Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raptor on October 13, 2004, 09:32:37 PM
-
Can someone post a picture of an 'assault rifle' before and after the assault rifle ban? I dont think there would be a significant difference...
-
There wont be.
The dif will be funky thumb hole stocks. No flash supressors or bayonet lugs. That's it.
Cause the bad guys were killing each other in the streets with boyonets all the time!
-
(http://www.blackriflearmory.com/photos/Pre-Ban%20Colts.JPG)
pre ban
(http://www.thebodyshot.com/articles/sports-ar15-examples.jpg)
post ban
-
It might... isnt its ammunition rare these days?
-
I bet not having those bayonett lugs and flash supressors saved lots of lives and made the world a better place......
Oh, ammo isn't rare, I assume you mean because of the war??? The military gets its ammo from an independant contractor called lake city ammo, the big guys are still pumping out lots of the usual stuff.
-
Hmm - someone posted a pic of a pssh41 - an old Soviet SMG... IIRC it fired some exotic round in the 5mm range.
He asked if it fell under some sort of special designation, hense my post.
He seems to have removed his post, however.
-
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."
You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Hmm - someone posted a pic of a pssh41 - an old Soviet SMG... IIRC it fired some exotic round in the 5mm range.
He asked if it fell under some sort of special designation, hense my post.
He seems to have removed his post, however.
i think i found it
71 rounds.... Thats crazy! Should be banned too! :D
(http://behun8.srv.hu/pics/cod/ppsh.jpg)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."
You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.
What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
mauser
-
>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<
Would you accept that reason from any country developing nuclear weapons? "We just admire the mechanism!"
Well our country percieves a threat when neighboring countries start building powerful weapons. *I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.
Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."
You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.
well the second amendment doesn't mention anything at all about a person's right to bare arms in order to hunt animals.
-
The second amendment was written to insure a malitia, not to insure everyone could own a gun - in fact it doesn't mention a gun. What if we decide guns aren't strong enough? Can we bare tanks?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people. [/B]
Or just maybe for protection.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<
Would you accept that reason from any country developing nuclear weapons? "We just admire the mechanism!"
Well our country percieves a threat when neighboring countries start building powerful weapons. *I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.
Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.
"nuking" isn't a sport.
you don't go to the gravel pit and nuke targets for fun.
Comparing nukes to guns is laughable.
Realizing you're serious is insanity.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<
*I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.
Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.
So I can’t have fun target shooting? Due to liberal logic like yours Social Republic of Kalifornia outlawed just about everything. Golly-geen liberals....
-
Yea, I know the draw of assualt weapons is for target practice.
And *I'm* insane?
Oh - btw - hitting a bullseye with the aid of a mechanical device (scope, lazer) is not much of a sport either.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea, I know the draw of assualt weapons is for target practice.
And *I'm* insane?
Oh - btw - hitting a bullseye with the aid of a mechanical device (scope, lazer) is not much of a sport either.
What else are they for? To take over neighbor yards? How much crime is done by "assault weappns" Can you even tell what assault weapon is?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Yea, I know the draw of assualt weapons is for target practice.
And *I'm* insane?
Oh - btw - hitting a bullseye with the aid of a mechanical device (scope, lazer) is not much of a sport either.
Do you even realize what constitutes an assault weapon?
-
Define your question - under the law, or under practicality?
Under practicality, an assualt weapon is anything that you don't have to load up with gunpowder, and under practicality, that is what the second amendment had in mind regarding personal armament.
If you think for one second the right was to guarantee anyone to possess weapons of mass destruction (taking out 20 people in 30 seconds is pretty much mass destruction), than enjoy your rhetoric at the next NRA convention.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Define your question - under the law, or under practicality?
Under practicality, an assualt weapon is anything that you don't have to load up with gunpowder, and under practicality, that is what the second amendment had in mind regarding personal armament.
If you think for one second the right was to guarantee anyone to possess weapons of mass destruction (taking out 20 people in 30 seconds is pretty much mass destruction), than enjoy your rhetoric at the next NRA convention.
