If the AWB is renewed, how will you vote?


PDA






Publicola
July 17, 2004, 07:24 AM
A simple question but possibly with a complex answer.

If you would please elaborate on your decision.

If you enjoyed reading about "If the AWB is renewed, how will you vote?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
71Commander
July 17, 2004, 08:08 AM
I'll vote against Bush.

Might as well get the revolt started. I want to be young enough to participate.:D

KRAUTGUNNER
July 17, 2004, 08:46 AM
If I could vote in the 2004 presidential election (not very likely; They won't allow a gun nut Kraut to vote in GOD'S OWN COUNTRY :evil: ) , I would vote for Mr. Badnarik, IF Bush renews the AWB.

Certainly NOT for that §$%&ing Kerry @$$#*+~ !!! :cuss: :fire:

boofus
July 17, 2004, 08:47 AM
If AWB goes away Bush gets my vote. Otherwise Badnarik will get it and I will never vote for a Republican again unless it is Ron Paul.

Sleeping Dog
July 17, 2004, 09:11 AM
I'll vote for Bush.

If I use my vote for some 3rd party candidate, Libertarian or otherwise, it just helps Kerry/Edwards. And they'll do worse than just renew a ban against bayonet lugs.

I think the AWB is just a ban against cosmetic features on guns. It's meaningless and accomplishes little. It's stupid to renew the ban. But it's not too bright to get our undergarments in a wad about its renewal.

Kerry/Edwards will do worse.

Regards.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 09:26 AM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb


I'd say read up on it and glean your own opinion. If this was just a willy nilly stand alone bill, I'd be totally against it, but the AWB is part of a whole package that addresses gang violence and crime in this Country, which we all know is an epidemic. Part of that package also required background checks at purchasing, which I completely agree with. The fact is , the AWB will only ban FUTURE manufacture/import of AK-47, M-16, Mac 10/11, Tec-9, Uzi,etc type weapons with high cap (50 or more) mags and is easily concealed. Who here needs a folding stock, threaded barrel and bayonet lug? Any AR existing now will NOT be banned. The entire LEO community are for it and I think they should take precedence since they have to deal with it on a daily basis. Just like with most anything else, if you're an upstanding citizen and don't commit any crimes, you have nothing to fear. Remember, Tommyguns were banned, but they didn't 'come after out guns'. Fact is certain guns have been banned for most of the last Century( I.E zip guns and Saturday night specials). Btw, even if the AWB sunsets, there's bills in place to shift to the State level. Seven States already have a AWB in place.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 17, 2004, 09:50 AM
As much as I have argued that this is the wrong election to make a protest vote, I will do exactly that if the ban is signed by GWB. I expect it to sunset and I will be holding the Republican party responsible if it does not.

GeneC - I hope that is sarcasm. If not, I'd advise you to read up on the "good first step" comments and take a look at recent legislation to see what the proposed "second step" was and then reevaluate whether you think they will be coming after more guns in the future.

Part of that package also required background checks at purchasing, which I completely agree with.

Well if you agree with that, you will be pleased to know that the Brady Bill is actually separate from the semi-auto ban and will not expire with that ban as it is totally separate and not part of a "total" package.

The fact is , the AWB will only ban FUTURE manufacture/import of AK-47, M-16, Mac 10/11, Tec-9, Uzi,etc type weapons with high cap (50 or more) mags and is easily concealed.

You are in error here. The semi-auto ban banned many more weapons besides the 19 listed and it also banned any detachable magazine with a capacity of larger than 10 rounds.


Here is a good site to learn exactly what the 1994 ban accomplished:
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

Come back and tell me if you don't think the Bradys left out a few details of relevance in their link.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 09:55 AM
http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm


More info. Sorry, full sincerity here. BR, what'd be the use for folding stocks, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs and 50 rd mags?

Muzzleflash
July 17, 2004, 10:17 AM
Silencers? Why shouldn't we be able to shoot a gun in silence.

50 round magazines? Got a good reason why I shouldn't have them?

Folding stocks? Ok. Firing an "assualt rifle" with the stock folded is a recipe for sloppy firing. But it's very useful for transport.

boofus
July 17, 2004, 10:19 AM
I paid good money and jumped through plenty of hoops for my NFA registered machinegun and suppressor. I don't want some feel good law that does absolutely nothing to curb crime preventing me from getting new reliable magazines for it. Do you know how hard it is to find mags for some of these guns? and if you do find mags, get ready to pay a huge premium on them.

