Terrorists and Assault Weapons

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by JBA
Kerry was given the shotgun by Cecil Roberts of the United Mine Workers of America. The union represents workers at a Remington factory in Ilion, New York. Last year the union urged Kerry to support a bill to end frivolous lawsuits against firearms makers (S. 659). The suits threaten manufacturing jobs.

However, Kerry voted against the bill.

Ok, while I disagree with the bill, my problem with the above statement is that it suggests that Kerry should have 're-paid' the union rep by voting against the bill, and that's just not right.

[gunnss]

Ban never did any good any way, I know half a dozen places I could get one if I wanted to pay the price,

Of course I live in the West, and most folks out here have been scratching thier heads about the Silly stuff coming out of the East, for years.

I dont know if it is true, but the perception in the West is that Easterners pass a law to show they are "Doing Something" in stead of enforcing the laws allready in place.  In OKC, OK in stead of passing a new law, they put up billboards advertising the fact that all crime commited with a firearm would recive the maximum sentence under Fed law.  It seemed to work.........
So my take on it is provide the funding to enforce the laws in existance or pass yet another law mirroring one already on the books

My cynicisim meter pegggggs.....

Gunns

[Heretic]

I think of assault weapons as military issued weapons such as the M16 and AK47/74 variants.       If assault weapons are military now what were muskets back in the 1700's?       Granted that is a rather hard way to define weapons.  Muskets were the only type of long guns at that time.     Now we have several classes of weapons.  Civillian and military and the inbetween types that can pass for either.    

I think of assault weapons as weapons with high capacity magazines firing centerfire catridges.      Now the Ruger Mini14 and its variants fires these cartridges and can be had with high capacity magazines but it is not used as a military weapon.   Lots of grey areas there.

I am a gun owner and I hunt mostly deer and waterfowl with a little bit of small game on the side.     All of my weapons are civilian models.      Although you could hunt with so called assault weapons I have not ran across anyone yet who does.

[Gunslinger]

Hmmm lets think about this here.


Abdul Han Kasahn goes into Bob's Chicken feen and gun store (sorry made that part up ) and attempts to buy one or two AR15s or variants there of.

He then goes to the next county to get 3 more a few months later as not to be suspicious.  

Now asuming current gun laws are the same Mr. Kasahn has to go through an FBI backround check.

Now I'm assuming that this guy or associates is in an FBI computer some how some were and several red flags are being waved down at the said FBI.

Now why would Abdul go through the risk of his plans being unheaved when he could probably get them from a less than public dealer who doesnt care?

[Masherbrum]

My handgun should be considered an assault weapon, I show up the cops that come in to the range.  They told me they shoot once a month at the station.  It is due to cutbacks, and it shows.

Karaya

[AKIron]

Like many others, I think the assault weapons ban was nothing more than a political ploy to appease the anti-gun folks. Hey, if it'll satisfy 'em enough to leave the rest of us alone I'll gladly forgo the grenade launcher or bayonet mount.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Ok, while I disagree with the bill, my problem with the above statement is that it suggests that Kerry should have 're-paid' the union rep by voting against the bill, and that's just not right.

Kerry shouldnt have accepted the gift if he really considers it a deadly assault weapon.  But hey this the "enviorment candidate" who owns a huge SUV, oh no his family does.. And he is the "people's candidate" who orders the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in foont of his multi million mansion because it annoyed him and his wife.. Who cares if the neighborhood burns down, nope no matter, as long as \  Kerry gets his weekly allowance from the mi$$us..

[lasersailor184]

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". The definition is a political scam that allows politicians to ban any and all firearms if they wish. "Gun control" is another scam in the USA, "gun ban" is what they are doing.

DING DING DING!  50 Points!



Btw, it was never a ban on assault weapons.  It was just a ban on weapons and things made after a certain date.  Even then, you can still buy toned down versions for 20x less after that date.

The whole thing was a joke and a pain in the ass.  There is no real point in it except for show and political gain.

