in the firstplace. Perhaps if I was raised in a gun culture family I would feel differently. My opinions are based on my own research, and as I said before, my altogether negative expereience with guns in general. (Although my grandfather did teach me to shoot a rifle-- and I used to be hell of a shot.)

Call me naive, but I wish for a society where the gun is not equated with power.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Too bad we have a democracy wherein 2/3 of the populace can want this ban to remain in place but our ever non-representatives will cow again to special interest lobby groups....................
I find this to be a horrible arguement for anything. Tyrany of the majority and all, kwim? There are so many things that the majority of the people want (no gay marraige for example) which the morraly, ethically, Constitutionally correct thing to do would do the opposite.

Honestly, I support each citizens right to have a tank, grenade launcher, AK-47--- whatever you need. I have 0% support for individuals having handguns. They are *not* necessary for national defense. In my perfect world, you could own *any* gun as long as you passed an extreamly stricts background check. That means NO felony convictions and NO convictions of violent/personal crimes. If we can take away people's right to vote for the rest of their lives (which I find morally wrong, btw) I see no problem with not allowing those same people to have guns.

We here in the US glorify guns and the people who use them.

What does sicken my is GWBs refusal to state a position and follow through with it. Many of DH's friends are absolutely sickened by his pandering to both sides of this issue. I was already sick of him, lol.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Call me naive, but I wish for a society where the gun is not equated with power.
I do not know why the US is so messed up regarding the murder of our own citizens. We don't have the highest poverty rates, the highest gun ownership rates, etc... but we certainly have the highest murder rate (I take exception w/that statistic, but oh well). I guess just banning certain types of guns that could hypothetically do more damage than other types of guns (but not more than say, a truck full of fertilizer & some gas) is a way to make people feel/seem safer. But, I cannot support curtailing the freedom of the many. Honestly, assault weapons & the like, IMO, fit more into the design of the founding fathers--- weapons meant to protect against an *army.*

That said, the constitution was supposed to be a LIVING document, and the way we have twisted it is not pretty.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
I agree with you on many points, Cat.

In many ways this comes down to "love of the gun". I just don't get WHY these types of guns (and things like bayonets) need to be on the streets in the firstplace. Perhaps if I was raised in a gun culture family I would feel differently. My opinions are based on my own research, and as I said before, my altogether negative expereience with guns in general. (Although my grandfather did teach me to shoot a rifle-- and I used to be hell of a shot.)

Call me naive, but I wish for a society where the gun is not equated with power.

Well, a lot of people, my husband included, do not understand my love of cloth diapers either. I mean, why do I need all these fancy all-in-ones and fitteds when prefolds do the job? I happen to collect military weapons, old and (hopefully when I have the cash) new ones.

I am a military history buff, and I love the guns. I was not raised in a gun loving family either, I only learned to shoot a few short months ago. I decided to try it out after we had a prowler on our back porch looking in at me and my newborn baby at 2am. I went out to the range, and realized that I was actually a good shot, and that, contrary to the propaganda, the gun is not an evil instrument with a mind of it's own. Holding it in my hands did not make me want to go out on a killing spree at all, it just made me want to buy more ammo and shoot-n-see targets.









Next thing I knew, I went from the handguns I had come to learn to shoot, to the next range over where I was shooting an AR10. I have been hooked on rifles ever since. With a handgun, you can only shoot so far accurately, but a rifle makes things so much more fun. Semi-automatics, aside from not needing to have a bolt cycled, absorb much of the recoil when they cycle. That is why I prefer them. Someone who is used to a bolt can fire those almost as quickly as a semi-auto, anyway.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

here is my unpopular opinion:

I think all weapons ought to be banned

Why? Freedom should go as far as it doesn't affect somebody elses freedom.And I feel my freedom is being cut with firearms available to everyone.Period.

TC,


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
In my perfect world, you could own *any* gun as long as you passed an extreamly stricts background check. That means NO felony convictions and NO convictions of violent/personal crimes. If we can take away people's right to vote for the rest of their lives (which I find morally wrong, btw) I see no problem with not allowing those same people to have guns.

We here in the US glorify guns and the people who use them.

.

you said it better than i ever could.But I'd go even further and would like all guns purchased this way registered and some law on how to store them.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I find this to be a horrible arguement for anything. Tyrany of the majority and all, kwim? There are so many things that the majority of the people want (no gay marraige for example) which the morraly, ethically, Constitutionally correct thing to do would do the opposite.

So true, thanks.









Quote:

Honestly, I support each citizens right to have a tank, grenade launcher, AK-47--- whatever you need. I have 0% support for individuals having handguns. They are *not* necessary for national defense. In my perfect world, you could own *any* gun as long as you passed an extreamly stricts background check. That means NO felony convictions and NO convictions of violent/personal crimes. If we can take away people's right to vote for the rest of their lives (which I find morally wrong, btw) I see no problem with not allowing those same people to have guns.
Handguns are neccessary in order for individuals to carry concealed, and they are my first choice for self defense because it is much easier to keep a pistol safe beside the bed than to run to the larger safe and retrieve a rifle. They are also far more suitable for close encounters, which is why our service men and women carry them.

A felony conviction takes away your right to bear arms allready, as does an active restraining order, so what you are proposing is nothing new at all. I, however, feel that a person who can not be trusted to own a firearm can not be trusted to be put back on the streets. (obviously, restraining orders are different because they are temporary situations). A car is just as deadly as an assault rifle.

Quote:

We here in the US glorify guns and the people who use them.
Well, I tend to think that society here glorifies violence in all forms, and in doing so, they portray guns as evil instruments of destruction that they aren't really. Movies never realistically portray guns.

Quote:

What does sicken my is GWBs refusal to state a position and follow through with it. Many of DH's friends are absolutely sickened by his pandering to both sides of this issue. I was already sick of him, lol.
I don't like that either, but both sides are playing that game. That, unfortunately, is what politics has come to.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
here is my unpopular opinion:

I think all weapons ought to be banned

Why? Freedom should go as far as it doesn't affect somebody elses freedom.And I feel my freedom is being cut with firearms available to everyone.Period.

TC,

So.... your _feelings_ supercede the rights granted to me by the 2nd ammendment?? If I say something that makes you FEEL angry, does that also supercede my 1st ammendment rights?

I have a natural right to defend myself and my family. Owning a gun, to me, means being prepared should I need to do that.

Gun-registrations are a step towards bans. It is none of the government's business how I exercise my rights, so long as I do it legally and without harming others.

If you don't like guns, don't own them.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

I guess just banning certain types of guns that could hypothetically do more damage than other types of guns (but not more than say, a truck full of fertilizer & some gas) is a way to make people feel/seem safer.
That's just it, you feel safer now because of the assualt weapons ban. Now, can you tell me the difference between an AR15 (affected by the ban) and a mini 14? (not affected)

(crickets chirping) I know unless you research, no you can't. So let me explain. An AR15, black stock, resembling what our military uses, shoots a .223 bullet. As said before, BANNED.
A mini 14, wood stock, looks like grandpas gun, not modeled after our militaries gun. Shoots a .223 bullet! NOT BANNED!
These guns other then the fact one is black, one is wood stock, do the SAME THING, shoot the same round. One is banned, one is not.

Quote:

In my perfect world, you could own *any* gun as long as you passed an extreamly stricts background check. That means NO felony convictions and NO convictions of violent/personal crimes.
Already in place, it is called the Brady Handgun Violence PRevention Act of 1993, not set to sunset. Long forms MUST be filled out on the purchase of any firearm, it MUST be called in to the ATF before you can walk out of the store. In Indiana, if you do not have a license to carry concealed, they must also call the state and get an ok for handgun purchases. You can not be a felon, convicted of domestic abuse, or have diagnosed mental instability.

Quote:

I just don't get WHY these types of guns (and things like bayonets) need to be on the streets in the firstplace. Perhaps if I was raised in a gun culture family I would feel differently.
I was not raised in a gun cultured family either. I love to shoot weapons. I have never been hunting in my life, probably never will. I do however love to competition shoot. Guns aren't just about hunting.
My family also asks me, why do you insist on continuing to b/f that boy, he's to old for that, why do you have to have cloth diapers, the disposables are so much easier. Etc. It's all in what we want and the freedom to have as a citizen of the U.S.A.

Quote:

But in MY OWN EXPERIENCE-- I am terrified of this ban "sunsetting". I have been the "skeet on the berm", quite literally. It's much harder to gun down an EMT trying to save a rival gang member when you have to reload then when you can "plink" them off with a semi. And yes, even with the ban these guns make their way to the streets, but WHY make it easier?
Again, I have to ask, do you know what the Assault weapons ban has kept off the street? Very few of the guns that the gangs like to use are actually "off the streets" And if you really look at it, someone who is intent on doing harm, is breaking the law anyway, they don't care if the gun is banned or not. The postban guns made just like the preban guns, minus the evil features, have the same results, and the gang members don't care.

Quote:

And you can defend yourself just as well with said shotgun, sporting rifle, or your everyday 44 magnum
Your right, although I personally wouldn't use a 44 magnum as it is pretty high powered in itself. I wouldn't use an assualt rifle for home defense either. When considering home defense, you have to consider more then just what type of firearm you are going to use, you also have to consider which type of bullet you are going to use. You have to ask yourself, will it travel thru walls?

Cat, I'm sorry I left you to fend for yourself. I went to bed early.


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
Ah, yes. A well armed militia and all that.

Right.

Like, if the gov't declares marshall law and comes after your guns themselve you'ld be able to do a damn thing about it!


Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
If enough people were armed, yes, we could resist. That was the goal of our founding fathers. They envisioned a society in which every man who was able would learn to shoot and keep weapons at his disposal. The militia WAS the people.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Honestly, assault weapons & the like, IMO, fit more into the design of the founding fathers--- weapons meant to protect against an *army.*

That said, the constitution was supposed to be a LIVING document, and the way we have twisted it is not pretty.

To me, this is the crux of the 2nd Amendment and the gun debate. That the men who wrote it intended for the _people_ to be as well armed as the Military. It helps to remember where these men were coming from and the reasons behind the Amendment. Imagine if the men who came to America and fought the War for Independence were _not_ as well armed as the British military they were fighting against. It stands to reason that we would still be British subjects now and the entire world would be different. The founding fathers wrote this amendment to be sure _the people_ would be able to defend themselves against the military of their country as they had just done against Britain.

So, if the US military has semi-auto and auto weapons, I have a right to them also. If the US military has "assault weapons", I have a right to them also.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
here is my unpopular opinion:

I think all weapons ought to be banned

Why? Freedom should go as far as it doesn't affect somebody elses freedom.And I feel my freedom is being cut with firearms available to everyone.Period.

TC,


I agree.

And I also feel that abortion is a choice enacted by one human being that severely limits the freedom of another human being. But not everyone sees it that way. And likewise, back to the topic, not everyone sees owning a gun to be infiringing on another's freedom.

People take the right to bear arms thing very seriously in our country. But some of the 'arms' they want to bear are *clearly* for more than to defend oneself or one's family. Those are the weapons that I think should be absolutely banned.

And I have NO problem with bayonettes being banned. I think if they weren't banned that sadly some would make, buy and use them. C'mon lets face it. Some Humans throughout history have been, currently are, and will be barbaric again.

JMSO


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
I agree.

And I also feel that abortion is a choice enacted by one human being that severely limits the freedom of another human being. But not everyone sees it that way. And likewise, back to the topic, not everyone sees owning a gun to be infiringing on another's freedom.

People take the right to bear arms thing very seriously in our country. But some of the 'arms' they want to bear are *clearly* for more than to defend oneself or one's family. Those are the weapons that I think should be absolutely banned.

And I have NO problem with bayonettes being banned. I think if they weren't banned that sadly some would make, buy and use them. C'mon lets face it. Some Humans throughout history have been, currently are, and will be barbaric again.

JMSO


Yes we do take the right to bear arms very seriously. Not just because we want to defend ourselfs. But because we love to just shoot. That is my freedom to shoot at targets etc, using whatever gun I choose.