I also want to use my suppressor on any damn gun I want, I paid the taxes, jumped through the hoops, so brady and feinstein should get bent and quit trying to dictate what I can and can't do with my own property.

Rest assured if a fellow gunowner works to get the guns I'm interested in banned, I will do all in my power to make sure their over/unders, SxS, and revolvers and whatever are banned too.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 10:26 AM
Sure, if you can't hit a deer in less than 10 shots, you certainly don't need 40 more. Give a good reason why you do .


You ARE able to shoot with suppressor( no such thing as a silencer) and have the threaded barrel(as long as you're not a convicted felon or mental case), this is about not letting ALL guns have them.


Folding stocks useful for transport? More useful for concealment. If you have a transport issue for a hunting rifle, you do have an issue.

Boofus, if you're registered to own, you CAN also buy mags and suppress any dang gun you want and the AWB won't effect you at all.

Ky Larry
July 17, 2004, 10:31 AM
The AWB is a political club that will be used against Pres. Bush no matter what happens. If an extension bill reaches his desk, it will be a campaign issue in Nov. If he signs it, the conservatives will call him a sell out. If he vetoes it, the liberal press will accuse him of putting more "evil assualt weapons" back on the street. Our best hope for the death of the AWB is for it to stay bottled up in committe until it expires. Make sure you let your Congress Critters know you views on this issue.

boofus
July 17, 2004, 10:32 AM
Show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that talks about shooting deer? Especially the part that requires you take a deer down in fewer than 10 shots.

You can't put a thread-on suppressor on a post-ban gun that doesn't have threads. Plus the suppressor counts as a flash-hider. This is the stupidity of the AWB.

These items are already HIGHLY regulated by the 1934 NFA and the penalties are far more severe than anything in the crime bill.

If you want to base it on deer-hunting NEEDS, who needs a modern firearm at all? According to you, everything should be banned except black powder muzzle loaders and bows and arrows. In the 1700s no one had problems killing deer with these weapons.

boofus
July 17, 2004, 10:38 AM
Boofus, if you're registered to own, you CAN also buy mags and suppress any dang gun you want and the AWB won't effect you at all.

Absolutely incorrect. Unless you are a FFL you can not buy newly manufactured 'evil' magazines, you have to settle for the 10+ year old surplus mags that may or may not work. Also you get screwed by paying 3 to 4 times what it would cost to buy a newly manufactured post-ban magazine. Some guns you simply can not find mags for. How many HTA AK22 magazines have you seen for sale? Without mags the AK22 is a $6000 piece of junk. The problem could be remedied with a new $10 piece of metal with a spring in it, but not while the awb is infringing your right to buy/build a new one.

You can not put a suppressor on a post-ban AR15 or AK rifle because it counts as a flash-hider. Plus lack of threads on the barrel could be a problem too. You could get a pre-ban rifle to put it on, but then again you get screwed and pay 2-3 times more for a used 10 year old rifle simply because of some stupid date on a calendar.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 17, 2004, 10:41 AM
More info. Sorry, full sincerity here. BR, what'd be the use for folding stocks, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs and 50 rd mags?]

GeneC, if you would do me the courtesy of reading the link I provided, I think you would realize the foolishness of that question. However, since you asked...

What would be the use for cars that exceed the speed limit, $200 sneakers, or high-speed internet connections when you can get by just fine with less?

In the society I would like to live in, I wouldn't have to justify to government why I needed something. Government would have to justify to me why I shouldn't have something - something that they have not been able to do with the semi-auto ban. On the contrary, the National Institue of JKustice released a report stating:

<i>"...other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds...

...There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used...

...The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated."


But since you asked, I'll explain why I use all of those things.

First of all, the prohibition on folding stocks also effects collapsible stocks but has no effect on the overall length of the rifle. It is perfectly legal for me to have a bullpup fixed stock semi-automatic rifle that is only 26" long (and thus "easily" concealable by the tortured logic of the Brady Campaign); but it is illegal for me to have a rifle where the stock in the collapsed position is 9" longer. Does that make any sense? In the meantime, that collapsible stock gives me the advantage of adjusting the stock for different sized users (women or children, make it a little longer for prone, a little shorter for heavy coats). I can now use one rifle instead of 3 or 4.

Threaded barrel? Lets me add any range of barrel accessories like muzzle brakes and sound suppressors to the gun with minimum fuss. All of these are legal, yet the law now says that you can't easily add them. This makes sense why?

