Author Topic: Picture of Assault Weapon before and after the ban? (Read 1998 times)

mauser · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2004, 01:16:32 AM »

Wow... just.. wow.

We hashed out quite a bit in a couple older threads about the AWB. Maybe you should just read those threads. You'll find that an "assault weapon" isn't any more deadly than a semi-auto "hunting rifle." Automatic weapons are already tightly controlled by laws passed in 1934, 1986, and 1989.

Btw, have you ever heard of a category of shooting called "Service Rifle?" Or how about the NRA High Power matches? Camp Pendleton? They aren't just for active duty...

Nuclear weapons? Weapons of mass destruction? Holy exaggeration Batman! How about stockpiling alcohol? Know anyone with a wine cellar or fridge full of beer? Do they DUI? How about going through Prohibition again?

It's all about creating outrage.

mauser

TweetyBird · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2004, 01:17:14 AM »

I'm just trying to think - I mean New Orleans is pretty bad for crime. Murder per capita has got to be in the top 5 in the country. Add assualts, agravated battery, etc.etc., and you better be sure you're watching your back. And yet I see these post of people out in the sticks worried about some attack on them, and arsenals of weapons. Is it possible your fear is disporportionate to your surroundings?

If I lived by you margin of safety, I'd require nukes!

TweetyBird · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2004, 01:31:49 AM »

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we focus the idea of responsible gun ownership in areas where it could be of most benifit, like high crime areas. Does the NRA have any programs to bring instruction to high crime areas? I'm thinking maybe programs for inner city kids that will show them the correct way to handle a firearm. I'm sure the NRA does this (how many camps did they sponsor in the inner city last year?), but we have to widely publicize these camps. Lets take this logic to the limit.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2004, 02:29:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we focus the idea of responsible gun ownership in areas where it could be of most benifit, like high crime areas. Does the NRA have any programs to bring instruction to high crime areas? I'm thinking maybe programs for inner city kids that will show them the correct way to handle a firearm. I'm sure the NRA does this (how many camps did they sponsor in the inner city last year?), but we have to widely publicize these camps. Lets take this logic to the limit.

Whaa? Are you some kind of liberal?

Criminals in high crime areas (you didnt say high gun accident areas) dont murder other people accidentaly because the guns misfire. They do it because they intend to kill or harm the other person. The only thing an NRA gun handling course could teach such criminals is how to shoot better.

type_char · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2004, 02:44:20 AM »

[size=20]Im votin for Bush!!![/size]

bigsky · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2004, 03:53:13 AM »

ok here it is
http://www.le-refuge.net/files/pm_ppsh41.mpeg

Jackal1 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2004, 05:56:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we focus the idea of responsible gun ownership in areas where it could be of most benifit, like high crime areas. Does the NRA have any programs to bring instruction to high crime areas? I'm thinking maybe programs for inner city kids that will show them the correct way to handle a firearm. I'm sure the NRA does this (how many camps did they sponsor in the inner city last year?), but we have to widely publicize these camps. Lets take this logic to the limit.

You might want to get an expert opinion on the ingredients for the next batch of gumbo you make up. I think you used the wrong shrooms in your last batch.

ra · « **Reply #37 on:** October 14, 2004, 08:41:23 AM »

Quote

He - I don't think for one second the people who authored the 2nd ammendment considered automatic weapons, drive by shootings, drug related gang warfare or any of the regular stuff that happens in major cities now.

Do you even know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? What percentage of gun crimes are comitted with LEGALLY OWNED AUTOMATIC weapons? Please find out and get back to us.

As far as drive bys and the drug stuff, why should that prevent a law-abiding American from owning a firearm for whatever reason he wants? Those things mostly happen in big armpit cities where there are already strict gun laws which do nothing to prevent gun crime. Even Washington DC, commie central, is seriously considering repealing many of its worthless gun laws. The NRA has little influence in that pinko town.

ra

Wolf14 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 14, 2004, 10:18:09 AM »

You know I cant see what kind of shoes Tweety's wearin but I'm shure he dont need them. People have been killed and beatin for the shoes they wear. Therefore I say to tweety "Take them there shoes off your feet. I know whats best for you. I dont care how well you like them or for whatever other reasons you have them. Just take them off and get rid of them. The fewer people wearin them there shoes the fewer who will die needlessle at the hand of another or be seriously beatin with random objects."

While we are at it lets put 5 day waiting periods on house hold kitchen knives. Dont want any crazed person to go stabbing somebody now would we. After a bit we may just need to go out and just outlaw them. Kinda feel sorry for all those folks who will break countless numbers of plasticware while trying to enjoy that savory steak they just cooked for dinner.

Oh and cars to. They kill lots of people. Kill more than guns as a whole. Gotta outlaw the cars. They are killing all of humanity. Woe is me. The Horror. The Horror

That neighbor that could be stockpiling weapons could be the neighbor you have a great day at the range with or the neighbor who happens to save your butt one night.