Bayonettes are NOT banned. They are still available, you just can't attach them to your Assault weapon until after the sunset. Now truthfully, do the criminals care if they can attach a bayonette? nope, when was the last time you heard of a drive by bayonetting? The majority of the law abiding gun owning population, want the rifle to look like it is suppose to, including the bayonette lug. No it won't be used for drive by bayonettings, but it adds to the looks.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

No it won't be used for drive by bayonettings, but it adds to the looks.
So what is the bayonet used for? Looks are not enough of a good reason to me personally, to allow a very sharp object to be attached to a semi automatic weapon, where it is readily available in the heat of the moment.

And ironically, I am for supporting second amendment rights.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

To me, this is the crux of the 2nd Amendment and the gun debate. That the men who wrote it intended for the people to be as well armed as the Military. It helps to remember where these men were coming from and the reasons behind the Amendment. Imagine if the men who came to America and fought the War for Independence were not as well armed as the British military they were fighting against. It stands to reason that we would still be British subjects now and the entire world would be different. The founding fathers wrote this amendment to be sure the people would be able to defend themselves against the military of their country as they had just done against Britain.

So, if the US military has semi-auto and auto weapons, I have a right to them also. If the US military has "assault weapons", I have a right to them also.

This was my entire reason for bringing up the "well aremed militia" (militia in my mind being the populace - not the military).

How in the name of Bush can anyone possibly think that any number of assault weapons, fully automatic sub-machine guns or any other type of gun is going to protect us from the military should we resist??????????????

Please.

That is a glaring example of one part of the constitution that is no longer possible.

Unless you want to legalize smart bombs and the like.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Breathless Wonder*
So what is the bayonet used for? Looks are not enough of a good reason to me personally, to allow a very sharp object to be attached to a semi automatic weapon, where it is readily available in the heat of the moment.

And ironically, I am for supporting second amendment rights.

Many gun owners, including myself, own guns for nastalgic reasons as well as shooting. If you were to look in my safe now, you would see more antique firearms then you would modern. It helps the rifle look proper, for collective purposes. A bayonet would be put on the rifle for display only. It isn't used for hunting, shooting etc. We just want a lug so the rifle looks proper. It really is the cool factor, like the silly spinning rims on the car, the fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, a Kerry or Bush political sticker on your car.
Can you show me where a bayonette attached to a gun has been used in a crime, before or after the AWB took affect?


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
This was my entire reason for bringing up the "well aremed militia" (militia in my mind being the populace - not the military).

How in the name of Bush can anyone possibly think that any number of assault weapons, fully automatic sub-machine guns or any other type of gun is going to protect us from the military should we resist??????????????

Please.

That is a glaring example of one part of the constitution that is no longer possible.

Unless you want to legalize smart bombs and the like.

Look at Iraq now. The insurrgents are doing a very good job with AK's (which is generally a crappy weapon) at defeating us. We are not using, or very limited use in popular areas, smart bombs in Iraq.
The same could be done here in the US if it came down to it. Would we win? Hard to say, but to be armed is our right.
Again to discuss fully auto machine guns. These are not affected by this ban. They have been under strict regulaton since 1934.
The semi auto weapons affected by the ban, are still being sold without the trimmings in the US today. They still have the same firepower without the trimmings. There are many rifles not affected by the ban which have the same firepower and even more deadly firepower then those banned. They however weren't banned because they were not evil black looking.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
C'mon lets face it. Some Humans throughout history have been, currently are, and will be barbaric again.

Funny, that is one of my primary reasons for keeping arms. There are people out tehre who would be perfectly happy to kill me and my family for little or no reason at all, and I prefer to be able to defend myself in the most effective way possible. To me, that means having a gun and knowing how to use it, even though I pray I never need to.

The second ammendment was put there so that we could defend against any attack, not just our own government, but any insurgents that come in from other countries.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

With the condition of the world at this moment, I don't think it is a good idea to disarm the law-abiding american citizens.

I have a lot of things to do today, but I will come back this evening to further elaborate on this issue. Sorry to run, but, well.... you all understand.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
I agree.
People take the right to bear arms thing very seriously in our country. But some of the 'arms' they want to bear are *clearly* for more than to defend oneself or one's family. Those are the weapons that I think should be absolutely banned.

And I have NO problem with bayonettes being banned. I think if they weren't banned that sadly some would make, buy and use them. C'mon lets face it. Some Humans throughout history have been, currently are, and will be barbaric again.

JMSO

The origin of my right to bear arms is not just to defend my self and my family from the corner thug, it's ultimately to protect myself from my own country in an absolute worse case scenario - should it become a big ugly corner thug. For obvious reasons, I'd prefer to never have it come to that.

Again, the ability to have a bayonette is not and never was removed by this ban. People still make and buy them. I may have a bayonette if I like, but I would have to give up another feature that may be more important to the function of my rifle. As for using a bayonette, do you know why anyone would use a bayonette for it's intended purpose? Usually that's a last resort - out of ammunition and the only defence left is hand to hand combat. From what I understand, using a bayonette for it's intended purpose can be damaging to your rifle so most wouldn't want to spend a ton of money on a perfectly good rifle just to use it as a spear. But people are strange, so I suppose it's possible.

And my choice of gun ownership effects no one but myself so long as I don't use them for agressive purposes. That's what the background checks and strict (useful) regulations are for. Making sure I'm not a waco before I can purchase my gun. I have absolutely NO problem with them keeping guns out of the hands of known wackos. This ban has nothing to do with that. Those regulations are still there.

From reading posts, I wasn't sure that most people who cry support of the ban even know what it does. How can you support something you don't know anything about?







: That's why I started this thread. To discuss the actual ban so that people would know what they are banning.

If a person is pushing to have something banned, they should shoulder the responsibility of proving why the ban would be effective. Folks that would ban these things should prove why it is imperative that I not have the banned #/combination of acessories and also prove why my having these things is detrimental to the public good. Essentially it is their responsibility to prove why my rights should be taken away, not my responsibility to prove why I should have my rights. That's the whole idea behind a right and why they are protected in our constitution.


----------



## shine (Nov 20, 2001)

I, personally, will rely on the goodness of my fellows and I will not keep a weapon such as a gun in my home.

There was a student at my school who was involved in a situation with a gun at home. She and her husband kept guns. They were both trained and used them for sport, but also to 'defend themselves if the need arose'. So one night the husband heard a noise in the kitchen. He gets his gun and he shoots the person coming in the door. It was his wife. She was lucky to only lose part of her arm. She nearly lost her life.

I went to another school years ago, Simon's Rock College. There was a young man there who was able to order an assault rifle through the mail from his home state legally (he didn't have a record, etc..) and he used said weapon to kill two people and wound several others. The type of weapon had much to do with why he was able to do so much damage so quickly.

Don't think these types of things can't happen to you. A gun is a potential death. If it's there it can be used against you.

And I don't think we need detachable magazines. I think driving over 100 mph is fun, and I can do it well, but that doesn't mean I need to do it on the street or in my backyard or out on some country road. The dangers to other persons are too great. Only people who are professionals, using said weapons in a professional trade, i.e. law enforcement, need to have detachable magazines, in my opinion.

Also, as someone who is part Native American, I don't find the history of the rifle in this country particularly appealing.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I think all weapons ought to be banned

Why? Freedom should go as far as it doesn't affect somebody elses freedom.And I feel my freedom is being cut with firearms available to everyone.Period.

I agree with your unpopular opinion!


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shine*
I, personally, will rely on the goodness of my fellows and I will not keep a weapon such as a gun in my home.

[snip]

And I don't think we need detachable magazines. I think driving over 100 mph is fun, and I can do it well, but that doesn't mean I need to do it on the street or in my backyard or out on some country road. The dangers to other persons are too great. Only people who are professionals, using said weapons in a professional trade, i.e. law enforcement, need to have detachable magazines, in my opinion.

Also, as someone who is part Native American, I don't find the history of the rifle in this country particularly appealing.

1) that is your choice to not own guns. I would never infringe on your right to not bear arms.

2) detachable magazines were never prohibited by the ban.

If you would like to rally to have a new ban that prohibits detachable magazines, that is your right as an American. My request was that people understand the current ban before they hop on the bandwagon to renew it. This ban does nothing to suit your purposes as stated in the above post.

(nak)
perhaps we should ban all cars that go over 65mph except for law enforcement and military? There are plenty of laws against the missuse of guns just as there are against the misuse of a vehicle.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
here is my unpopular opinion:

I think all weapons ought to be banned

Why? Freedom should go as far as it doesn't affect somebody elses freedom.And I feel my freedom is being cut with firearms available to everyone.Period.

TC,


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ilaria*
I agree with your unpopular opinion!









That's a wonderful opinion! If that is what you want out of this ban, sorry, but it doesn't have your desired effect.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shine*
I, personally, will rely on the goodness of my fellows and I will not keep a weapon such as a gun in my home.

There was a student at my school who was involved in a situation with a gun at home. She and her husband kept guns. They were both trained and used them for sport, but also to 'defend themselves if the need arose'. So one night the husband heard a noise in the kitchen. He gets his gun and he shoots the person coming in the door. It was his wife. She was lucky to only lose part of her arm. She nearly lost her life.

I went to another school years ago, Simon's Rock College. There was a young man there who was able to order an assault rifle through the mail from his home state legally (he didn't have a record, etc..) and he used said weapon to kill two people and wound several others. The type of weapon had much to do with why he was able to do so much damage so quickly.

Don't think these types of things can't happen to you. A gun is a potential death. If it's there it can be used against you.

And I don't think we need detachable magazines. I think driving over 100 mph is fun, and I can do it well, but that doesn't mean I need to do it on the street or in my backyard or out on some country road. The dangers to other persons are too great. Only people who are professionals, using said weapons in a professional trade, i.e. law enforcement, need to have detachable magazines, in my opinion.

Also, as someone who is part Native American, I don't find the history of the rifle in this country particularly appealing.


Your first story. One rule of thumb of shooting firearms "Always be aware of your target". If in this case he had been, she wouldn't of been shot. The gun did not shoot her, the husband did.

Second story, yes selling guns across state lines is legal, if the state allows it, but it still has to go thru a dealer, it isn't just delivered to your door. Another case showing, a ban does nothing to stop someone who doesn't care what the laws are.

Again detachable mags were not banned, further production of high cap mags were banned. I actually went to the store yesterday and bought 3 thirty round mags for my mini 14. See I can have the high cap mags because my mini 14 was not affected by the ban, and it has no other evil features in the ban.

Your opinion on the history is duely noted, and is your opinion only. Many others find the history very fasinating.

Like turquoise has said, and I agree with her.

Quote:

My request was that people understand the current ban before they hop on the bandwagon to renew it.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
So.... your _feelings_ supercede the rights granted to me by the 2nd ammendment?? If I say something that makes you FEEL angry, does that also supercede my 1st ammendment rights?

I have a natural right to defend myself and my family. Owning a gun, to me, means being prepared should I need to do that.

Gun-registrations are a step towards bans. It is none of the government's business how I exercise my rights, so long as I do it legally and without harming others.

If you don't like guns, don't own them.

I don't have to agree with the amendment, do I? other country's have shown that a society can also function without firearms available to the public.I mean look at England, even the police doesn't carry any


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

another thing

I thibk when the USA were founded there was a valid reason for people to carry weapons.People lived in the wilderness and a great part of the country hasn't even been explored.There was a need to have a weapon, but this has become obsolete in my opinion.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I don't have to agree with the amendment, do I? other country's have shown that a society can also function without firearms available to the public.I mean look at England, even the police doesn't carry any

No, you don't have to agree with the amendment. It is your right to bear arms, and you may choose not to exercise it. However, when your opinion infringes on my rights, that's where I take exception.









Honestly, who are you to decide whether I need that right or not? May I choose if you need the right to free speech? Are you going to protect my family if there is a burgler? Will 911? I'd prefer not to be left praying that they can. If that is what you would like for your family, that's fine because your family would be the ones at risk of paying the ultimate price. I'm not willing to give up my right to protect my family because you don't think bad things happen, and if they do the police will always be there.