[lazs2]

this is a landmark thread...   it is the first one that I have seen that shlotz was the defining correct answer..

rpm on the other hand is so desperate to save his sinking candidate and justify his anti gun stance that he has taken the far lefts ideology of banning all weapons that can't be used for anything but hunting...   as if the founding fathers were so concerned about hunting that they made it the second most important thing in the constitution...  I predict that rpm will publicly self destruct pretty soon.   he painted himself into a corner and is too stubborn to admit he was wrong about the former munster.

lazs

[Edbert]

Originally posted by rpm371
ra, how many terrorists use a bolt action Winchester .270? I see a need for hunting rifles, but I really can't see a need for rifles that can drop 30 deer in 10 seconds.

They aint buying AR15s at Cabella's and Bass Pro Shops either.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Gyro/T69
"Wasn't the ban the vehicle which did away with high capacity magazines too? "

Yup

Nope.

It made the millions of them already in existence much more expensive is all. It 'did away with" nothing at all.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by AKIron
Like many others, I think the assault weapons ban was nothing more than a political ploy to appease the anti-gun folks. Hey, if it'll satisfy 'em enough to leave the rest of us alone I'll gladly forgo the grenade launcher or bayonet mount.

I hear you, but giving them that concession will only encourage them further toward their stated goals. The USA already has passed more gun-control legislation than any other nation.

[lazs2]

the magazine ban was to ban manufactruring of new magazines of more than 10 rounds.

lazs

[flakbait]

What Edbert said. Nothing has been removed or siezed, the bill simply made buying a brand-new mag holding more than 10 rounds illegal. Of course, if you actually look at most manufacturers, you can still get them. Springfield still makes 10, 15, 20, and 30 round mags for their M1A rifle. If you're willing to shell out the cash, you can still buy 'em from the factory... legally. Even though the M1A can be had with a black fiberglass stock, flash suppressor, and bayonet lug, it hasn't been banned. The "Assault weapons ban" just banned a bunch of cosmetic garbage from replacing factory parts. "It's black, it looks evil, therefor we must make a law against them!" Idiots.

All in all the whole bill was a fraud cooked up by a fraud so that goober could "look good" to the public. The fact is automatic weapons require a Class III license (ATF will love you forever). Owning them without a license has been illegal since 1934. The last round of legislation on them was in 1986, which stated no newly-made automatic weapons could be bought by any civilian regardless of licensing. No person in the US can buy an automatic weapon made after 1986. Used ones made before '86 you can still buy, but parts for some of those relics are getting a bit scarce.

Is the ban on "AR" rifles a good thing? Depends on your perspective. Stuffing a 30-round mag at a range is a chore, but you can spend more time trying to kill that offending soda can than with a 10 round mag. Do I agree with the 10-round limit on pistols? Yes and no. Yes, because it gives a perp less ammo to fire at you or an officer. No, because I'd like 15 rounds of Silvertip .40 S&W to fire at the guy trying to steal my jeep. If given a choice, I'd have to say no. 10 shots is plenty for pistols. And before anyone else says it, nobody goes hunting with a 30 round mag. I know two people who hunt with semi-auto rifles. One will only give up his BAR (30-06, 5 shot clip, NOT the WW2 weapon) when he dies, and the other absolutely loves his M1A (5 shot clip). The M1A owner has two pre-ban 30-round mags, and two pre-ban 20-round mags. He leaves them all at home when he goes hunting. His logic is, if he can't hit that deer with five shots he's got no business being out there. Any hunter will tell you it's best to hit the game with one, maybe two, shots. Not fifty shots, as this ruins any meat you can get from the animal.

Edit: As for the cosmetic junk, well that's more personal taste. Fulton Armory has conversion kits for M1A-style rifles that turn 'em into a rather wicked looking piece of hardware. Other than changing the looks, it's just tack-on junk. Some of the Ar-15 mods out there can, in effect, give you a rifle that is hands-down a dead ringer for an M4. Complete with Mil-Spec accsssory rails. Does that make a modded Ar-15 illegal? No, it lets you tack on a flash light and a lot of sighting options. Whoopde-freakin-do.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]

[Maverick]

HHmmmm to my knowledge the most deadliest terrorist weapons in the U.S. have been these.

potasium nitrate
diesel fuel
Jet fuel
jet airliners
box cutters
ryder trucks

We must start a ban on these weapons of terrorism. These weapons have been used to cause more death and destruction by terrorists than have any firearm used by terrorists in the US.