50rd mags? First of all, the law bans any mags over TEN rounds. Second, I have been in classes where we fired 800 rounds through a rifle in a single day. That is the difference between reloading your mags 80 times and less than 20 times - that is a lot of extra instruction and range time.

So despite the fact I have held a TS/SCI clearance and been a good upstanding citizen with not even a traffic ticket in ten years, I am told that I cannot own something. Even worse, I am told I cannot own that after government admits that the it cannot even tell if the law is achieving its objective. And yet you seem to feel this is a good law?

If THAT is the form of government the Republican party envisions, they can try and get there without me.

Fly320s
July 17, 2004, 10:55 AM
Sure, if you can't hit a deer in less than 10 shots, you certainly don't need 40 more. Give a good reason why you do .
Need is not a factor to be used to decide what a person should own. We are free people who make our own decisions about what is right for us. If you think a person must show "a need" to own an object, then I suggest you try China as a country of residence.

You ARE able to shoot with suppressor( no such thing as a silencer) and have the threaded barrel(as long as you're not a convicted felon or mental case), this is about not letting ALL guns have them.
Each NFA item (suppressor, short-barrelled rifle/shotgun, or machine gun) must be independently registered and have the tax-stamp paid. The threaded barrels are prohibited on firearms affected by the 1994 Clinton gun ban.

Folding stocks useful for transport? More useful for concealment. If you have a transport issue for a hunting rifle, you do have an issue.
Folding stocks are useful for transport. Not everyone owns a full-size SUV to transport their three-foot long rifle. Also, a telescoping stock, such as those available on some AR15s, allow the user to adjust the length of rifle to his personal tastes. Finally, the BATFE has mandated a minimum overall length for long guns (rifles & shotguns), so a folding stock most definitely helps to make a rifle's lenth more transportable.

Boofus, if you're registered to own, you CAN also buy mags and suppress any dang gun you want and the AWB won't effect you at all.
The NFA item is the registered part, not the owner. Therefore, each item must be registered with the BATFE and the $200 tax must be paid for each item, sometimes twice.

The 1994 Clinton gun ban does not have a provision for allowing normal capacity mags (greater that 10 rounds) to be newly manufactured and sold to people who have NFA items. Even though Boofus has a properly registered NFA weapon, he is still not allowed to buy newly manufactured normal capacity magazines.

edited for typos

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 17, 2004, 11:48 AM
GeneC:

Sure, if you can't hit a deer in less than 10 shots, you certainly don't need 40 more. Give a good reason why you do .

You don't have the right to demand an explaination as to why somebody else chooses to exercise a right purportedly guaranteed under our Constitution. People who advocate such a restriction must explain why it should be instituted.

Any restriction on a fundamental right, whether specifically enumerated in the Constitution or not, must pass strict scrutiny at the Supreme Court. That means that the restriction must serve an overwhelming public good that cannot be met in any other way.

At this time, give me one good reason as to why magazine capacity for semi-auto rifles must be limited to 10 rounds.

Be specific in citing your sources, and show a clearly defined benefit to this restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

At this time, cite the crime data from an objective source (FBI, CDC etc.) showing how many serious crimes were committed annually with the specific semi-auto rifles banned under the AWB, and at this time cite a source showing that crimes committed with these rifles have decreased, and that such a decrease, if any, is attributal to the AWB.

I'll wait for your well documented response.

Molon Labe
July 17, 2004, 12:08 PM
If the AWB is renewed I will vote for the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party.

If the AWB sunsets I will vote for the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party.

I am through with the Republican Party… :fire:

Harve Curry
July 17, 2004, 12:22 PM
With all due respect. Read more history. Read books about the founding fathers. Read recent well researched books about the right to keep and bear arms. Your 2nd Amendment definition is in need of a dictionary.
I recommend The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams, Paladium Press.

Chris Rhines
July 17, 2004, 12:33 PM
*chuckle*

Why does it not surprise me the GeneC is a gun control advocate?

- Chris

Jeff Timm
July 17, 2004, 12:50 PM
GeneC asked the obvious questions: 1."Sure, if you can't hit a deer in less than 10 shots, you certainly don't need 40 more. Give a good reason why you do ."

2. "You ARE able to shoot with suppressor( no such thing as a silencer) and have the threaded barrel(as long as you're not a convicted felon or mental case), this is about not letting ALL guns have them."


3. "Folding stocks useful for transport? More useful for concealment. If you have a transport issue for a hunting rifle, you do have an issue."