And I'm sure there are plenty of other Americans who feel the same way. But that's neither here nor there as this ban did not take away my 2A right. It just made it harder to own ones that "look scary".


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I don't have to agree with the amendment, do I? other country's have shown that a society can also function without firearms available to the public.I mean look at England, even the police doesn't carry any

Yes let's do look at England. According to this report in December of 2002, by The Telegraph in UK, England has the worst crime rate in the world.
What does that tell you? It tells me that burglars etc, may be deterred from commiting the crimes here, because they have to wonder if the home they are about to break into, the person they are about to rape, etc. have a firearm.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

Quote:

I thibk when the USA were founded there was a valid reason for people to carry weapons.People lived in the wilderness and a great part of the country hasn't even been explored.There was a need to have a weapon, but this has become obsolete in my opinion.
The reason for the second ammendment was NOT for hunting purposes. See below.

Quote:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Right of Americans to own guns is supported by the 2nd Ammendment, under the condition that we need them to form a militia to protect our sovereignty.
Edited to add...
words of our founding fathers.

Quote:

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Quote:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
Yes we do take the right to bear arms very seriously. Not just because we want to defend ourselfs. But because we love to just shoot. That is my freedom to shoot at targets etc, using whatever gun I choose.

Bayonettes are NOT banned. They are still available, you just can't attach them to your Assault weapon until after the sunset. Now truthfully, do the criminals care if they can attach a bayonette? nope, when was the last time you heard of a drive by bayonetting? The majority of the law abiding gun owning population, want the rifle to look like it is suppose to, including the bayonette lug. No it won't be used for drive by bayonettings, but it adds to the looks.


I was referring to the attaching of bayonettes...sorry to confuse you. I thought that was understood.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
I was referring to the attaching of bayonettes...sorry to confuse you. I thought that was understood.


So can you tell me why the ability to attach a bayonette is such a bad thing? I asked once for someone to show me statistics of bayonettings in crime, before or after the AWB. I am still waiting for that response.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
So can you tell me why the ability to attach a bayonette is such a bad thing?









:







:







:

I think you probably can answer your own question.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

There was a need to have a weapon, but this has become obsolete in my opinion.
Well, that may be true in your area, but I know there are some areas I can think of where large wildlife can still pose a significant danger- some of those areas might surprise you. Not that I am in support of shooting a bear, mountain lion etc. because it was "annoying" me, or eating my chickens, but I think I would want the option of shooting if my child was in mortal, immediate danger, and all other deterrants had failed. Heck, I might even want a semi automatic in that case.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*







:







:







:

I think you probably can answer your own question.


Yes I have answered my question many times in this discussion. There is no reason to ban the bayonette lug, because it isn't used in a criminal way.
Unless of course you can find statistics to prove me wrong.

Edited to add..
Back to your original qoute

Quote:

And I have NO problem with bayonettes being banned. I think if they weren't banned that sadly some would make, buy and use them. C'mon lets face it. Some Humans throughout history have been, currently are, and will be barbaric again.
This specifically says to me, bayonettes banned, some would still make, buy and use them.
Nothing about the lug itself. So no I didn't confuse what you said. You said what you meant. I responded to what I read.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

If I have time tonight, I wiull come back with stats and ban particulars.

Have been very busy today with the FF memorial, and am on duty tonight, as both mama and EMS.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
If I have time tonight, I wiull come back with stats and ban particulars.

Have been very busy today with the FF memorial, and am on duty tonight, as both mama and EMS.

I will be on, off and on. Remember my question is specifically how many bayonettings before or after the AWB took affect.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
another thing

I thibk when the USA were founded there was a valid reason for people to carry weapons.People lived in the wilderness and a great part of the country hasn't even been explored.There was a need to have a weapon, but this has become obsolete in my opinion.

Until we live in an ideal world where there is no crime or tyranny, weapons will still be neccessary.

For those of you who prefer to trust your fellow man, do you also leave your doors and windows unlocked? Would you also feel comfortable with a sign on your lawn stating that you are a no gun household? Locks are deterrents, just as armed citizenry is a deterrent. It isn't likely that insurgents from other countries will attempt to invade on our soil, simply because they know that there are far too many of us with the weapons and the know how to use them. It is what stopped Japan from invading the mainland during WWII, and I have no doubt that it was a driving force in the decision that Al Quaida made to attack using airplanes where they were guaranteed not to face citizens with guns.

I, too, trust my fellow man, but only to a point. I trust law-abiding citizens to own firearms, but I do not trust the local PD or anyone else to look out for MY family's best interests. I rely on myself for that. The guns in my safe have never killed anyone while in my possession, and I hope they never will. I am not a homicidal maniac. I am a mother who refuses to let someone harm her children without a fight. I am a woman who finds great satisfaction in being able to shoot well. I am a history buff who enjoys looking at, firing, maintaining, and cleaning rifles from days gone by. None of these passtimes harms anyone.

Like it or not, guns are a part of the world we live in. You can choose not to own them yourself, but when you block all law-abiding citizens from owning them, you will not stop those with criminal intent. Bans do not work. The only people who care about bans are those who abide the laws.

The rights granted to us by the constitution and the bill of rights are very sacred to me. This is the land of the free, or at least it was supposed to be.

"No FREE man shall EVER be barred the use of arms"

Thos. Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, T. Jefferson Papers, 334

"The GREAT object is that EVERY man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun!"

Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"A Militia, when PROPERLY formed, are in fact the PEOPLE themselves, and include ALL men capable of bearing arms."

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest."

Mohandas Ghandi, 1927

"The most FOOLISH mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

Adolph Hitler, edict of 18 March, 1938


----------



## Unagidon (Aug 20, 2004)

I see two arguments here. First, the ban should be allowed to sunset because it really didn't ban all assault weapons. And second, because the Constitution protects the right to bear arms.

The first argument, IMO, is not an argument for letting the ban sunset - it's an argument for extending the ban to include all the 'copycats' and things that were intended to be included in the category of 'assault weapons.' Saying 'it didn't include everything it was supposed to, so let's throw out the whole thing' is baby/bathwater, IMO. This argues rather for making the ban stronger, to include any semi-automatic assault weapon and any clip that holds more than ten rounds.

The second argument was defeated when the law was put in place. Laws that are unconstitutional can be challenged in court. Laws that violate the constitution are overturned. This one wasn't; and it has been challenged in court repeatedly by the NRA. It has withstood the test of legal challenge.

I think the analogy between collecting cloth diapers and collecting guns seems incongruous. Cloth diapers have never, to my knowledge, been used to kill anyone.

Police support the ban. They are the ones getting shot at by drug traffickers and gangsters. I support them.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

No one needs a weapon that will shoot 16 rounds of ammo at once. C'mon. To kill a deer? Hardly. Who are the ones using weapons such as these? Kids on the streets.

And I was lmao about protecting ourselves from the gov't. Literally. We have the strongest military in the world. We can take over small countries with our bombs. Can't you see us with our assault rifles trying to shoot down airplanes from the sky or, what, to shoot at bombs and tanks? :LOL It may work for two seconds in the south 'til they bring the big boys in :LOL

Seriously. "The right to bear arms". Should you have the right to own plutonium? What constitutes an "arm"? Should we be allowed to build bombs? If yes, how big? Wouldn't a limit be unconstitutional? While we're at it, do we get to own nukes? It's considered "arms". Tanks with rocket launchers? Yeah, let's grab some up while we're at it!

I mean, lines need to be drawn somewhere. If you're that threatened by our gov't you should probably move to Canada or the Netherlands or something. Hunting is one thing. Guns that shoot multiple rounds of ammo are totally different.

ETA: I would like a statistic, too, please. When the Constitution was written, how many of our founding fathers owned or used sawed-off shotguns or assault rifles?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unagidon*
... Cloth diapers have never, to my knowledge, been used to kill anyone...

:LOL

I am a handgun and rifle owner. I support the ban and support expanding it to make it more effective.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

For those of you who prefer to trust your fellow man, do you also leave your doors and windows unlocked? Would you also feel comfortable with a sign on your lawn stating that you are a no gun household?
Oddly enough, I do basically trust my fellow man. I don't generally lock our doors or windows unless we are going out of town and when I leave the house for the day the door is always unlocked and my garage door is usually open. I don't live way out either, it is just how I *need* to live. I would feel perfectly comfortable with that sign on my lawn and it would be honest--- we do not use or harbor guns in my home.

But that has *nothing* to do with how I feel about people's rights to do what they feel is right. I think adults should be left to make their own decisions whenever possible.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
No one needs a weapon that will shoot 16 rounds of ammo at once. C'mon. To kill a deer? Hardly. Who are the ones using weapons such as these? Kids on the streets.

And I was lmao about protecting ourselves from the gov't. Literally. We have the strongest military in the world. We can take over small countries with our bombs. Can't you see us with our assault rifles trying to shoot down airplanes from the sky or, what, to shoot at bombs and tanks? :LOL It may work for two seconds in the south 'til they bring the big boys in :LOL

Seriously. "The right to bear arms". Should you have the right to own plutonium? What constitutes an "arm"? Should we be allowed to build bombs? If yes, how big? Wouldn't a limit be unconstitutional? While we're at it, do we get to own nukes? It's considered "arms". Tanks with rocket launchers? Yeah, let's grab some up while we're at it!

I mean, lines need to be drawn somewhere. If you're that threatened by our gov't you should probably move to Canada or the Netherlands or something. Hunting is one thing. Guns that shoot multiple rounds of ammo are totally different.

ETA: I would like a statistic, too, please. When the Constitution was written, how many of our founding fathers owned or used sawed-off shotguns or assault rifles?


You ask should we be able to have plutonium, build bombs, have nukes, tanks with rocket launchers.
Your reaching way above and beyond what the whole point of this discussion is.
That would be the Assault weapons ban of 1994.
But to answer your question, I don't think so, I don't think any law abiding citizen would either. And that is not what we are fighting for.
To say I should just move to Cananda or the Netherlands, that's as silly as saying if Kerry doesn't win, I'll move out of the country. I am proud to be an american and proud of my heritage. If the people were to rise up against our governement. The people in all likelyhood would lose, but it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd ammendment. If I choose to die defending what I hold dear, how would this hurt you? And the right to defend myself against my government, if need be, is NOT the only reason law abiding citizens desire to own firearms.
Now since our founding fathers fought with the Brown Bess muskat and The Pennsylvania long rifle, that is also what the people fought with. It made an equal fight. Sawed off shotguns and assault rifles were not even thought of then.
Sawed off shotguns BTW are illegal, no ban sunsetting to protect your right to own them.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Oddly enough, I do basically trust my fellow man. I don't generally lock our doors or windows unless we are going out of town and when I leave the house for the day the door is always unlocked and my garage door is usually open. I don't live way out either, it is just how I *need* to live. I would feel perfectly comfortable with that sign on my lawn and it would be honest--- we do not use or harbor guns in my home.

But that has *nothing* to do with how I feel about people's rights to do what they feel is right. I think adults should be left to make their own decisions whenever possible.


I'm glad for you that you do live in a place that you can leave your doors unlocked. Not everyone is so fortunate.
I live in a city, we have an alarm system that is set right before we go to bed or when we leave the house, we lock all our doors and windows, even if we are home. The last time our alarm went off, it took Police almost 30 minutes to show up. Please don't say "then move if it is so unsafe". It isn't that easy, and we all know that. In a perfect world, we could all live in a safe place, but this is not a perfect world.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
No one needs a weapon that will shoot 16 rounds of ammo at once. C'mon. To kill a deer? Hardly. Who are the ones using weapons such as these? Kids on the streets.

Again, where in the constitution does it say anything about hunting?? I happen to like guns with 30 round magazines (or more if possible), and not for hunting or bloody rampages, just for the joy of shooting at the range.

Quote:

And I was lmao about protecting ourselves from the gov't. Literally. We have the strongest military in the world. We can take over small countries with our bombs. Can't you see us with our assault rifles trying to shoot down airplanes from the sky or, what, to shoot at bombs and tanks? :LOL It may work for two seconds in the south 'til they bring the big boys in :LOL
It doesn't have to be our own government. ANY armed insurgency can be fended off by the people with the aid of the military. If armed invaders come to my home, I can and will fight them.