I'm talking law. What was banned by the assault weapon ban. What were the criteria for determining an assault weapon?
-
Guns don't kill people, folding stocks kill people.
-
talk about 'logic", the jump between a rifle and nukes is very very long, to say nothing about the practicality of owning "nukes"
liberal logic is very dangerous.
-
Geez tweety, you might want to educate yourself further before spouting off like this . It really reflects poorly on you.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."
You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.
There are other reasons to have an *assault weapon*. The AR-15 is ideal for younger target shooters because of its low recoil. Some people collect guns, just to name a couple.
-
Well, I'll look it up if you want, but I concede the law was impotent. There are far more small caliber automatic weapons used in crime, than ak-47's, and there's no good reason to own a small automatic weapon.
Here's the point - I have NO problem with someone owning a gun up to the task of defending themselves from a *reasonable* intrusion scenario, or for hunting. But guns designed to defend from a well armed ary, well thats just wacko, and am quite suprised that more aren't upset with the NRA for trying to blur the difference.
How many gun shows have you been to? I've been to a few. And where most people seem pretty normal, I have met a few I back slowly away from. People who giggle for no apparent reason make me nervous.
-
Today more than ever I feel secure in my home and community with a nicely oiled and maintained semi automatic assault rifle and half a dozen 30 round clips loaded and at the ready.
tweetybird and his ilk have been around for as long as I can remember and they will never prevail over me.
-
>> It really reflects poorly on you.
<<
Oh well, there goes my election to most popular.
I don't care how it *looks* - I aint running for anything. I don't care if it takes 10 posts to get why I feel as I do across. I've never figured I was some great communicator. 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. I think the NRA is trying to obscure that and I'm gonna say it. It might take a few posts to say it right, but I'm going to say it. So, call Edwards and SUE me.
-
>>Today more than ever I feel secure in my home and community with a nicely oiled and maintained semi automatic assault rifle and half a dozen 30 round clips loaded and at the ready.
<<
I live in New Orleans where we average about a murder per day.
My back door is open (the storm door is closed) as I write this.
I am not in fear right now.
Where the hell do you live that you need a well oiled gun and 30 clips "loaded and ready" to make you feel secure? You selling cocaine or something?
-
What a maroon.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Well, I'll look it up if you want, but I concede the law was impotent. There are far more small caliber automatic weapons used in crime, than ak-47's, and there's no good reason to own a small automatic weapon.
assualt weapons ban did not ban automatic weapons, automatic weapons were already baned*and still are, the assualt weapons ban baned the way guns looked.
*special weapons permit needed to own automatic weapons.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
[size=20]Im votin for Bush!!![/size]
(http://www.blackriflearmory.com/photos/Pre-Ban%20Colts.JPG)
-
ok here it is
http://www.le-refuge.net/files/pm_ppsh41.mpeg
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
Most police organizations and both candidates are FOR the ban. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Most police organizations and both candidates are FOR the ban. Go figure.
Where did you get those stats?
-
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!
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
I can and do make "bullets" and loaded rounds too. The "bullet" is the projectile and easily cast from wheelweights say.
Again... you should know a litltle something about a subject before you can use "logic" on it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
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
Naah!
Bush said he wanted the ban to continue. He said it in the debate last night. Right out loud. Right after he denied ever saying that he wasn't concerned about Osama Bin Laden.
Actually Bush was the wimp.... "I was against it, but we didn't have the votes........."
Now there's a stand up guy!.
-
yeah shades of sKerry on that one.....he is just trying to mitigate the damage caused by the ban sunsetting amongst weaker minds that might still have enough sense to vote for him. bush is capable of doublespeak too. he just aint as clever as sKerry when it comes to forceful in your face deception and he uses it at more opportune times.
-
germany 1934, "to protect the people and have a peacefull society we will now collect all privately owned guns"
-
Laz, the remark about "nukes don't kill people, tyrants do" was directed against the logic that "guns don't kill people, people do."