1. Dog packs, self defense from same. Hunting has whole different regulations.
I also note home invasions by large groups of Neo-Communist Democrats accross the border in GA. Unfortunately, FL is effectively denied defense against the Democrat murder gangs.

2. Noise complaints about the NATURE of the noise from Ranges are an excuse to close them. Therefore suppressors might be required by the local range rules in the immediate future.

3. Fact remains, guns and gun cases are a stand-out target for theives. Folding stocks allow the transport of rifles in inconspicouous legal containers.

Geoff
Who is taking the bait. :cool:

cosmonick
July 17, 2004, 01:29 PM
GeneC,

If you actually read materials written by the men that framed the constitution and the 2nd Amendment, you'd see that they had a very different view than what you do. They would have encouraged us to own the very things that you are saying have no/little value.

The whole point is that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting. It was put in place to keep the people of this country from becoming subjects.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson

''Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.'' --George Washington

Mo

fix
July 17, 2004, 01:36 PM
Wow, it's nice to finally meet one. I've heard about them for a while now, but never actually ran across one. Interesting, but at the same time...scary. Looks like GeneC would rather hang alone than go to the gallows with the rest of us.

Tamara usually comes along to post a quick one liner at this point. Something about being screwed.

TimH
July 17, 2004, 01:37 PM
I would rather be mad a tBush for renewal of the AWB than mad a Kerry for gun registration or gun confiscation

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 01:44 PM
All Y'all can read more history, the fact remains, like it or not, the AWB is only a PART of a comprehensive bill that addresses gang violence and crime in this Country and now we're at war. Y'all act like this is some kind of Sunday picnic by the lake. I'm a registered Republican and hold a CCW here in FL and own a Ak-47, with a 100 rd drum and several 30 rd mags and have a pistol grip on my 12ga shotgun and I feel confident that if my Congress and my President feels it necessary to halt FUTURE production/import of "assault weapons", I'm gonna back 'em 100%, like a good American should and I also feel confident I'll continue to own my weapons for the rest of my life, so long as I don't commit any felonies.


BR, your link is misleading, for one all it talks about is the m-16, not the other 16 assault weapons. What about the Mac 10 or the tec 9? In another it shows a picture of an m-16 and says 'this is legal, but it has a pistol grip, so therefore, it's not.


I think y'all just don't like anyone opposing your own personal opinions. I don't think you have a good view of the overall picture. THe awb is NOT the end of the world. I believe if we gun owners would agree that there' s gang problems and gun problems and work with it, we'd be able to control it better.

fix
July 17, 2004, 01:49 PM
Wow. I am utterly speechless. Facts certainly don't get in your way do they? You dodge 'em like a real pro, leaving those silly obstacles rocking in your wake. I'm just not sure where you're going in such a hurry, and why you want us to come with you. :scrutiny:

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 02:11 PM
What facts, fix? The fact that this is America and it works on the will of the majority? Fact is, like I said, IF my Congress and MY President feels like it'd be best that no more assault weapons be manufactured/imported , I'm going to back them. If they don't, I'll bacK that too. Last year I had 3 teen gang members break into my house and steal a Kimber CDP pro, a SIG p-220, a brand new Ruger sp101, A Mitch Rosen IWB holster, A Wilson tactical holster and a bunch of ammo. I am personally at war with gangs and crime and I back this Govt. and I'm NOT sorry if it isn't in line with you few.

Black Snowman
July 17, 2004, 02:23 PM
Better question. If Bush DOESN'T VETO an attempt to renew the AWB that comes accross his desk then there's no way I'm voting for him. Non, zip, zilch, zero. If it never crosses his desk I'm still suspicious of the guy :scrutiny:

RooK
July 17, 2004, 02:23 PM
All Y'all can read more history, the fact remains, like it or not, the AWB is only a PART of a comprehensive bill that addresses gang violence and crime in this Country and now we're at war. Y'all act like this is some kind of Sunday picnic by the lake. I'm a registered Republican and hold a CCW here in FL and own a Ak-47, with a 100 rd drum and several 30 rd mags and have a pistol grip on my 12ga shotgun and I feel confident that if my Congress and my President feels it necessary to halt FUTURE production/import of "assault weapons", I'm gonna back 'em 100%, like a good American should and I also feel confident I'll continue to own my weapons for the rest of my life, so long as I don't commit any felonies.

The blind leading the blind... Sometime you have to stop and question your leaders, otherwise you could get into a lot of trouble. Are you sure the whole '94 crime bill expires? From what I understood, it was only the AWB amendment to the bill. Even if it does, let Congress repass the original bill sans the AWB amendments.