Also, if it came to a point where the American people were facing off against a government that had become irreparably tyrannical, how many of our service men and women do you think would fight for them? They take an oath to protect the american way of life, so any orders to attack their fellow citizens would be unlawful, and I have no doubt that most of them would refuse. These people volunteered because they are patriots. The US Armed forces wouldn't ammount to very much without soldiers.

Quote:

Seriously. "The right to bear arms". Should you have the right to own plutonium? What constitutes an "arm"? Should we be allowed to build bombs? If yes, how big? Wouldn't a limit be unconstitutional? While we're at it, do we get to own nukes? It's considered "arms". Tanks with rocket launchers? Yeah, let's grab some up while we're at it!
Plutonium can harm those in the vicinity of it _all on its own_. Improper storage or maintenance of a nuclear device poses a direct threat to anyone within a certain range. My guns, however, are not capable of harming anyone on their own. Bombs are a similar issue. If you have the money, you can buy a tank if you want, right now! Of course, there are only a limited number of people in this country who could afford it.

Quote:

I mean, lines need to be drawn somewhere. If you're that threatened by our gov't you should probably move to Canada or the Netherlands or something. Hunting is one thing. Guns that shoot multiple rounds of ammo are totally different.
Funny, I was thinking that if you wanted to trade freedom for security, you should move to England or someplace.

Quote:

ETA: I would like a statistic, too, please. When the Constitution was written, how many of our founding fathers owned or used sawed-off shotguns or assault rifles?
I can answer that without looking, none used sawed off shotguns, and as far as "assault weapons" go, well, you'll have to define that for me, since neither the law, nor members here have established what features magically transform an ordinary rifle into evil baby-killing assault weapons. The founding fathers had bayonettes, which we have established as being evil, does that help?

Edited to add: I realize some of you may not really understand semi-automatic weapons. Having a 30 round magazine does not mean that when I squeeze the trigger, 30 bullets fly out of it. I still have to squeeze the trigger 30 times, and despite the way the movies portray it, each shot causes the barrel to move from teh recoil, therefore I have to realign the sights with every shot, slowing things down even more. I would reccomend that those of you who are so terrified of guns, and who do not understand them at all, to get up the courage to go out to the range with a knowledgeable person. Firing a gun for yourself may relieve a lot of your fears and correct a lot of misconceptions.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unagidon*
I see two arguments here. First, the ban should be allowed to sunset because it really didn't ban all assault weapons. And second, because the Constitution protects the right to bear arms.

The first argument, IMO, is not an argument for letting the ban sunset - it's an argument for extending the ban to include all the 'copycats' and things that were intended to be included in the category of 'assault weapons.' Saying 'it didn't include everything it was supposed to, so let's throw out the whole thing' is baby/bathwater, IMO. This argues rather for making the ban stronger, to include any semi-automatic assault weapon and any clip that holds more than ten rounds.

The second argument was defeated when the law was put in place. Laws that are unconstitutional can be challenged in court. Laws that violate the constitution are overturned. This one wasn't; and it has been challenged in court repeatedly by the NRA. It has withstood the test of legal challenge.

BOth arguments are valid. The so called "assault weapons ban" only banned certain cosmetic features, not actually any real weapons. There is no fundamental difference between the rifle you can buy today, and the rifle you can buy on Monday. It is a bill designed to test the waters and start the ball rolling towards total gun bans, which is precisely what Feinstein has said that she wants.... which leads us to the second argument....

All I am arguing for is the country that Jefferson, Washington, Madison and others founded. I want to keep the rights they guaranteed me, they are the rights on which this nation was built. If you take away any part of the constitution, then this country is no longer Washington's USA. You may as well rename the place, toss the whole document out, and start over.

Quote:

I think the analogy between collecting cloth diapers and collecting guns seems incongruous. Cloth diapers have never, to my knowledge, been used to kill anyone.
Neither have my guns. In fact, in the hands of _law-abiding_ citizens, guns have never been used to intentionally kill an innocent person. Cars are just as, if not more, dangerous, yet I see no one here pushing to restrict the manufacture of sports cars or prohibit anyone from driving. The comparison to cloth diapers was to demonstrate that you may not understand why I enjoy collecting guns, but a lot of people don't understand why I like collecting diapers, either. I don't base my life (or my hobbies) on the opinions of others.

Quote:

Police support the ban. They are the ones getting shot at by drug traffickers and gangsters. I support them.
Again, how many of them have any idea what the ban actually covers? If I asked you if you supported a bill with me title "the ban on wanton baby-killers", you'd probably think it sounded like a good thing, and without further information, you'd say you supported it. Later, I could compile your answer with others to say that the majority of women support the ban, which is actually a cleverly disguised ban on abortion.

Guns do not commit assault. Guns are TOOLS. No special feature makes one rifle more evil than another. They do not kill people on tehir own, nor do they make people inot killers.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Guns were made for killing. Period. I'm not afraid of guns at all. The thought of holding something in my hands that was designed to maim and kill is revolting, to be honest. I just don't understand why target practice is so important, yk? If guns and bullets WEREN'T around, a whooooole bunch of kids here in Baltimore would NOT have died. It's not worth it. Human lives are far more important to me than A.)having fun at target practice or B.) worrying about potentially being attacked by some unknown dark governmental force.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I'm glad for you that you do live in a place that you can leave your doors unlocked. Not everyone is so fortunate.
I live in a city, we have an alarm system that is set right before we go to bed or when we leave the house, we lock all our doors and windows, even if we are home. The last time our alarm went off, it took Police almost 30 minutes to show up. Please don't say "then move if it is so unsafe". It isn't that easy, and we all know that. In a perfect world, we could all live in a safe place, but this is not a perfect world.








I was not saying what anyone else should do and I would certainly not advise you to move. I was responding to a question and it just struck me as rather odd that I do feel "that safe."

Most robberies occur when no one is home and I would rather keep my basic trust of humans intact than my possessions







I'll probably feel differntly once my house is looted! It's not like I live out in the hicks, though (though it is definatley suburbia), I live on the Eastside of Seattle.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

The thought of holding something in my hands that was designed to maim and kill is revolting, to be honest. I just don't understand why target practice is so important, yk? If guns and bullets WEREN'T around, a whooooole bunch of kids here in Baltimore would NOT have died. It's not worth it. Human lives are far more important to me than A.)having fun at target practice or B.) worrying about potentially being attacked by some unknown dark governmental force.
The thing is, I could write that word for word. I believe it. Guns are not impt to me. For any (law abiding) one who belives they make them "safer"--- I think they are misinformed. I think the world would be better off w/out weapons for that matter.

But, I don't WANT to decide for everyone. Know why? Because I don't want them to decide what things I get to find important. What things I want to do.

I support fewer restrictions on adults. As soon as you cross a line though, I believe in harsh consequences.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

For all the







: going on, not one gun-advocate has explained why there is a problem with this ban. Why is it necessary to have these particular items (as per the OP) available for sale?

Who cares if guns kill people or people kill people or any of those trite lines, or any statistical whatevers about what guns did what to whom.

What possible big deal is there if these things are unavailable? You don't have enough gun parts or something?
What does anyone need them for?

You want to shoot the burglar in your home? Mazal tov. You still don't need all that stuff to do it. There are plenty of horrifically available deadly weapons to do it with even with the ban in place.

Please elaborate on why the gun lobby cares if these things are banned. And please don't use the slippery slope argument, because that's just useless in the face of dead people. Good guys or bad guys, they're still dead.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Mamas, apologies. I would love to research some stats and put some of my ban-supporting emotions into facts.

However, it's 11:30, the babe is FINALLY asleep, I'm on call until 8:00, and there's a lot of police traffic tonight on the scanner, which almost always mean a busy night for me in an hour or so.

I am going to sleep.

Will try to post again in the AM.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
Yes let's do look at England. According to this report in December of 2002, by The Telegraph in UK, England has the worst crime rate in the world.
What does that tell you? It tells me that burglars etc, may be deterred from commiting the crimes here, because they have to wonder if the home they are about to break into, the person they are about to rape, etc. have a firearm.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts

crime includes theft, friscal fraud etc..all of which have nothing to do with weapons.Instead,let's look at the murder rates...have any handy?

Quote:



The reason for the second ammendment was NOT for hunting purposes. See below.
I never said it was.But if you live somewhere in the middle of North Dakota in 1790 you might be attacked by wild life or people and have no infrastrucutre whatsoever that could protect or help you.

Quote:



Edited to add...
words of our founding fathers.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unagidon*
I see two arguments here. First, the ban should be allowed to sunset because it really didn't ban all assault weapons.

I will respond to this one, as this is an argument that I made that is being misunderstood. I apologize, I may have worded my point too politely to be effective. Please pardon the following directness:

My argument is: how can you support something you know nothing about? "please renew the ban - we don't need detachable magazines." That's just sad. It's sad that people will pat themselves on the back and call themselves "citizen" when in fact they are just following the propaganda of the day and being sheeple. Letting people mislead them into thinking this ban does something that it doesn't.

If you want to outlaw detachable magazines, heck all guns from semi-auto to bb, fine, it's your right as a true American citizen (who reads and fully understands the legislation they are supporting) to pursue that and I'll see you on the opposite side of the protest march. Anything less than full understanding of the legislation you claim to support "I don't quite get it, but it sounds good and what's her face down the street likes it, so it must be good" is just dangerous regardless of my opinion of your intent and it's true whether "what's her face" is an average joe citizen or a law enforcement officer.

Heck, even if you are happy with the ban for what it actually does then applaud away. But don't go making claims that aren't real. Please know what you are talking about. That was my request.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *merpk*
For all the







: going on, not one gun-advocate has explained why there is a problem with this ban. Why is it necessary to have these particular items (as per the OP) available for sale?

Who cares if guns kill people or people kill people or any of those trite lines, or any statistical whatevers about what guns did what to whom.

What possible big deal is there if these things are unavailable? You don't have enough gun parts or something?
What does anyone need them for?

You want to shoot the burglar in your home? Mazal tov. You still don't need all that stuff to do it. There are plenty of horrifically available deadly weapons to do it with even with the ban in place.

Please elaborate on why the gun lobby cares if these things are banned. And please don't use the slippery slope argument, because that's just useless in the face of dead people. Good guys or bad guys, they're still dead.

Funny, I would argue that since it is you who are trying to take something away (by attempting to block the expiration of the ban), you should shoulder the bourdon of proving why any *law abiding citizen* owning these things directly effects you and the general public at large.

And by your line of questioning, I see that you STILL don't know what this ban actually does. Please, in your own words...what does the "assault weapons" ban do, how does it work, and what do you expect to gain by it being extended? (no points for plagiarism)


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Too tired to go back and look at who posted saying that they were glad to know that they aren't alone in supporting the ban. You're not. I support it too. I do not have the energy to debate it today (too many other things clouding my mind) but you are not alone.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
crime includes theft, friscal fraud etc..all of which have nothing to do with weapons.Instead,let's look at the murder rates...have any handy?

I never said it was.But if you live somewhere in the middle of North Dakota in 1790 you might be attacked by wild life or people and have no infrastrucutre whatsoever that could protect or help you.


Please note, in 1997 England passed a stricter law essentially disarming the people.

Quote:

Use of handguns in crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000. This is in spite of the ban on private ownership of the weapons introduced in the wake of the Dunblane massacre. There were 42 people killed with handguns during the period - more than in any other year in the 1990s.
http://www.truepatriot.com/england_crime_page.html

Quote:

Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of **********'s New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

This site has a nice chart showing burglary, violent crime, theft of cars and overall victimisation. It shows in 1999, 2 years after their gun ban, they show some of the highest rates for these crimes.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/g...crimerates.htm

definition of fiscal-
1. Of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt: a fiscal policy of incurring budget deficits to stimulate a weak economy.
2. Of or relating to finance or finances.