In anything and everything you can teach and train till your hearts content. It takes the individual to make the decision to take anothers life in what ever fashion they choose using what ever tool they choose to use.

Tweety why should the law abiding citizenry be penalized?

lazs2 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 14, 2004, 10:51:50 AM »

tweety... where do I start? Everything you have said about guns and the second amendment and.... nukes is.... "missinformed".

start with degree of danger... nukes, explosive devices and biological weapons.. "logic" would show you the difference in an area weapon that will kill without human control and any type of firearm.

You can't purchase the ingredients to make a nuke or bio or explosive (bomb) legaly and you would be endagering your neighbors if you did. Fire or natural disasters could set them off say. Firearms.... do not kill unless the trigger is pulled and they are aimed at someone. "logic" would put them in an entirely different class.

Assault weapons are no more deadly... i9n fact, they are much less so than "normal hunting" rifles that you approve of.

There are historians and collectors and just plain sports shooters that their whole sport revolves around these semi auto miltary styled rifles. They are by far the largest group of so called "assault weapons" owners and have not been a problem.... A car is "capable" of taking out 30 people at a time but...

shooting with any optical gear is relative in skill... for instance.... you could not compete with those who compete with scopes. You do not have the skill... you would have to practice constantly and develop skills.... in short... you would have to make it a sport.

The second was written for a militia... a militia meant every able bodied man. It meant that they should be able to bear arms to prevent tyranny from without or.... within. My take is that an armed America (militia) prevents tyranny from both without and within in exacly the same manner that it did when the amendment was written. Just as "free speech" is not outdated... the second is not outdated...

least till the human creature changes significantly and I think watching kerrie in the debates would show anyone that.... at least, politicians haven't changed in their desire for bigger more controling govbernment.

I think I will go shooting now... it relaxes me.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #40 on:** October 14, 2004, 10:57:25 AM »

Most police organizations and both candidates are FOR the ban. Go figure.

Martlet · « **Reply #41 on:** October 14, 2004, 11:03:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Most police organizations and both candidates are FOR the ban. Go figure.

Where did you get those stats?

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** October 14, 2004, 11:11:34 AM »

Quote

I was hunting in Iowa last year with a sheriff from one of the counties there, and he pointed to a house in back of us, and said, "See the house over? We just did a drug bust a week earlier, and the guy we arrested had an AK-47 lying on the bed right beside him."

Because of the president's decision, today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous.

What horse doobers!

Quote

In 1994, it became unlawful to manufacture an assault weapon or normal capacity magazine (over 10 rounds) except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The federal definition of assault weapon includes the following points of physical similarity to military weapons:

A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, flash suppressor, threaded barrel, grenade launcher, or bayonet lug.

A semiautomatic shotgun that has more than one of the following features: pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, detachable magazine, fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine that has more than one of the following features: magazine attaches to the pistol outside the grip, threaded barrel, weight of 1.42 kg or more unloaded, barrel shroud, or a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

This law is ineffective because the particular features that are prohibited do not enhance the capabilities of a given weapon, they remain in fact identical to their non-prohibited counterparts. Thus, making these features illegal does nothing to prevent crime or make the guns any less dangerous, especially since they were used in less than 1% of crimes to begin with. The federal "assault weapons" ban will expire in September of 2004, unless Congress re-authorises it or enacts and even more restrictive set of bans by then. Both efforts are curently underway in both houses of Congress.

Kerry'd be way better off avoiding obviously BS arguments like "Because of the president's decision, today, law enforcement officers will walk into a place that will be more dangerous".

Just makes him seem either INCREDIBLY stupid on the subject or so biased he's totally blind.

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 14, 2004, 11:12:56 AM »

political police chiefs are for the ban... rank and file officers are not.

As for the candidates... kerrie is for the ban in that he would encourage the banners and get it into the limelight...

Bush is for the ban in that he would just as soon see it quietly go away...

but... you knew all that anyway and were just messing with us right?

lazs

TweetyBird · « **Reply #44 on:** October 14, 2004, 11:23:55 AM »

Wolf, advantages must be weighed against disadvantages. Yea, remove automobiles and there would be no traffic deaths. But the benifits outweigh the tens of thousand of traffic deaths each year. I'm not sure on the statisitic for being killed by shoes, but I'm sure its pretty low. The benifit of people not banging their feet up regularly would probably offset the occaisional trampling death at some concert.

The problem with unregulated guns, is the benifit is hard to see. You have to believe the government is conspiring to make a massive list of all gun owners to capture them in case of a military takeover. Then yea, I gues its a benifit to not be on the list. But if we go out on the limb and say that probably aint gonna happen - whats the great benifit of no gun regulation? Whats the disadvantages?

Personaly, I'd say the hell with guns - let them have all they want. I'd outlaw the bullets - second ammendment doesn't guarantee bullets