So, now that you have your rifle, it's fine and dandy to make someone else pay $2k to own one just like because of 'feel good' legislation? Quite some elitist attitude you have there. Firearms are for the masses, no those who have a huge bank account. BTW, importation was banned by Bush Sr., so why are you even mentioning that?

I think you don't understand the AWB fully and how it limits certain features to the law-abiding public. Assault weapons (per the law definition) were used in 2% of crimes before the AWB. I can make an AR-15 (post ban) into a preban model just by ordering the stuff off the internet. So tell me, how is this law having any effect? How does it make a difference in crime or the effectivness of a rifle?

fix
July 17, 2004, 02:31 PM
I'd love to sit here and toss useless bits and bytes back and forth all day long, but I honestly don't know what it will take to convince you that you have adopted the position of the anti-gun crowd...gun lock, folding stock, and threaded barrel. You have even cited the Brady web site as a source to back up your arguments. If you can't see the folly of that, then I really don't know what else to say. Scratch that, I do know what to say, but being that we're not on SOCNET...I'll keep it to myself.

Black Snowman
July 17, 2004, 02:35 PM
I believe if we gun owners would agree that there' s gang problems and gun problems and work with it, we'd be able to control it better.

How do you control a criminal? Passing laws? Laws have no effect on criminals by definition because they ignore them. Enforcement has some effect on criminals. They are already breaking the laws. Making them have broken more laws doesn't fix the problem or "control" them in any way.

To paraphrase someone else, banning guns from possession by law abiding citizens to reduce gun crime is like trying to stop drunk driving by banning cars. From a practical point of view there are no positive effects. Banning things does nothing but drive up their value on the black market. That's why drugs are such a profitable business and why criminals are willing to kill. For the easy money.

Take away the value of drugs and see how willing the gangs are to fight over turf. Would they go back to doing "protection" rackets if they knew every store owner had an MP-5K behind the counter? Or would they look for honest work knowing that trying to victemize the public could get them killed in short order?

In theory supporting the Federal government should be a good thing, in practice you are supporting an inefficient mechanism of control that the elite have corrupted. When's the last time someone who grew up poor, or even middle class, got into Federal office?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 17, 2004, 02:35 PM
GeneC:

What facts, fix? The fact that this is America and it works on the will of the majority

No. Our Constitution is specifically designed in many places to protect against unreasonable majority opinion. See Brown V. Board of Education.

The majority of Americans support the AWB? So what? The majority of Americans would still today rather not have to live around Blacks, that doesn't make racial discrimination legal in all circumstances.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some facts to back up your support for extension of the AWB.

Again, at this time please provide a factual underpinning to your arguments. Why are restrictions on new manufacture of semi-auto rifles with collapsing stocks, bayonette lugs, threaded barrells, 10+ round magazines needed? Again, at this time provide some factual basis to your contention that these restrictions placed on a Constitutionall right are serving an overwhelming public good that can not be met in any other way.

I think y'all just don't like anyone opposing your own personal opinions

No, I enjoy demonstrating that advocates of the AWB extension such as yourself have no rational, historical, or constitutional basis for their arguments.

I'm a registered Republican

I'm not impressed. So am I and so is Sarah Brady.

and hold a CCW here in FL and own a Ak-47, with a 100 rd drum and several 30 rd mags and have a pistol grip on my 12ga shotgun

So you got yours and now everybody else can go screw. :scrutiny:

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 02:55 PM
Fix, no facts?

CHL , you taking up fix's slack? I don't have to provide proof , the bill is in place, the ENTIRE LEO supports it, you prove otherwise. Rational , historical ? Almost ALL ammendments is a direct reflection of issues that swept the land and were delt with and this is just another real issue that needs to be dealt with, get over it. We're at war , you either get behind it or get run over.

fix
July 17, 2004, 03:06 PM
The fact is that the entire crime bill does not sunset, only the AWB...which you apparently think is part of the war effort somehow. What does my owning an adjustble stock that helps me to maintain a consistent cheek weld regardless of what I'm wearing have to do with the war on terror? Furthermore, how exactly, would my owning such a stock harm the war effort? Could you state for the record, the number of recorded gang related bayonettings? Could you please point out the statistics regarding terrorist use of "assault weapons" inside this country? Last I checked, they did their work with boxcutters.

I wait with baited breath to hear more of your "logic." By the way, the sky is blue where I am. What color is it in your world? And CHL, you're welcome to as much of my "slack" as you want.