Gun control lobbiest say gun control is lowering violent crimes, murder, etc. Nothing has ever been mentioned about gun control and fiscal crime.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
The thing is, I could write that word for word. I believe it. Guns are not impt to me. For any (law abiding) one who belives they make them "safer"--- I think they are misinformed. I think the world would be better off w/out weapons for that matter.

But, I don't WANT to decide for everyone. Know why? Because I don't want them to decide what things I get to find important. What things I want to do.

I support fewer restrictions on adults. As soon as you cross a line though, I believe in harsh consequences.

TiredX2, I think I understand what you are saying, and I think I agree (minus the misinformed part, of course














). Do you mean that while you don't agree with guns or weapons in general, you recognize that my personal ownership of them (as a law abiding citizen) does not affect you?

If that is the case, I thank you for not throwing law abiding citizens in the cubbie with the criminals. And for your "As soon as you cross a line though, I believe in harsh consequences." remark, I encourage you to research the laws that we already have that do just that.

To quote a personal friend of mine "this is as much about finding ways to deal with criminals _that actually affect criminals_ and not law abiding citizens as it is about guns. Guns are just an easy target." I believe if we keep our eyes on the goal of prosecuting criminals, we'd find that many more of us fall on common ground.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
We'll have to agree to disagree. Guns were made for killing. Period. I'm not afraid of guns at all. The thought of holding something in my hands that was designed to maim and kill is revolting, to be honest. I just don't understand why target practice is so important, yk? If guns and bullets WEREN'T around, a whooooole bunch of kids here in Baltimore would NOT have died. It's not worth it. Human lives are far more important to me than A.)having fun at target practice or B.) worrying about potentially being attacked by some unknown dark governmental force.

If you had a time machine or a magic wand and could make it so that guns never existed in the first place, then that would be great. (I have no doubt that people would find other ways to kill each other, but that isn't the point). The problem is, no amount of legislation will get rid of all guns. Legislation will only take them from people who mind the law, thus giving criminals an advantage.

Merpk, I want the bayo lug because I collect military rifles, but I have allready elaborated on that. I want the folding stock because I am not a very large person, and it makes it easier for me to shoot. The flash suppressor doesn't matter much to me except for making the rifle more attractive, but some people shoot at night and the flare bothers them. The pistol grip just makes it easier to hold onto. Normal capacity magazine (instead of low-capacity) just make it easier at the range. Loading magazines makes your fingers hurt, especially the last few bullets in, so more bullets per magazine means less hurt for my fingers. Are these things _neccessary_? No, but they aren't hurting anyone either, so why take them away? I agree with Turquoise, if you want to take something away, I shouldn't have the burden to convince you (or the courts) otherwise. The "assault weapons ban" is useless, feel-good legislation for the sheeple, so why should we renew it?


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *turquoise*
TiredX2, I think I understand what you are saying, and I think I agree (minus the misinformed part, of course














). Do you mean that while you don't agree with guns or weapons in general, you recognize that my personal ownership of them (as a law abiding citizen) does not affect you?

If that is the case, I thank you for not throwing law abiding citizens in the cubbie with the criminals. And for your "As soon as you cross a line though, I believe in harsh consequences." remark, I encourage you to research the laws that we already have that do just that.

To quote a personal friend of mine "this is as much about finding ways to deal with criminals _that actually affect criminals_ and not law abiding citizens as it is about guns. Guns are just an easy target." I believe if we keep our eyes on the goal of prosecuting criminals, we'd find that many more of us fall on common ground.


Very well said turquoise.
Tiredx2, If I understand what your saying, thank you too. The misinformed part though, have to agree with turquoise there.

Quote:

one who belives they make them "safer"--- I think they are misinformed.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
Very well said turquoise.
Tiredx2, If I understand what your saying, thank you too. The misinformed part though, have to agree with turquoise there.

Thank, you Turquoise for addressing that, and thank you, Tiredx2. I also disagree with the misinformed part, but you are entiltled to your opinion.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

For all the going on, not one gun-advocate has explained why there is a problem with this ban. Why is it necessary to have these particular items (as per the OP) available for sale?
I don't find it *necessary* to have them. I don't have any firearms. I just think before we curtail any rights in a supposedly free society we should have more than suppositions. The drug war comes readily to mind, honestly









Quote:

You want to shoot the burglar in your home? Mazal tov. You still don't need all that stuff to do it. There are plenty of horrifically available deadly weapons to do it with even with the ban in place.
Strawman arguement. No one is arguing that you *have* to have any one particular weapon, just that the current ban doesn't actually make anyone safer.

Quote:

TiredX2, I think I understand what you are saying, and I think I agree (minus the misinformed part, of course ). Do you mean that while you don't agree with guns or weapons in general, you recognize that my personal ownership of them (as a law abiding citizen) does not affect you?
No, what I am actually adressing is how many people seem to think they can just go buy a gun (never taking a class, practicing, etc...) put it on their bedside table and *POOF* they are safer. Not. I consider that misinformed. Statistically, you are more likely to have a gun injury in your house if you, yourself, own a gun. Just *having* a gun and being willing to use it, does not automatically make you safer. [That is regarding the misinformed part: gun does not equal safety].

Quote:

If that is the case, I thank you for not throwing law abiding citizens in the cubbie with the criminals. And for your "As soon as you cross a line though, I believe in harsh consequences." remark, I encourage you to research the laws that we already have that do just that.

To quote a personal friend of mine "this is as much about finding ways to deal with criminals that actually affect criminals and not law abiding citizens as it is about guns. Guns are just an easy target." I believe if we keep our eyes on the goal of prosecuting criminals, we'd find that many more of us fall on common ground.
Your second paragraph is actually what I was trying to express with my comment about "harsh consequences." Let me draw an analogy with alcohol. Neither alcohol or guns are *necessarily* dangerous. Used improperly, though, they are both deadly. I support them both being legal (for responsible adults, of course). BUT, once illegal actions are taken with them (threatening with a gun, DWI/DUI) I think the consequences should be swift & severe.

Until you can prove that *any person around me* doing *an action* directly effects me (or my children, etc...) then I think they should be free to do that action. I am sure you could come up with some examples that would make me waver, but once again... I do not support arbitrary (which is particular ban definately qualifies as) restrictions of individual liberties.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Okay, folks. Some stats as compiled by the Brady Campaign. (Hey-- if y'all can quote the NRA, fair is fair...)

BAN PROVISIONS
On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols

Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

DOES THE BAN AFFECT HUNTING RIFLES?
No. The definition of an assault weapon is tightly drawn. Only semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapon features are banned (see below). Traditional guns designed for use in hunting and recreational activities are not affected. To alleviate concerns that hunting weapons somehow might be affected, the law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently being manufactured. The list is not exhaustive and a gun does not have to be on the list to be protected. Again, the only weapons that are prohibited are those with multiple assault weapon features.

THINGS ASSAULT WEAPONS HAVE THAT SEMI-AUTO HUNTING RIFLES DO NOT:
--A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.
--A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.
--A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.
--A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.
--A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.
--A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.
--A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

{{{Myself, I could give a rat's heinie whether you have a bayonet on your rifle or not. What I personally fear, and have seen in action, are the large capacity ammo rounds, a folding stock, and the barrel shroud. Also, I think flash suppressors should be illegal, hands down. Do I really need to explain why?}}}

WHAT IS A SEMI?
A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can twitch your finger.

Q: Why does the gun lobby say that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon?

A: Playing word games, the NRA/gun lobby often claims that semi-automatic assault weapons don't exist because the term "assault weapons" only means fully automatic weapons (machine guns - see above). Law enforcement groups disagree with the NRA on this, as did Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and Congress. Even the gun industry disagrees with the NRA and uses the term "assault weapons" to refer to semi-automatic, military-style weapons. In 1986, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, first published a book entitled, The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. Here is what they had to say about a few of the weapons they test-fired for their second edition:

"The Cobray M11/Nine bears a striking resemblance to the Ingram M11 submachine gun, because it is basically the same gun. Current manufacture is made in semi-auto."

"[The Spectre], now being produced by F.I.E., is a semi-automatic clone of the Spectre submachine gun that is being manufactured in Italy....If you can't have the steak, you can still have the sizzle."

VIOLENT CRIMES????
Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.[5]

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.[6]

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.[7]

MORE ON BAN EFFECTIVENESS:
Gun traces are one of the best measures of gun usage in crime. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons in the 1993-95 period declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.[8]

This same study also reported that the number of assault weapons traced in St. Louis and Boston declined 29% and 24% respectively, as a share of all guns recovered in crime, during late 1995 and into 1996.

In addition, a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) found that, in Maryland, whose ban on assault pistols took effect in June 1994, the number of assault pistols recovered by Baltimore police in the first six months of 1995 fell by 45 percent from the first six months of 1994.[9]

FROM THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:

WHO ELSE SUPPORTED THIS BAN?
" The late President Ronald Reagan affirmed to Congress that a ban on assault weapons was common sense public safety legislation. "

"Since the passage of the ban, federal crime statistics show a dramatic 66 percent drop in the incidence of assault weapons traced to crimes. Given that, I can't think of a rational reason not to renew this law.

Police across the nation face danger on the job daily. Why should Congress and the president be allowed to increase that danger? None of us - in the law-enforcement or civilian community - should have to face military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Law-enforcement officers, for the most part, take pride in the ability to maintain the peace with a sidearm. If this ban is allowed to expire, our nation's law-enforcement leaders will be faced with the reality of having front-line officers out-gunned by every street gang, drug trafficker, and common criminal with access to the neighborhood sporting-goods store. The reality is, when the family firearm becomes an AK-47 or Tec-9 assault pistol, they also become the easy weapon of choice for would-be school shooters and other violent teens. How many more lives will the gun lobby put at risk to sell more assault weapons?"

-The above quoted editorial from Seattle Chief of Police Gil Kerlikowske

Ok, I'm nakking, and that's all the time I have to devote to this at the moment. Food for thought...


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

Off-Topic

Not weighing in on the AWB...Dad sent me this NPR interivew blurb and it amused me so I thought I would pass it on (the intent is simply for amusement not to spark a pro/anti gun law debate)...

It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you
going
to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing,
archery, and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't
it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly
supervised on
the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly
dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them
proper
rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent
killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but
you're not one....... are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

Happy Fall Y'all,

Jenne


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

:LOL







:


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Typical. The NRA is the most digusting organization that exists today.

Did you know that after Columbine occurred, the town was in a deep state of shock and sadness and they BEGGED the NRA to postpone their local convention and they refused? Did you also know the NRA sprouted up right alongside the KKK? They were promoting the use of guns on African Americans.

I'm glad that ppl find the sexual degradation of women and the blatant disregard for the parents' who's children were killed so funny. Let's hope your children live long and well.

Charleton Heston is going to hell.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

BAN PROVISIONS
On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3252.html

The AWB has actually increased the ownership of assault weapons by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of guns. In nine years not a singe person has been denied access to a high capacity semi-auto rifle because of price or availability.

It only bans the manufacture of semi-auto rifles (one shot per trigger pull) with folding stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs. It also bans the manufacture of semi-auto rifles and pistols that hold more than ten bullets.

After 1994 manufacturers simply redesigned their guns to meet the legal requirements. In his November 14, 1997, "MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY," President Clinton stated that "Firearms importers have obtained permits to import nearly 600,000 modified assault-type rifles. In addition, there are pending before the Department applications to import more than 1 million additional such weapons."

Quote:

Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including
:

Please see link below for graph showing homicides. 1% of all homicides before the ban took affect were with assualt rifles.

http://www.amfire.com/american_firearms_028.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/lprelease_..._rifle_ban.htm

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."

The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

Quote:

Gun traces are one of the best measures of gun usage in crime. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons in the 1993-95 period declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.[8]
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=118

Traces are used to identify individuals involved in illegal gun purchases and sales.

