speaking of gun control

[Torque]

Fast jack rabbits.

[mauser]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
So what do you use these "assault weapons" for, anyway?

From a poster in another BB I frequent, regarding full-auto weapons...

"Because I want to be better armed than the criminals."

By the way, check out this link:
http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum23/HTML/000542.html

It is about the 9th Circuit Court's panel decision to deny a full court hearing regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms.  It was a three memeber panel, but it seems that four other judges dissented and their explanations can be found in subsequent posts in that thread.  

Agreed Scootter, a law based on threatening appearance.  Along a similar note... would anyone be more affraid if someone tries to mug you with a switchblade (which is now obtainable only by LEO/Military) instead of an equivalent size folding knife?  (those with CCW need not answer...)

mauser

[lazs2]

well suzy... in our galaxy they are quite useful and fun to own.
lazs

[beet1e]

ROFL

[Erlkonig]

This is just another cynical political move from Bush, and a classic example of the triumph of expediency over integrity in American politics.  The renewal is not going to pass in the Republican House and will never get to the president's desk.  It barely passed when the Democrats controlled it in '94!  He's going to get the best of both worlds: 1) gun control advocates will think he's really a moderate even though he won't have to put his money where his mouth is.  2) Gun fanatics on the far, far right will forget what Bush said after the ban sunsets and will keep their vote with him.  There's no way Bush would sign an AWB renewal - he might as well run on the Democratic platform in '04 if he were to do so.

Bush is a typical politician - all apearances, no substance.

[Bodhi]

I have always been an advocate of owning, using, and teacjing about firearms.  They just happen to be something that I was brought up around, and have always enjoyed.  I own quite a few, from muzzleloaders to Ar-15's to M1A Carbines (have 19 different ones) to an MP5K.  At no time have I ever violated the law with the wepons I own, nor do I intend to.  Hence, I see no benefit, other than jacking up prices of pre-ban weapons, that behoove us or make us safer by banning any weapon.   Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes.  So, where is the problem?  Why not put a ban on $40 .38 specials, they are used in more crimes, or better yet, how about you just get rid of the criminal that uses them instead of putting the buggers right back on the street after 5 yrs in the vacation home.  Cripes, liberals need to worry about more important things like Economics than guns....

[midnight Target]

Jan. 17, 1989: Patrick Purdy, 26, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, opened fire on a playground at a Stockton, Ca., elementary school. Five children died and 29 children and one teacher were wounded before Purdy killed himself.

IIRC, no gun control legislation has ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Scootter
Not really,

wish this were true but the receiver (with ID number) is the weapon according to the BATF. If you bought 10 old receivers and then built a working weapon with them, the day you put them together is the date of manufacture. If you use a Post Ban receiver and change it to include three or more banned items this is also a no no.  I have been asked to build a bunch of weapons this way and have refused. What are your chances of getting caught?, well sense it is a federal offence and in this new post 911 world you probably do a year at club fed and loose you rights to own any firearms, you do the math.

You can still buy a pre-ban receiver and build it as you see fit (3 or more of the banned items).  Since there is no tracking of the individual components, the receiver number is the only real means of establishing a recorded build date.  If that receiver has been used to build a fully functional gun prior to 1994, you can do whatever you want with it.

I don't know what "special" arm twisting goes on with gunsmiths, but if it can't be tracked, it can't  be proven.

MiniD

[Mini D]

BTW, flash supressors have been replaced by muzzel brakes (look the same... more effective).  And... I wonder if anyone as ever used a bayonet attatched to a rifle in a crime anywhere in the U.S. since the 19th century.  A big who cares anyways on that one.

The only real downer to the rule is you can't have a colapsable stock on a new AR-15 anymore... since the AR-15 automatically triggers 2 of the rules in its raw state (detatchable mag and pistol grip).

MiniD

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes.  So, where is the problem?

If this is the case, then doesn't it speak to the effectiveness of the 1934 NFA?

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
If this is the case, then doesn't it speak to the effectiveness of the 1934 NFA?

No, not considering there are more automatic weapons (and .50 cals) on the market than in 1934.

MiniD

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Bodhi
I have always been an advocate of owning, using, and teacjing about firearms.  They just happen to be something that I was brought up around, and have always enjoyed.  I own quite a few, from muzzleloaders to Ar-15's to M1A Carbines (have 19 different ones) to an MP5K.  At no time have I ever violated the law with the wepons I own, nor do I intend to.  Hence, I see no benefit, other than jacking up prices of pre-ban weapons, that behoove us or make us safer by banning any weapon.   Class 3 Weapons, full auto and heavier rounds bigger than .50 Cal, are used in less than 1% of all crimes.  So, where is the problem?  Why not put a ban on $40 .38 specials, they are used in more crimes, or better yet, how about you just get rid of the criminal that uses them instead of putting the buggers right back on the street after 5 yrs in the vacation home.  Cripes, liberals need to worry about more important things like Economics than guns....

This just in... Bush is a republican.

[Airhead]

The NRA also opposes a Federal background check on perspective gun buyers, mandatory logs of handgun ammo purchases and the ban of "Cop Killer" bullets.

[NUKE]

We should ban  guns, then maybe we could have crime rates like the UK.

[Mini D]

By default, they oppose any perceived restriction on firearms.  Its pretty much the only way to run the show, because if they start to pick and choose, they concede the fundamental "some restrictions are O.K."

BTW, "cop killer" bullets have never been banned.  Ordinance companies have voluntarily pulled them off of the shelves to avoid any precedent setting court rulings.

One I always thought was funny... "Fingerprint resistant coatings" on weapons was touted as being something you'd only need if you were a criminal and the NRA was villified for defending it.  I think about that every time I'm having to re-whipe down a pistol that I've had at the range.  Yep... only criminals like to keep fingerprints off of guns.  Just like only criminals like to keep fingerprints off of glasses.

The NRA has been pretty unwavering in their opposition to any form of gun restrictions.  They are definately more consistant than those on the other side of the fence.

MiniD