I don't think we're worried about the nukes in NK because they might accidently go off. I think we're worried they might shoot them at someone, or more importantly, give them more bargaining power from simply having them. I know it has nothing to do with the second ammendment, but I'm only talking about the logic. You cant tell the honest law abiding citizens in high crime areas, not to worry because "guns don't kill people, people do." Yes - knives kill too, and baseball bats and hammers. But its a lot easier to get caught in a crossfire of guns than it is a knife fight. And this happens a LOT in inner cities. Bullets start flying, and all of a sudden a kid playing on the sidewalk is dead, a lady driving by on the way to church is dead, and some poor guy just waiting for a bus is dead.
Then the argument comes out - well get tougher on crime! Good argument if everyone in this country was a rational thinking being. But unfortunately when some crack head is mad because he was scammed for a few rocks, chances are he is not thinking about the penalties for a gun crime, and nor is he overly worried about any unlucky bystander that happens to be in the way of his drive by.
Well why does a criminal have a gun anyway? Because he's a criminal and guns are as common as acorns. Shouldn't be hard for even a nutty squirel to get a hold of one.
-
Thanks for informing me of what a bullet is :) I'm so pleased you know how to load shot.
There are a lot of neat things you can make. But when you start buying in bulk, certain components, expect an early morning visit from the feds
-
well it's my opinion that it's not the gun thats at fault but the gun owner.
i have a loaded 38 siting on my desk (at home) and it have never tryed to shoot me , of course i treat it good, i clean and oil it, excercise it often at the range, so it is a happy and well adjusted gun.
but i can understand if a gun is neglected and ignored and becomes dusty and rusty it could turn on it's owner or a stranger. so if you can't care for your gun please take it to a gun store and let them find a owner that will care for it.
-
>>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.<<
I'm not talking about arming the criminals. I'm talking about getting more responsible gun owners in the areas needed most- like inner cities.
600,000 Americans are confronted with a gun each year. Most are in the inner city. We need to arm the people living in the inner city.
It just seems silly for some guy in a little town (populaton 5 - not counting the raccoons) to be deadbolted in for the night with 25 well oiled, fully loaded guns. Just as silly as some law abiding family to have no gun in a high crime inner city neighborhood. We need to get the NRA to those neighborhoods.
-
Raptor: Look through this thread for weapons that were legal during the AWB: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98497&highlight=AWB+pics.
Some posts mention what they will look like after the ban expired, i.e. adding multi-position stocks, removing muzzle brakes and installing the original flash hider.
Tweety: Getting inner city kids off the streets and doing almost ANY organized activity seems to work well. Basketball teams, swimming, baseball, football -whatever may help keep them away from trouble is good. Teaching firearms responsibility to the masses is excellent. I shot smallbore for four years in high school. There were only four high schools on the entire island which had rifle teams during my time about 12-15 years ago. Now even some of our $10k/year tuition private high schools have air-rifle teams. Learning about firearms from serious, certified instructors is a lot better than them learning through the stupid TV, Hollywood, a gang member, or even firearms misinformation sites. But what does this have to do with the AWB and "assault weapons?"
mauser
-
OMG another moron using the personal nuke argument.
God I have been hearing that since high school and it is still just an stupid.
If criminals are using full auto weapons, they were not legal assault weapons purchased at Big5.
Full auto firearms have been strictly regulated since the 30s, and no one can buy them without a permit from the Fed government.
The law was a waste of time and all about pleasing idiots.
-
Oh - btw - hitting a bullseye with the aid of a mechanical device (scope, lazer) is not much of a sport either.[/QUOT
Tweety, that statement alone shows you don't know enough about firearms to comment on them.