VaniB.
July 17, 2004, 03:33 PM
BUSH WOULD LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Debate all you want, all I know is that if Bush signs a renewal, it will be because he ordered Congress to present him with the bill to sign. Have no doubt that BUSH IS CONTROLLING THIS, AND HE IS PRESIDING OVER THE AWB OUTCOME. Hastert and Frist are not of free will on this issue.

If BUSH decides to push for it and sign it: HE'S LOST THE ELECTION!!!!!!!
He might lose anyway. But this would surelly push him well into defeat.
If he signs it, this would be the first election in 30 years that I would just personally sit out.

fix
July 17, 2004, 03:57 PM
I just wanna know how this nifty Magpul stock is going to impair the war effort. Heck, I'm gonna be scared to put it on my carbine when the ban sets. Its mere presence on the back of the gun could give aid and comfort to the terrorists!!! :rolleyes:

Gene, I am breathless with anticipation. Please do enlighten me, lest I end up commiting an act of treason.

MrPink
July 17, 2004, 04:02 PM
GeneC,

To be polite, I really disagree with you on this issue. As a side note, why didn't you have your firearms locked up to prevent theft or unauthorized access?

Anyways, in our system of democracy, it is most decidely not the will of the majority. Majority rules but the minority has rights. So unless you ammend the constitution, I have specified rights.

Your rationale for gun ownership sounds a lot like our last president who gave us the AWB. I remeber when Clinton said, "You don't need an UZI to hunt deer".

F him. I went out a bought a Vector UZI (full auto), while I still G-damn could. Haven't taken a deer with it yet, but it sure is fun to shoot.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:04 PM
Black Snowman said: "How do you control a criminal? Passing laws? Laws have no effect on criminals by definition because they ignore them. Enforcement has some effect on criminals. They are already breaking the laws. Making them have broken more laws doesn't fix the problem or "control" them in any way.

To paraphrase someone else, banning guns from possession by law abiding citizens to reduce gun crime is like trying to stop drunk driving by banning cars. From a practical point of view there are no positive effects. Banning things does nothing but drive up their value on the black market. That's why drugs are such a profitable business and why criminals are willing to kill. For the easy money.

Take away the value of drugs and see how willing the gangs are to fight over turf. Would they go back to doing "protection" rackets if they knew every store owner had an MP-5K behind the counter? Or would they look for honest work knowing that trying to victemize the public could get them killed in short order?

In theory supporting the Federal government should be a good thing, in practice you are supporting an inefficient mechanism of control that the elite have corrupted. When's the last time someone who grew up poor, or even middle class, got into Federal office?"


__________________


I want to address BSM, as he's attempting to discuss with me instead of throwing rhetoric at me and thinking it'll stick like s@#$. BSM, do you have ANY doubt, the majority LEO of this land is trying to eliminate criminals and crime? Do you think you know more about how to deal with gangs and criminals than the ENTIRE LEO of this Nation? They are backing this AWB and I support them.

Banning guns from law abiding citizens? Who's banning guns from law abiding citizens? What % of people here was born after 1972? How about before? The AWB effects NO ONE born before 1972. All I can say to anyone who's born before '72, if you didn't get yours , too bad. What was you doing, smoking dope and protesting 'nam? This isn't about banning from law abiding citizens, it's about getting illegal guns off the streets.


Let me tell ya, if gangs knew EVERY store owner had MP5s, it'd not be long before some store owners'd be dead and more gangs'd have MP5s. Believe that. I see a bunch of people who're discussing theory vs LEO who're talking real life.


The last time I saw a poor man become President , he did great things (Lincoln) , so what's your point?

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:06 PM
VB said: "If BUSH decides to push for it and sign it: HE'S LOST THE ELECTION!!!!!!!
He might lose anyway. But this would surelly push him well into defeat.
If he signs it, this would be the first election in 30 years that I would just personally sit out.


VB, I'd like to make a gentleman's wager of $100 that you're dead wrong, sir.

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:09 PM
Mr. Pink, you sir, are a terrorist sympathizer who is against the war effort. Turn that evil gun in immediately. That brings up another point, how is the AWB effective if GeneC has an AK? What's to stop Gene from selling it to a terrorist? GeneC has a history of having guns stolen. What's to stop a gangster from stealing that AK? Gene, if you are a good American, you will turn in that AK immediately. Otherwise, I might have to question your patriotism and your commitment to the war on gang violence.

Still waiting for the answer on that stock question. Thinking about calling the Department of Homeland Security tip line and having it arrested!