Additionally, most guns that are traced have not been used to commit a violent crime, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced. The Congressional Research Service reported in 1992:5

"The *ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

"A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason. No crime need be involved.

http://www.clintongunban.com/Article...=12&a=Articles

What the anti-gunners wanted the public to swallow then, and want the public to swallow today, is that firearm traces, looked at collectively, identify the kinds of guns that are most often used to commit violent crimes. To that end, they`ve been trying to convince the public that each and every trace is a scientific crime-solving procedure that enables the police to determine if a gun was used to commit a violent crime.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The BATF doesn`t "trace guns to crimes" or "at crime scenes." A trace is nothing more than a check of federal firearms licensee records by the BATF to try to determine how a firearm moved in the chain of commerce. As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported to Congress in 1992, "The ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms." 1

But traces don`t accomplish, nor are they intended to accomplish, what gun control advocates claim. As the CRS noted, the BATF`s tracing system "was not designed to collect statistics. ... [F]irearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes."*


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Jenne
That was funny. But so truthful in a way too, just because the weapons are there, people are taught to use them etc. doesn't mean they will become criminals etc.

candiland your statement about the NRA is your opinion, doesn't make it fact.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Jenne: you forgot to do a panty check before telling that joke.







:LOL


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jenne*
...It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation...

I see the false information goes all the way down to the humor.

The worst part of being a gun and rifle owner is being associated with the NRA and with "humor" like this.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
I see the false information goes all the way down to the humor.

I for one never took it as a serious debate tool. I thought it was funny as the joke I took it to be, and I think the poster meant it to be.

[/QUOTE]The worst part of being a gun and rifle owner is being associated with the NRA and with "humor" like this.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a member of the NRA, so I guess that makes me a decent gun owner huh?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
http://www.intellectualconservative....ticle3252.html

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."


So nutt... can you tell me what 1% of the violent crimes is in a numeric figure? And can you tell me in good faith that really, that number isn't TOO high??

Secondly, the argument drawing a parallel between banning baseball bats and knives is just ridiculous. Ask yourself-- what percentage of assaults committed by knife or baseball bat end in fatalities? What percentage of assault weapons do?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Nice comment about the "panty check".







:

I am bowing out of this discussion now.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
So nutt... can you tell me what 1% of the violent crimes is in a numeric figure? And can you tell me in good faith that really, that number isn't TOO high??

Secondly, the argument drawing a parallel between banning baseball bats and knives is just ridiculous. Ask yourself-- what percentage of assaults committed by knife or baseball bat end in fatalities? What percentage of assault weapons do?


First, if you had looked at this link...

http://www.amfire.com/american_firearms_028.htm

you would see that knives account for 18% of homicides, blunt objects account for 6% of homicides, & assault rifles account for 1% of homicides. Please note also, the date of that report was in 1991 for the years 1987-1991, before the AWB took affect. So the argument drawing a parallel between them is not far off since knives and blunt objects account for more homicide deaths then assault weapons.
Right now I don't have time to look for specific numbers, I will gladly come back and do so if you would like me to.
Since you signed off on the debate though, I will hold off my research until you let me know what you are going to do. (besides the fact I am busy with things at home that need done)
and yes I do believe that any number of deaths is to high, and I hate to even use this in a discussion on guns, but drunk drivers, bath tub accidents, medical malpractice, knives, blunt objects all kill more then assault rifles. So should cars, bathtubs, Doctors, knives, blunt objects all be banned? If your using the deaths caused by assault rifles as a reason to ban them, then you need to ban all these things mentioned since the death rate from them is much higher.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

It's not a fact that the NRA refused to postpone it's convention in CO after Columbine? Really?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
what percentage of assaults committed by knife or baseball bat end in fatalities? What percentage of assault weapons do?

I said I was leaving, and really, I am. I am not in the mood for untoward hostility today. But first, nutt, I'm quoting myself to show you the gist of what I was saying.

Of COURSE the numbers were higher with knives, etc. Just examine, though, the percentage of ASSAULTS that end in deaths for each category.

That's all I'm saying....and I'm sorry if you find that justification for assault weapons existing on the streets that much easier. Don't bother digging up more stats-- I'm not going to-- because we can throw our stats around until we're blue in the face. I'd rather use my energy, and I do not mean this in an insulting way, on trying to educate people who are not decided. Realistically, those folks are not perusing the activism forum on MDC, eh? We profoundly disagree. So be it.

PS-- I did read your link. I do my homework, mama.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
Please note, in 1997 England passed a stricter law essentially disarming the people.

http://www.truepatriot.com/england_crime_page.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html

This site has a nice chart showing burglary, violent crime, theft of cars and overall victimisation. It shows in 1999, 2 years after their gun ban, they show some of the highest rates for these crimes.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/g...crimerates.htm

definition of fiscal-
1. Of or relating to government expenditures, revenues, and debt: a fiscal policy of incurring budget deficits to stimulate a weak economy.
2. Of or relating to finance or finances.

Gun control lobbiest say gun control is lowering violent crimes, murder, etc. Nothing has ever been mentioned about gun control and fiscal crime.


if you say crime I musta ssume you mean everything people are being convicted off, don't I? Even more so if I am being presented with numbers that justs ay "crime"..well...what crime?

I don't have the time to waste it discussing what I mean instead of the real subject.I mean what I say and don't imply what I don't say.If I don't say I think people had to have weapons back whenever to hunt then I don't mean to imply that when I mention that the land has been unexplored.No use discussing, unfortunately

good night,


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
I said I was leaving, and really, I am. I am not in the mood for untoward hostility today. But first, nutt, I'm quoting myself to show you the gist of what I was saying.

Of COURSE the numbers were higher with knives, etc. Just examine, though, the percentage of ASSAULTS that end in deaths for each category.

That's all I'm saying....and I'm sorry if you find that justification for assault weapons existing on the streets that much easier. Don't bother digging up more stats-- I'm not going to-- because we can throw our stats around until we're blue in the face. I'd rather use my energy, and I do not mean this in an insulting way, on trying to educate people who are not decided. Realistically, those folks are not perusing the activism forum on MDC, eh? We profoundly disagree. So be it.

PS-- I did read your link. I do my homework, mama.










Sorry that you feel I was being hostile. Trust me, if I was, you'd know it. I have remained calm throughout this whole debate. Never once flaming a group, person, stats etc.
I too am trying to get the information out there. Just because my information differs from yours does not make it incorrect.

Since the graph I showed you was homicides, it was referring to deaths by these objects.

Homicide
1. The killing of one person by another.
2. A person who kills another person.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
if you say crime I musta ssume you mean everything people are being convicted off, don't I? Even more so if I am being presented with numbers that justs ay "crime"..well...what crime?

I don't have the time to waste it discussing what I mean instead of the real subject.I mean what I say and don't imply what I don't say.If I don't say I think people had to have weapons back whenever to hunt then I don't mean to imply that when I mention that the land has been unexplored.No use discussing, unfortunately

good night,


This link....

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/...hcrimerates.htm

Shows crime statistics, in burglary, violent crime, car theft & overall victimisation. As far as convictions, like I told Island Mamma, right now I do not have time to look for numbers, if you really want me to, I will later, but since you also seem to be leaving the debate, I will leave my search until you say what you want.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Where is there untoward hostility?

The only hostile remarks I've seen so far are:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
Let's hope your children live long and well.

Charleton Heston is going to hell.









No one else has been threatening.

Islandmamma, I apologize if you 1 didn't think jenne's joke was funny and 2 didn't think my joke about the questionable condition of some member's panties was funny either. I don't think I'd consider either "hostile". Inappropriate perhaps, but not hostile. But either way, I don't feel jenne's joke warranted an acidulous blessing on our children from candiland. That's aggressive in my opinion.

She said it was for ammusement, I took that as meaning it was a joke.

Sorry you'll be leaving the discussion, I have enjoyed reading what you've had to say. It's always interesting to hear another's point of view, and refreshing to discuss this issue with someone who is at least attempting to understand the topic for herself rather than believing the misconceptions that this ban took full capacity magazines off the street and so forth.

Good night.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Interesting to read that FBI has statistics showing such a small percentage of crime traceable to yadda yadda yadda.

Again from the Brady website:

_Q: Does law enforcement support the ban on assault weapons?

*A: Every major national law enforcement organization in the country supported the federal assault weapons ban and worked for its passage. Among the many law enforcement organization that supported the ban are the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation.*

Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?

*A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.

Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In addition, limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have. Law enforcement officers do not want to have to carry M-16s as their standard service weapon. In 1997, after a North Hollywood, CA shootout in which police were outgunned by two men with assault weapons, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated

An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them...Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don't want and don't need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.[2]

Ray Kelly, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for enforcement at the time, noted that police departments have specially trained officers who use high-powered weapons. "It takes a lot of training to be proficient at it," he said. "I don't think you can issue high-powered weapons to every patrol officer."[3]

Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.[5]

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.[6]

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.[7]*

Q: Does the ban reduce the use of assault weapons in crime?

*A: Yes. As more and more assault weapons are confiscated from crime scenes, fewer and fewer criminals and juveniles will have access to these deadly killing machines. And, in fact, there is evidence that the ban has worked.

Gun traces are one of the best measures of gun usage in crime. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons in the 1993-95 period declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.[8]

This same study also reported that the number of assault weapons traced in St. Louis and Boston declined 29% and 24% respectively, as a share of all guns recovered in crime, during late 1995 and into 1996.

In addition, a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) found that, in Maryland, whose ban on assault pistols took effect in June 1994, the number of assault pistols recovered by Baltimore police in the first six months of 1995 fell by 45 percent from the first six months of 1994.[9]*

Honestly. Still have not heard why a ban on these things is so terrible. You also say (forget which of y'all) that the bill does virtually nothing, it's something to flummox the sheeple, so we shouldn't care about it.

Well, if it does virtually nothing, etc., etc., then why should you be against extending it?

Not sure who the sheeple are in this instance ..._


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Hmmm..... my OPINION? Really. That's quite funny. Look it up.

And yes, I DO hope all of our children live long and well. I don't think any of you would support this organization if they came storming into YOUR city right after you and your kids' friends were gunned down and killed in cold blood. After you tearfully begged them to postpone it until the shock had subsided.

That's my point. I'm bowing out too, now. I never knew MDC would host women who thought sexual harrassment and the like was cool, funny, or even acceptable, for that matter.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:

Well, if it does virtually nothing, etc., etc., then why should you be against extending it?

As stated in one of my previous posts (sorry I am to tired to look for it) It was cited that more assault rifles have been sold without the evil features. So if more rifles have been sold since the ban, a rifle which is all evil. Why should the ban just not sunset, it didn't stop the sell of said rifles.

I also stated the truth behind gun traces

Quote:

Traces are used to identify individuals involved in illegal gun purchases and sales.

Additionally, most guns that are traced have not been used to commit a violent crime, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced. The Congressional Research Service reported in 1992:5

"The *ATF tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

"A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason. No crime need be involved.*
*
*
*
And yes I believe other then discussing the law enforcement who are in favor of this ban, I addressed everything you had posted, with different stats showing a different side.*


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
Hmmm..... my OPINION? Really. That's quite funny. Look it up.

And yes, I DO hope all of our children live long and well. I don't think any of you would support this organization if they came storming into YOUR city right after you and your kids' friends were gunned down and killed in cold blood. After you tearfully begged them to postpone it until the shock had subsided.

That's my point. I'm bowing out too, now. I never knew MDC would host women who thought sexual harrassment and the like was cool, funny, or even acceptable, for that matter.









Ah, yes, the infamous NRA rally.... First, I am NOT a member of the NRA, so I have no vested interest in them whatsoever, but I do think the truth is important here.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli...stonrally1.htm

Quote:

1.) - Mayor Webb (who Moore shows, at the last minute told the NRA to cancel the convention) had eagerly solicited the NRA convention for Denver in the first place. (2)

2.) - Heston did not have canceling or rescheduling the convention as an option. In fact, he was required by law to hold this meeting by its non-profit charter from the state of New York, so cancellation was impossible.

3.) - Even if Heston wasn't legally required to hold the gathering there; the annual meeting in Denver was set to be held at that place and date years in advance. Even if he could have without braking the law - changing location at that time would have been impossible, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.

....

Much to the disappointment of NRA members, Heston took initiative to cancel the fun and merriment that normally surrounds these gatherings (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies), holding only its annual members' meeting, in the afternoon session we are shown.