-
tweety... we probly don't have the right to tell nations that they can or can't have nukes... it is only because we are powerful that we can. The arguement that private citizens within country should have em or not has nothing to do with any kind of logic so far as firearms are concerned.
and... I don't see any data that would support that armed citizens cause problems ... the data shows the oppossite... that the more citizens you arm the better off you are.. the less crime. The percent of so called assault rifles used in crime is so small as to be insignificant... hardly worth taking away a law abiding citizens rights over.
I am having trouble following your "logic".... you seem to be all over the map and seem to be quoting myths and missconceptions.
MT... you do not agree with my perception of the situation?
It is like the "toxic mold" issue. All mold is just.... mold.. the "toxic" label was invented by.... guess who? taaa daaa.... personal injury lawyers. There is no mold that is "toxic" to more than a miniscule part of the population... they are alergic just as they may be alergic to horses... We do not call em "toxic horses".
lazs
-
lazs is right. this time.
-
did I read vort correctly?
lazs
-
They banned the wrong guns anyway. They SHOULD have banned those little .25 semi-autos. They get more people killed than "assult weapons".
Namely the ones using the .25s.
I know somebody shoots ME with one, he better have spare clips and lots of bullets. And have me tied up. And be really close. Drugging me first wouldnt hurt either.
Eventually I'll die of lead poisoning from the bullets that manage to break the skin if he leaves me tied up and drugged. Or maybe screw up the drug dosage and I'll OD.
If not I'll hunt him down and beat him with the gun (the only EFFECTIVE way to hurt somebody with one of those little plinkers) until he bleeds to death.
Who wants full auto noise makers anyway? Messy. Give me my Moisin-Nagent M44 and a clear line of sight, one bullet will do the job of your 75 round drums and at a range that leaves me able to stand up and walk away without anyone seeing who did the shooting lol.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
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.
Not knowing how to shoot a gun properly IS criminal.
:D
And dont sell ole Wayne short on what he could teach criminals, I'd bet with enough lobbyists he could sell ice cubes to Eskimos.
Or at least convince them to buy them to make him leave them alone. :lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
did I read vort correctly?
lazs
yes, on the whole assault rifle thing, your right. now if I were to commit a crime in which i required a gun, id either use a semi auto handgun (not to say those should be banned, there more likely to be used for good rather than evil) or a sub-machine gun (not to say those should be banned either, just given a greater degree of control on who can buy em), depending on the crime. id only use a real assault rifle in some kind of open revolution.
if i was just out to kill someone, id just poison their wine or dump a bucket of water in front of there steps in the middle of winter.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The second amendment was written to insure a malitia, not to insure everyone could own a gun - in fact it doesn't mention a gun. What if we decide guns aren't strong enough? Can we bare tanks?
"The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed"
I fail to see how it can be made any more clear.
-
pretty much it... we will allways need well armed men to defend against whatever so.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
and... yes I know how to reload ammo... we do not call it "load shot" unless you are talking about reloading shotgun shells.
There are no limits on how much components you can have only on how they are stored. For instance... you can't have more than 20 lbs of smokless powder at a residence without some specialized storage. 20 lbs will load many thousands of rounds of ammo.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... you do not agree with my perception of the situation?
lazs
If you are saying that Bush was for it in a way that would make him against it... then yea. I think he is a true flip flopper on this one.
Either that or a liar.
-
Well if it said that, there would be some less ambiguity. But it doesn't, it states
"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."
So, were they protecting your right to own a six shooter, or protecting your right to have a state militia, and your state 's autonomy? No mention of guns, knives, shoes or even tanks. But it does mention the importance of having a *WELL REGULATED MILITIA* for the *SECURITY OF A FREE STATE* Gun regulation in the 2nd ammendment?? Who'd have thunk it.
It ceartainly appears this has more to do with a state army.
-
The militia of the time was made up of everyday people.
Many of whom never signed up to be in the army.
As often or not when the need arose they simply went into their house. Got ol Betsy off the mantle and went off to fight.
when the fight was over they went back home again
-
If the right to own a gun is so obvious in the Constitution... Why has there never been an overturned gun control law based on 2nd amendment grounds?