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:10 PM
The AWB effects NO ONE born before 1972.

Say what? Please do point out the exemption clause that declares this. I'd like to make a gentleman's wager of a year's pay that YOU are dead wrong!

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:11 PM
Mr Pink? said:"To be polite, I really disagree with you on this issue. As a side note, why didn't you have your firearms locked up to prevent theft or unauthorized access?"


Mr Pink( I don't even want to know how you got that name), you are a good example of people in cyberspace. You think you've thought of everything and are judge and jury and are passing sentence. FYI, I had my guns in a gunsafe, they stole the whole safe.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:14 PM
Fix, call who you want, but again you show your ignorance. I told you I have a CCW , which means I've had a full background check, by FDLE and FBI. Btw, what wager do you want?

Btw, I'm tired of carrying you(although cool hand luke'll be you huckleberry), but anyone who's born before '73'd be 21 in '94 and could've bought all the AK's and m-16s and high cap mags,etc and be grandfathered in, like I did. Too bad if you didn't. So sorry.

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:19 PM
I'd love to meet in person and wager a year of my pay vs. a year of your pay that you are dead wrong when you say the AWB does not apply to people born before 1972. You name the time and place, I'll consult with an attorney and get the appropriate contracts drawn up, and we'll work on a payment plan for you so you don't have to sell your house to pay your gambling debt.

Now exactly how am I ignorant? Please demonstrate that clearly. I'm also still waiting on the answer to my question posted earlier about my collapsable stock. Please advise.

This is getting fun!

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:20 PM
Do you think you know more about how to deal with gangs and criminals than the ENTIRE LEO of this Nation? They are backing this AWB and I support them.

Could someone PM all the LEOs on THR and get them in on this. I think their collective opposition to the AWB will be quite an eye opener for GeneC.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:28 PM
Q: Does the law require the confiscation of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that were lawfully possessed prior to the date of enactment?

A: No. The law bans the manufacture and importation of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as of September 13, 1994. Existing weapons and magazines are "grandfathered," meaning that such items lawfully possessed prior to the bill's effective date may be retained, sold or transferred to anyone who is legally entitled to own a firearm.

In the months leading up to passage of the ban, gun manufacturers, eager to exploit the impending "endangered" status of these firearms, boosted their production of assault weapons by more than 120% and raised prices by an average of 50%. For example, production of the AR-15 increased by 70% over previous years, from 38,511 to 66,042, and production of Intratec assault pistols tripled, from 33,578 to 102,682. At the same time, prices for the AR-15 and its duplicates more than doubled, while prices for unbanned pistols remained virtually constant. Once the ban took effect, prices fell back to 1992 levels.[1]


Fix, you don't need a lawyer, just send a years' salary to me, but you probably won't honor it.

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:32 PM
I'm afraid not. Your quote:


The AWB effects NO ONE born before 1972.

My father was born in 1952. He owns an Armalite AR10A4 that I gave him several years ago. This is a post ban rifle manufactured after the 1994 ban. Can my father legally put a collapsable stock on this weapon?

If yes: I'll write you a check. Just PM me with your info.

If no: We can start discussing your payment plan.

Unless you have a different definition of the word effect, you are making a fool of yourself. I'm thoroughly confused about where you got that 1972 date. I think I know what you pulled it out of, but I'll let you confirm.

fix
July 17, 2004, 04:40 PM
In fairness, I know you'll find a way to dodge that question...if not ignore it altogether, so I'll let you off the hook on the bet if you can answer my question about where you came up with 1972.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 04:55 PM
Nop No, let's look at this:
"My father was born in 1952. He owns an Armalite AR10A4 that I gave him several years ago. This is a post ban rifle manufactured after the 1994 ban. Can my father legally put a collapsable stock on this weapon?"

You answered your own question didn't you? Of course, if the gun was manufactured AFTER the ban, the answer is no. That's why i worded MY statement like I did. Anyone who turned 21 on or brfore 9/13/94, could buy any assault weapon, in any configuration and keep it forever.

fix
July 17, 2004, 05:04 PM
The AWB effects NO ONE born before 1972.

That is exactly how you worded your statement. I stand by my argument, though I see the strange logic in your point...I think. Of course, there were not Armalite AR10A4s before the ban. That's neither here nor there. Now that we've completed the detour, I repeat my earlier questions to save you the trouble of scrolling:





The fact is that the entire crime bill does not sunset, only the AWB...which you apparently think is part of the war effort somehow. What does my owning an adjustble stock that helps me to maintain a consistent cheek weld regardless of what I'm wearing have to do with the war on terror? Furthermore, how exactly, would my owning such a stock harm the war effort? Could you state for the record, the number of recorded gang related bayonettings? Could you please point out the statistics regarding terrorist use of "assault weapons" inside this country? Last I checked, they did their work with boxcutters.