...

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."-Charleton Heston, from the speech given at the rally.
Read the whole page if you're up to it. Michael Moore is good at propaganda.

As far as the question about "why not extend it if it is useless?" (sorry for the paraphrase.) Well, it is useless at it's supposed purpose, which is to make the streets safer. It still, however, takes away rights from law-abiding citizens who aren't harming any one. But once again, it should not be up to me to argue why I should be able to put a bayonette lug on my rifle, that burden lies with those who want to tell me that I can't, so I ask you: *What harm would it cause to you or your family if I, a law-abiding citizen, were to put a bayonette lug and folding stock on my rifle??* Exactly how would that infringe on your rights??

Ban the behavior (allready done) NOT the instrument!

Someone paralleled shooting with driving 100 miles per hour, but that doesn't fly. It is illegal to drive recklessly, just as it is illegal to use a gun recklessly. I support harsher penalties for people who commit violent or reckless crimes. I think DUI should be treated as attempted murder, particularly at extremely high blood alcohol levels. I think discharging a gun under teh influence should be treated the same way.

I have a lot to do tonight, but I'll try to come back with more later.


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

I meant the post of the NRA interview to be taken as a humor piece. I think, yes, I know I said so. Since not all humor is funny to every person I am not surprised that some people weren't amused. That's life. Maybe you'll find the next humor post I make hillarious or maybe you won't read it. Either way I hope you are all finding time in your day to laugh.

Happy Fall Y'all,

Jenne


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
...I never knew MDC would host women who thought sexual harrassment and the like was cool, funny, or even acceptable, for that matter.










That's been my experience with far too much of the gun crowd. Women's anger is seen as completely unacceptable and quickly reprimanded. At the same time, ridiculing women is vigorously defended as "funny" and "a joke." As if refusing to laugh at women means I don't have time in my day to laugh. Oh, yes, that's me, the humorless feminist.









I think the NRA "womens programs" are a lame attempt at appearing "woman friendly." Please. Believe me, it's a struggle being both a feminist and a member of the gun owning community.

I don't need to come to MDC to be reminded how woman-hostile our society is. I'm unsuscribing from this thread.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
That's been my experience with far too much of the gun crowd. Women's anger is seen as completely unacceptable and quickly reprimanded. At the same time, ridiculing women is vigorously defended as "funny" and "a joke." As if refusing to laugh at women means I don't have time in my day to laugh. Oh, yes, that's me, the humorless feminist.









I'm sorry your leaving the discussion too.
But I still have to address the statement above.
You are stereotyping myself and the other ladies who are progun here. You have placed us in the "gun crowd" of your experience.
I know for fact, I nor my husband is apart of that crowd. I am treated with the upmost respect by him and everyone we associate with.
Yes I thought an inappropriate joke to this discussion was funny, Because I have an open mind and I can see humor in this world. Even if ridiculing the female gender.


----------



## simonee (Nov 21, 2001)

I get the point about knives killing more people than assault weapons. Bare hands also kill people, but that's not the point. To me, the point is that assault weapons are manufactured and used with one thing in mind: killing people. Neither bare hands, nor knives or baseball bats or (arguably) perhaps even small handguns are.

And yeah, that joke was utterly tasteless, as tasteless as the one about the hooker who like all hookers was well-equipped to be a Republican until the guy with a smirk for a face said... oh well, another time another place perhaps


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *candiland*
I never knew MDC would host women who thought sexual harrassment and the like was cool, funny, or even acceptable, for that matter.

















2 I'm sorry we don't share the same sense of humor. I can laugh at a lot of things, women jokes, men jokes, Catholic jokes, Protestant Jokes, I can even laugh at myself. In my humble opinion if you can't laugh at yourself, you've no idea how funny you actually are.







But obviously you are hurt, and that is not funny. Sorry about that.

Simonee, I'd hear the one about the hooker who was well-equiped to be a Republican. Sounds funny already. If you're serious, pm me.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
This link....

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/...hcrimerates.htm

Shows crime statistics, in burglary, violent crime, car theft & overall victimisation. As far as convictions, like I told Island Mamma, right now I do not have time to look for numbers, if you really want me to, I will later, but since you also seem to be leaving the debate, I will leave my search until you say what you want.


Hi,

you don't have to get the numbers for me.I don't have a problem if you want to defend yourself or own a gun, but the thing is if they are available to everyone they are also available to epople that are not as responsible.And the current laws don't protect anyone from that sufficiently.You have your opinion and I mine, that's fine.I just feel I'd rather have no one own any than the situation as it is now.I don't think that just having a clear criminal record would be enough, I don't want weapons in the hands on emotionally unstable people, of religous fanatics, of people that take it too easy and don't store them properly.KWIM?

TC,


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
Hi,

you don't have to get the numbers for me.I don't have a problem if you want to defend yourself or own a gun, but the thing is if they are available to everyone they are also available to epople that are not as responsible.And the current laws don't protect anyone from that sufficiently.You have your opinion and I mine, that's fine.I just feel I'd rather have no one own any than the situation as it is now.I don't think that just having a clear criminal record would be enough, I don't want weapons in the hands on emotionally unstable people, of religous fanatics, of people that take it too easy and don't store them properly.KWIM?

TC,


Yes I do understand exactly what your saying. I was actually glad you brought up England, because when I did my research on that, it showed a no gun society does have crime and the crime rate is rising.
I have to disagree with you on the current laws though. Yes the current laws keep guns out of the hands of felons, those convicted of domestic violence, and those with mentally unstable diagonosis. There is a catch though, it has to be court approved mental unstablitity. Make that law tougher.
Storage of weapons is also a peeve of mine, an unattended firearm can be a serious problem. I would dare to say though, most of your law abiding citizens take ownership and storage very seriously.
All the laws in the world are not going to stop someone intend on doing harm, a total ban on guns is not going to stop someone who really wants one to use in an unlawful way. England is proof of that.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
Hi,

you don't have to get the numbers for me.I don't have a problem if you want to defend yourself or own a gun, but the thing is if they are available to everyone they are also available to epople that are not as responsible.And the current laws don't protect anyone from that sufficiently.You have your opinion and I mine, that's fine.I just feel I'd rather have no one own any than the situation as it is now.I don't think that just having a clear criminal record would be enough, I don't want weapons in the hands on emotionally unstable people, of religous fanatics, of people that take it too easy and don't store them properly.KWIM?

TC,

One of the hallmarks of the American legal system is that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to take away rights, not with those who wish to exercise theirs. This argument sounds a lot like the argument that we should require people to get permits in order to reproduce. Sorry, that is not the American way. It is not the American way to deny rights because someone _might_ be mentally unstable. Should we also make people prove mental competency in order to drive? Should we require testing in order to allow citizens to vote? Parenting classes for people to reproduce? I am more afraid of people who are not competent behind the wheel of cars than the few that are unstable gun-owners. The bad drivers pose a much greater risk to my family.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

then please explain the "american" way of doing things to a non american and enlighten my ingorance, I always thought that the benefit of many outweighs the benefit of one

I won't comment on your examples, they are different matters...


----------



## Jenne (May 21, 2004)

Off-Topic
I'd love to hear that joke Simonee...I like jokes what can I say?

Happy Fall Y'all,

Jenne


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
then please explain the "american" way of doing things to a non american and enlighten my ingorance, I always thought that the benefit of many outweighs the benefit of one

I won't comment on your examples, they are different matters...

I did, the burden of proof in America lies with those who wish to take rights away, not the other way around. If you wanted to take away my right to free speech, it would be up to YOU to prove that I was infringing on the rights of someone else. The same goes for my second ammendment rights. You can not withhold them from me on the basis that I _may_, at some point in the future, commit a crime.

Once again, since everyone seems to have missed the question I asked earlier:

*What harm would it cause to you or your family if I, a law-abiding citizen, were to put a bayonette lug and folding stock on my rifle?? Exactly how would that infringe on your rights??*


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

One of the hallmarks of the American legal system is that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to take away rights, not with those who wish to exercise theirs. This argument sounds a lot like the argument that we should require people to get permits in order to reproduce. Sorry, that is not the American way. It is not the American way to deny rights because someone might be mentally unstable. Should we also make people prove mental competency in order to drive? Should we require testing in order to allow citizens to vote? Parenting classes for people to reproduce? I am more afraid of people who are not competent behind the wheel of cars than the few that are unstable gun-owners. The bad drivers pose a much greater risk to my family.










My job here is done (if you just attribute that to me, lol).








: DH's friend did just retro fit his AK w/bayonette lug, flash supressor & telescoping stock (so both he & his wife can use it).


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

I just finished reading this thread. I'm glad that most of the posters here have remained calm and logical. Gun control discussions here in the past have not always remained so civil.
Count me in as another 2nd Amendment supporter.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
I just finished reading this thread. I'm glad that most of the posters here have remained calm and logical. Gun control discussions here in the past have not always remained so civil.
Count me in as another 2nd Amendment supporter.


























Wasn't planning to bump this. Since the ban died, I was going to let the thread die. But this is a good chance to post another site with some good info:

Caution, it shows pictures of what was and was not banned. IOW you will see guns.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

I never thought I would see a dancing banana for assault weapons on MDC. Wow. Oh, this is the same thread with the derogatory jokes about women


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *isleta*
I never thought I would see a dancing banana for assault weapons on MDC. Wow. Oh, this is the same thread with the derogatory jokes about women






















































I never made derogatory jokes about women, nor do I make a habit of it. This thread contained ONE comment that some took as derogatory towards women, and the poster came back to apologize. But, of course, it is easier to accuse me of being a misogynist than it is to answer my question.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lotusdebi*
I just finished reading this thread. I'm glad that most of the posters here have remained calm and logical. Gun control discussions here in the past have not always remained so civil.
Count me in as another 2nd Amendment supporter.









Hey lotusdebi! Your dh was the first person I saw explain what the AWB really was, so give him a hug for me.


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
Hey lotusdebi! Your dh was the first person I saw explain what the AWB really was, so give him a hug for me.









Will do!
I'm glad that you and many others here are so well-informed! Your arguments were factual and logical. I didn't read any emotional arguments from the pro-2nd-Amendment posters. You all did great!


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*












































I never made derogatory jokes about women, nor do I make a habit of it. This thread contained ONE comment that some took as derogatory towards women, and the poster came back to apologize. But, of course, it is easier to accuse me of being a misogynist than it is to answer my question.









Was my post addressed to you? Don't recall, but it does seem disheartening to come to a NFL commune that teaches non-violence and GD and see such happiness over weapons that cause so much death. No police officer has been killed by assault weapons since the ban. Many now feel left open by the presidents lack of action. Hopefully this statistic will stay the same now after the ban was allowed to expire.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *isleta*
Was my post addressed to you? Don't recall, but it does seem disheartening to come to a NFL commune that teaches non-violence and GD and see such happiness over weapons that cause so much death.

ICAM


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *isleta*
Was my post addressed to you? Don't recall, but it does seem disheartening to come to a NFL commune that teaches non-violence and GD and see such happiness over weapons that cause so much death. No police officer has been killed by assault weapons since the ban. Many now feel left open by the presidents lack of action. Hopefully this statistic will stay the same now after the ban was allowed to expire.

As far as teaching non violence, you still can, and still own and shoot firearms. My firearms have never been used in a violent way while in my possesion, nor will they ever be. A firearm isn't just about violence.
The statement about no officers being killed by assault rifles while the ban was in effect is totally bogus. First link is after the ban. Second link is a graph showing before the ban. If you notice, even before the ban, the number of law enforcement officers killed with assualt rifles are extremely low. So low that in fact 4 of the 10 years between 1980 and 1990, there were 0 officers killed with assault rifles. Please note, the AWB was signed in 1994.
Third link is the FBI data base. On page 36 is officers killed stats. Now this can be unclear, since it llists all rifles, not seperating assault rifles. But if you note, handguns kill more officers then all rifles combined.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...573033,00.html

http://www.amfire.com/american_firearms_031.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/02leoka.pdf


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *isleta*
but it does seem disheartening to come to a NFL commune that teaches non-violence and GD and see such happiness over weapons that cause so much death.