-
Would someone please explain the Assault weapon ban.
What it covered, what it didnt and the misconceptions thereof?
I need this info to make a point with someone IRL and I saw here someone explain it better then I can.
BTW I need it in the next 3 hours LOL
-
Drediock,
Wording of the Assault Weapons ban from the law itself, from the 103rd Congress:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa...aw/h3355_en.htm
Go to "TITLE XI--FIREARMS SUBTITLE A--ASSAULT WEAPONS"
Under "DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON"
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and
Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar
to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to
accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the
shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand
without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
Notice it says "semi-auto." I remember hearing about a news story where they spoke about the AWB but showed a fully automatic (or "select fire") AK-47 - definitely misleading. Also, none of these provisions cover the M1 Garand, M1A (semi-auto only M14), Browning BAR (not the WWII LMG), Mini-14, and other weapons which are all semi-auto weapons firing .30-06, 7.62x51mm, and 5.56x45mm cartridges. It's just that they all look like hunting rifles - wood or synthetic stocks with no pistol grip in their stock form. So basically there are weapons that fire the same rounds that are perfectly legal even in California just because they don't look as mean.
A truer definition of "assault weapon" can be found at Tony Williams' site. Something along the lines of a weapon that fires an intermediate-sized cartridge, and is select fire. For the laws that control fully-automatic weapons, look for the 1934 NFA, and the import and new manufacture laws enacted in 1986 and 1989 from off the top of my head. Basically, you need to make sure your state allows you to have a fully-automatic weapon, then pay the tax stamp to satisfy the BATF. Then you will end up paying about $10k at least for a previously owned weapon because there are no brand new fully automatic weapons manufactured for civilian use after either 86 or 89.
Hope this helps you (I'll be checking my automatic weapon laws in the meantime).
mauser
*edit - Ok, here's a good summary of the laws controlling automatic weapons:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68847&highlight=NFA+import+ban+1986+1989
1986- No sale of new manufacture full automatics for civilians.
1989- No further imports of foreign made "assault weapons."
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Would someone please explain the Assault weapon ban.
What it covered, what it didnt and the misconceptions thereof?
I need this info to make a point with someone IRL and I saw here someone explain it better then I can.
BTW I need it in the next 3 hours LOL
Here ya go, this should answer your questions..........
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/assault%20weapons%20ban%20%28USA%29
-
tweety... the militia was defined as any able bodied man. the security of the state could mean anything that threatens the state be it tyranny or criminal. Because of this the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The liberals gun grabbers have picked away at this saying that they were not taking away individuals right to keep and bear arms just that they wanted to ban certain types as being too dangerous.
MT is relatively correct that no gun regulation has been overturned based on second amendment rights but... conversly... no ban has been successful based on the 2nd not being an individual right. No ban has ever said that individuals do not have the right to bear arms.... just not here or not that kind of arm type of thing.
The second is generaly interpreted by scholars and common sense as meaning that if you want to ever have the ability to form a civilian army to combat tyranny or criminals then the the people need to be armed... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
someday both the gun grabers and the pro gun rights guys are gonna force the issue... both sides are afraid too until they are sure to have the upper hand in the supreme court or the right case comes along.
lazs
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Here ya go, this should answer your questions..........
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/assault%20weapons%20ban%20%28USA%29
thanks but all I got was
"HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected
Crawling of this site is prohibited. Your access was blocked for up to 8 hours.
Please note that sometimes the problem is created by someone from the same network or ISP and your actions may have nothing to do with this message. We are very sorry if this is the case but we have to protect our site from bad people. Please come back soon.
farlex.com "
-
>>the militia was defined as any able bodied man.<<
What is a "WELL REGULATED" militia defined as? Because thats what the ammendment states - a militia subject to *regulations* and it should be "well regulated' which implies someone must do the regulating - who?
-
DREDIOCK, did you see my response?
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
thanks but all I got was
"HTTP 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected
Crawling of this site is prohibited. Your access was blocked for up to 8 hours.
Please note that sometimes the problem is created by someone from the same network or ISP and your actions may have nothing to do with this message. We are very sorry if this is the case but we have to protect our site from bad people. Please come back soon.
farlex.com "
Tweety: Militia as defined by the US CODE:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2004-03-18
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Also, see http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html for a read on interpreting the Second Amendment.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>the militia was defined as any able bodied man.<<
What is a "WELL REGULATED" militia defined as? Because thats what the ammendment states - a militia subject to *regulations* and it should be "well regulated' which implies someone must do the regulating - who?
Dude, bale out.
-
Originally posted by mauser
DREDIOCK, did you see my response?
oh, Yes I did right after my last reply.
Thank you very much
-
No problem DREDIOCK :).
mauser
-
My wife bought me a CETME 58 for my 50th birthday. It differs from the pre-ban models in that the pinned in place bayonet lug was removed and replaced with a pinned in cap. So yeah, the ban was quite worthless and had zero effect on violent crime.
It's chambered in 7.62mm x 51mm NATO, and Malaysian surplus belted ammo is plentiful, cheap and accurate. Ya just gotta pop the rounds out of the links. I buy it locally in ammo cans of 200 rounds for $20 a can. Just about as cheap as new production Russian made 7.62mm x 39mm ammo for the AK, AKM and SKS. Just buy it in bulk (5 cans at a time). I usually purchase 7.62mm x 39mm ammo in cases of 1,100 rounds, all in boxes of 20 ea. That's a bit easier on my thumbs than stripping NATO ammo off of links. ;)
The CEMTE 58 was developed in Spain from a WWII prototype design smuggled out of Germany after the war. Oddly enough, West Germany had to purchase a license from CETME to develop their own version, the H&K G3.
Great rifle at very reasonable prices. I haven't taken any photos of it, but found a photo of the exact same rifle on the web.
(http://www.southernohiogun.com/images/SLG-CETMELE.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
>>and... yes I know how to reload ammo... we do not call it "load shot" unless you are talking about reloading shotgun shells.
<<
Forgive me. We that kill possums call it load shot.
The fact that you are an expert has been made painfully clear. Whether or not I believe it is another matter, and unimportant.
-
Originally posted by mauser
No problem DREDIOCK :).
mauser
She hasnt called me back to confront the point I was trying to make which usually means she submits to having lost the arguement.:aok
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
She hasnt called me back to confront the point I was trying to make which usually means she submits to having lost the arguement.:aok
Hehe... nice going there. Glad I was able to help someone out in this place :). Now, there are probably millions more who are as misinformed... too bad we can't get to all of them.
mauser
-
Originally posted by mauser
Hehe... nice going there. Glad I was able to help someone out in this place :). Now, there are probably millions more who are as misinformed... too bad we can't get to all of them.
mauser
Her and I argue regularly. On just about everything
She has these big buttons that I just cant resist pushing
no not THOSE buttons although those arent too bad either
-
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?
-
tweety... I have never claimed to be an expert. It is a lifelong hobby for me that I enjoy and... I feel that I am doing myself, my familyu and my country a service by owning and knowing how to use firearms.
The fact is... I only seem like an expert when compared to the gun grabbers who allways make it painfully obvious that they know little to nothing about firearms.
I am interested in your viewpoint tho as I believe it is one shared by a lot of people with very little of no experiance with firearms. I believe that since the media is so overwhelmingly anti gun that you have been missled. If I can dispel any myths that you may have come to believe then I am at your service.
I believe that the more light that is shown on the subject the more that gun rights will be secure in this country. The gun grabbers work on fear and myth and ignorance.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT is relatively correct
Liked that part.
-
course... so are the guys who claim that the supreme court has never said that the second meant states rights over individual rights..
neither side feels confident enough to plead their case. The evidence of more concealled carry slowing crime is good for the gun rights guys but the continued media assault and litigation slant plays to the gun grabbers...
we will have to see. Hitler managed it as did stalin.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?