You know, I said I was done with this thread, and I meant it, but I just wanted to personally echo this sentiment. It's the guns on MDC factor that I am just having a hard time stomaching. Cat, the dancing bananas were a little...much. To say the least.

I also think that many of these last posts have done nothing more than once again polarize us into two camps. Enough, already. There's no need to come in after the fact and gloat / cheerlead / smack on the butt / whatever.

It's guns, people, not your kid sleeping through the night.

Ugh.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
You know, I said I was done with this thread, and I meant it, but I just wanted to personally echo this sentiment. It's the guns on MDC factor that I am just having a hard time stomaching. Cat, the dancing bananas were a little...much. To say the least.

I also think that many of these last posts have done nothing more than once again polarize us into two camps. Enough, already. There's no need to come in after the fact and gloat / cheerlead / smack on the butt / whatever.

It's guns, people, not your kid sleeping through the night.

Ugh.

Vey true, it is guns. It is on an activism board. We felt we were sticking up for what was rightfully ours to keep. Was it alright for someone to post to keep the ban alive, but not alright for prosecond ammendment moms to voice their beliefs also? If so that is a huge infringment on our First ammendment rights.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

You are missing my point. Entirely.

As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

It's in the tone of things. Don't get those humorous panties in a tight spot over the First Amendment, now.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
You are missing my point. Entirely.

As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

It's in the tone of things. Don't get those humorous panties in a tight spot over the First Amendment, now.










Your point is, it doesn't meet the peace and love in your eyes that this board is meant for. Well like we will continue to say, guns are NOT all about violence.. Even though it doesn't meet in your opinion what this board is about, it is still our right to voice our concerns on it. And we did debate it in the appropriate forum.

I also felt our tone remained calm, other then a poor tasting joke. Don't judge us all for the actions of one.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
You know, I said I was done with this thread, and I meant it, but I just wanted to personally echo this sentiment. It's the guns on MDC factor that I am just having a hard time stomaching. Cat, the dancing bananas were a little...much. To say the least.

I also think that many of these last posts have done nothing more than once again polarize us into two camps. Enough, already. There's no need to come in after the fact and gloat / cheerlead / smack on the butt / whatever.

It's guns, people, not your kid sleeping through the night.

Ugh.

Well, the dancing bananas were a direct response to the eyerolling/condescending attitude of one poster. It was inferred that those of us who support the second ammendment are misogynists, and that just isn't true.

Sure, it is a different type of celebration than when my baby sleeps through the night, but I am celebrating none the less. I'm not plastering it all over the board. I have not been condescending or rude to those who have expressed opinions different than mine here. I have spoken passionately because this is an issue that I am passionate about.

You may find that there are a lot more things that we agree on than you might guess. I am not some evil gun-toting/end of the world lunatic. I am absolutely OBSESSIVE about gun safety. We bought my 4 year old his first "gun" recently (it is a toy gun, and it doesn't fire anything) and he had it taken away from him for pointing it at his baby brother by accident repeatedly. I am working on making gun safety so ingrained in his mind that it will be second nature.

Oh, my panties are fine, I just spent the entire day in the dark with my grandmother-in-law...







If I can handle that without resorting to violence, I think you should feel comfortable with my gun ownership.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat_astrophe*
You may find that there are a lot more things that we agree on than you might guess. I am not some evil gun-toting/end of the world lunatic.

Oh, my panties are fine, I just spent the entire day in the dark with my grandmother-in-law...







If I can handle that without resorting to violence, I think you should feel comfortable with my gun ownership.










Cat, I Know we agree on much. You're someone I've had the chance to "know", read, and learn from in the time I've been MDC'ing, and I have great respect for you, even if we don't always agree.

And about that second bit... I am LMAO. I'll send you my Grand-FIL and see if you can pass that test, too...and then nominate you for sainthood.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *isleta*
I never thought I would see a dancing banana for assault weapons on MDC. Wow. Oh, this is the same thread with the derogatory jokes about women









Cat, that would be directed at me, in a round about sort of way, since I'm the first one who's got a banana dancing.









Sorry guys. There I go again - blowing the decorum of the thread.







Sorry, it's always exciting to find another person who shares your beliefs in a place where there are few. Whether it is :vax2:, someone who EBFs in a town where nursing past 3m is cosidered gross, or NFL mommas who also support 2A rights. It is especially exciting to find it in a thread where people have assaulted your parenting, accused you of being a misogynists, and sneered blessings on your children all because of your differing opinion.

There's another hot-button subject around here - the vax debate. But I hope y'all know from reading my posts that I have never questioned a person's NFL because they come here yet they choose to vax. Wish people could see fit to extend the same courtesy to us even though we choose to support and practice our 2A rights.

Seems like the site is on a bit of a witch hunt lately with all the "you don't do X, so you just don't fit in" or "you do Y, so you can't possibly belong here, we don't want those opinions expressed". Not very welcoming. I guess I just realize that people come here for the information they come here for. And I hope they get the info they need, regardless of the other views they may hold.

Just seemed like people who were talking about the ban didn't know what it really covered when they say "when the ban ends people will be able to shoot from the hip 'spraying' bullets, we don't need 30 round magazines on the street - glad they were gone what will we do now that they are back? Flash suppressors make it hard to see a gun at night, folding stocks aren't necessary unless you're going to kill civilians. Protect the police from the bayonettes. etc."

With the reception we've recieved, it's very exciting to find a person who doesn't toss us in a basket with a bunch of criminals because we own guns *let alone* agrees with the 2A.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Guns are not just about violence?









What are they about then?
Growing flowers?

How is a thing designed solely for the purpose of killing not just about violence?
Violence in self-defense is still violence.

I can respect a lot of the other arguments here, even though I disagree with them. But this statement seems intellectually dishonest.
They ARE about violence. You may think some violence is justified, but it is violence all the same.


----------



## nuttinhny (Jun 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah*
Guns are not just about violence?









What are they about then?
Growing flowers?

How is a thing designed solely for the purpose of killing not just about violence?
Violence in self-defense is still violence.

I can respect a lot of the other arguments here, even though I disagree with them. But this statement seems intellectually dishonest.
They ARE about violence. You may think some violence is justified, but it is violence all the same.

My firearms have never been used in a violent way while in my possesion, nor will they ever be. I use my guns to shoot skeet, shoot targets, for competition shooting, which by the way is skeet and targets. Competition shooting is a very recognized sport.
Can you explain to me how shooting targets, skeet etc, in a competition is violent?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

How is a thing designed solely for the purpose of killing not just about violence?
Violence in self-defense is still violence.

I can respect a lot of the other arguments here, even though I disagree with them. But this statement seems intellectually dishonest.
They ARE about violence. You may think some violence is justified, but it is violence all the same.








I can't see how you can't see that not all gun owners even plan on using them for self defense.

My best friend from high school competed in shooting events--- she doesn't carry a gun for self-defense. Several of DH's friends keep guns at a club (locked up of course) and only use them when they want to do some target practice.

I was interested in archery when younger, and while bows are arrows are obviously designed to hunt with (esp some of the ones my friend's father had) I had no plans of going hunting with them.

Basically ditto to what nuttinhny said.

I was honestly surprised to be on the "other" side from the people I usually agree 100% with. But, as I have stated over and over, even if I never want to access a certain right, I do not want to infringe upon other's ability to do so.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
And about that second bit... I am LMAO. I'll send you my Grand-FIL and see if you can pass that test, too...and then nominate you for sainthood.

NOOOOOOO!!! I've been through enough allready!







Actually, I really like spending time with older folks, even if they drive me crazy sometimes. There's a lot to be learned from the older generations. When the kids get a little older, I'd like to volunteer in a nursing home. My grandmothing-in-law is a slightly different story, though, because I spent most of the time convincing her NOT to pay for my kids to go to a certain private school, and then explaining how homeschooling works. I love the woman, but she sure is hard-headed.

Asherah, guns are about more than violence. Yes, I do believe that self-defense is justified violence, but the majority of the guns we own aren't intended for that purpose. My husband has hunting rifles, and I collect relics because I am a military history buff, and we both enjoy shooting certain guns at the range. Hopefully, none of our guns will ever be used against a human being, but if it were to come to that, I would shoot an intruder before I would allow him to harm my children.

Some might say that it is pessimistic to prepare for a worst-case scenario, but I consider it realistic. Honestly, with my build and body type, it is a simple fact that I will never be physically strong enough to overtake the average man. A gun in my hand is an equalizer. There are predators in this world who would see me and my children and assume that we are easy prey, but I refuse to be weak and unsuspecting. I am an empowered woman and a strong mother, who's focus in life is giving her children the absolute best and keeping them safe. My concerns for rehabilitating criminals come SECOND to my concerns for the safety and well-being of my family.


----------



## blueeydvixen (Aug 23, 2004)

im for the ban. i had a 10yr old friend find his dads now unbanned gun and shoot his sister while they played with it.


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blueeydvixen*
im for the ban. i had a 10yr old friend find his dads now unbanned gun and shoot his sister while they played with it.

What a sad and unfortunate accident, but you must realize that the gun was not at fault. The gun was obviously not secured, and the children were not taught proper safety around guns. Even my 4 year old knows not to touch a gun without permission and supervision. The first rule I taught him was to find a grown-up if he comes accross a gun. Also, any gun, those covered by the ban or not, could have been involved in this situation.

When I was a child, a classmate of mine was killed when his friend climbed into his dad's car and disengaged the parking brake causing it to roll backwards over his friend. I am not calling for cars to be banned because of this. Children need supervision. It is the responsibility of every parent to watch their kids and teach them safety rules around potentially dangerous objects: from steak-knives to busy streets to guns to parked cars.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blueeydvixen*
im for the ban. i had a 10yr old friend find his dads now unbanned gun and shoot his sister while they played with it.

That's really sad. Is this recent? Where did it happen? Seems like a story like this would be in the paper coast to coast and around the world quicker than you could say "Donald Trump wears a rug".

I'm verry sorry for your loss, but the ban would not have prevented this accident. I hope you can see that they should not have been playing with a loaded gun to begin with. Where were the parents? Why wasn't the gun in a locked safe where it belongs? Why was it loaded?

If this story is true, the child died because some extreemly irresponsible gun owner didn't lock up their gun and he let the kids play with it. The ban couldn't have done anything to stop it - only a responsible owner and a good safe could have changed the outcome.

Again, sorry for your loss.


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

In most crime movies and TV dramas when the fleeing criminal grabs an innocent woman or child and points a gun to their head and demands that the good guy chasing him drop his weapon, the good guy does. The good guy, to prevent the death or injury of an innocent human being, drops his weapon. When innocent American children are dying from guns, it's time to drop your weapons.

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer


----------



## cat_astrophe (Sep 22, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cumulus*
In most crime movies and TV dramas when the fleeing criminal grabs an innocent woman or child and points a gun to their head and demands that the good guy chasing him drop his weapon, the good guy does. The good guy, to prevent the death or injury of an innocent human being, drops his weapon. When innocent American children are dying from guns, it's time to drop your weapons.

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Umm, the "bad guys" in movies are not real, and the real bad guys won't drop their guns and spare you if you ban weapons. The real bad guys won't leave you alone if you just explain to them your philosophy of non-violence. There really is no honor among thieves. Taking away MY guns won't make you any safer.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuttinhny*
My firearms have never been used in a violent way while in my possesion, nor will they ever be. I use my guns to shoot skeet, shoot targets, for competition shooting, which by the way is skeet and targets. Competition shooting is a very recognized sport.
Can you explain to me how shooting targets, skeet etc, in a competition is violent?


Wow. Lookie there. We have something in common. I used to shoot skeet also and was excellent at it. I absolutely loved it b/c I was so good at it. It runs in my family. In fact, one of my grandfathers was the national champ years ago.

All that said, I still support very strict controls of gun ownership, if at all. Hence, I support the assault weapons ban and think stricter policies should be in place and enforced. I have a whole lot more to say on the subject but I neither have the energy or the time to discuss it here.

Peace,


----------