Yes. They got around it by using a high percentage of "compliance" parts. The receiver and most of the action was made in the USA. Barrels and stocks are Spanish made.
Basically, most weapons affected by the assault weapons bill were available throughout the time period. I bought an AKM and an another SKS during that time span. Likewise, the magazine restrictions were a non-factor. There are countless millions of CETME magazines and many times more AK mags that were grandfathered in. The ban was a feel-good law that made a half-assed effort to fix what wasn't broken anyway.
Violence is a cultural issue. The choice of weapon is inconsequential to addressing the underlying problem. If not assault weapons and pistols, then knives and clubs will do. The fact is that some people are frightened by firearms. Thus, they don't want anyone to have anything that scares them. Legislation by paranoia is bound to fail, always has, always will.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Violence is a cultural issue. The choice of weapon is inconsequential to addressing the underlying problem.
Stop making sense --- NOW!!!
-
Have you no feelings!!! Can you not see the evil aura of "assault weapons"???? My gawd... they are black!
lazs
-
Laz it isn't about reading every gun magazine published, going to every gun show, or knowing all the intricacies of every gun. And thats what you are trying to make it about.
Its a legal and social question. You spew off a few gun terms and then follow with some hyperbole "Hitler and Stalin did it."
I guess thats more fun to say than Norway has strict gun registration laws. People still have a lot of guns there, so nobody is grabbing their guns.
Or perhaps Canada has no constitutional guarantee to carry a gun, but they've remained a free nation. And Swedin - etc etc.
Its a sociological and legal issue - not a gun bolt issue.
So when it comes down the real issue (legal and social) you tend to be a lot less technical and start spewing about Hitler.
-
tweety... the entire thread is about assault weapons and why they were banned.
Take the emotion out of it and look at the reality... There is no functional difference between pre and post ban firearms. The reason that the ban was put in place had no basis in good logical thinking and was based on ignorance of firearms and their affect on society.
follow so far? so... rather than being an exercise in technical knowledge on the one hand and a moral correctness on the other....
it was a case of a useless "feel good" law passed by incramentalists who know nothing of the subject they are passing bills against.
Do you not agree that before you pass legeslation banning something that you should know what the effect of the ban will be and what you are banning and why?
What is your reason for supporting the now defunct assault weapon ban (assuming you support it)? What would be the point of such a ban?
lazs
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The second amendment was written to insure a malitia, not to insure everyone could own a gun - in fact it doesn't mention a gun. What if we decide guns aren't strong enough? Can we bare tanks?
The second amendment is as such: 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 the people to keep and bear arms". The word "people" is used throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and is generally interpreted as meaning the general population. Which means it applies to all individuals no matter their occupation or standing. Why should the Second Amendment be interpreted any differently? The Amendment does not say that only the militia can bear arms. It says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" and uses a justification that a civilian militia can and will be used from the armed population if needed to ensure a free state.
Terror
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>the militia was defined as any able bodied man.<<
What is a "WELL REGULATED" militia defined as? Because thats what the ammendment states - a militia subject to *regulations* and it should be "well regulated' which implies someone must do the regulating - who?
The "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment is a justification for why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not a limit to when/who/where an individual can keep or bear arms.
Terror
-
exactly terror... if we ever need a militia... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right means.... the right (not privilidge) and the people means... the people. Arms are considered any weapons that can be carried on the person.
They could have left out the militia part but they didn't... It was the justification. When there is no more tyranny or crime or bad people in the world then there will be no need for a militia but until then....
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I would love it all out in the open and decided by the supreme court.. I would allow that local ordinances could regulate the bearing of arms in city limits but not the keeping of them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?
It was mentioned in the People's Republik of NJ gun laws as
being banned. Unfortunately for us, Dred, the gun ban still exists.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?
It was mentioned in the People's Republik of NJ gun laws as
being banned. Unfortunately for us, Dred, the gun ban still exists.