That brings up another point, how is the AWB effective if GeneC has an AK? What's to stop Gene from selling it to a terrorist? GeneC has a history of having guns stolen. What's to stop a gangster from stealing that AK?



Commence dodging!!!

atek3
July 17, 2004, 05:07 PM
Dear GeneC,
I'm 22, Not a law breaker or a gang member. And you're trying to tell me that America is better off because I can't purchase a twelve round magazine for my XD-40? Why don't you take your Brady-loving, Ageist, Republican, CHL card carrying tush over to
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.nramadness.com/
And make some friends that are as bad on the Second Amendment as you.

good bye,
atek3

RooK
July 17, 2004, 05:07 PM
I don't have to provide proof , the bill is in place, the ENTIRE LEO supports it, you prove otherwise.

Er... Entire LEO? Where are you getting this information? I'd wager money that it's from the various (liberal) Police organizations and Police chiefs in large cities. Ask the people who actually patrol the street, not someone who sits on their ass and gives orders all day long. Most 'true' police think it's a useless law and find the banned rifles/features to be something not even worth worrying about. You can verify this yourself by looking at the various police forums on the internet and reading their replies on an AWB topic.

http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300

Now, I was born in 1984... Why are people born before 1972 so priviledged to be able to own these firearms when I'm not? I'm almost at the point of putting off purchasing a Glock 20 this summer for hunting just to purchase an UZI (You did know they're still making/selling them?) or AR-15. All because of people like you who are ignorant of what the laws actually do.

boofus
July 17, 2004, 05:11 PM
He can't produce facts supporting his case because there are NONE. CDC reports and the FBI crime reports all support the conclusion that gun bans of any type have had no noticeable effect on crime.

fix
July 17, 2004, 05:15 PM
Guys, don't let him frame the discussion. Make him justify the ban. The rope is being dispensed. It will soon be yanked. So far, the justification has been support for the war. Whatever that means. :rolleyes:

fix
July 17, 2004, 06:11 PM
The silence is deafening.

Publicola
July 17, 2004, 06:21 PM
Gene C,

I understand your logic - that if you could legally buy an "assault weapon" prior to the ban then you're not effected by it. I disgree with you on many levels but I'll try to limit this to point out factual errors you've made.

Using the idea of being able to legally buy before the ban kicked in you should have used September 13th, 1976 as your date. Unless a state has restrictions that vary from the fed then 18 is the minimum age to purchase long guns (including "assault weapons"), not 21.

The AWb was passed as part of a larger package, but only the AWB has a sunset. It will not affect the larger package in any way whatsoever.

The AWB effects firearms made after 1994 that have a combination of features. If a semi-automatic rifle can accept a detachable magazine (note no capacity is mentioned) & has two of the following features it's an "assault weapon" :

"...a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher..."

The AWB also bans manufacture after 1994 of any magazine (for pistol, rifle or shotgun) with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

The LEo support you mention is mainly chief's & sheriff's associations. The cop on the beat doesn't usually hold the administrators views. Odds are iin urban areas the street cops will tend to hold similar views, while in rural areas they won't. This is a generalism about all forms of LEO association supported gun control - not just the AWB.

Folding & telescoping stocks are convenient for storage. They also contribute to the collector value if they were an original feature. & as has been pointed out collapsible stocks help adjust length of pull for different shooters &/or situations.

Most studies indicate that "assault weapons" had a small place in overall crime before & after the AWB was passed. There's more or less been no conclusive study showing the AWB has reduced crime.

& while we function as a democracticly elected representative form of government, the majority rules argument is null in certain areas. The 2nd amendment provides a clear prohibition against any federal gun control law & it's not subject to the whims of a majority unless said majority amends the constitution.

As for it affecting arms I personally like - sorry. I just don't want an "assault weapon". Nothing against them I just have different preferences & desires when it comes to long guns. The mag capacity restrictions affect me, but only minimally so. My life won't change that much with or without the ban in place - at least on a practical level. I oppose it because of A: the principles involved & B: because it's another step down a very slippery slope.

One last thing - ALL LEO orgs don't support it. Only a fraction support it. the rest are generally silent on the issue.

Now if you find the information I posted here is true, would that alter your opinion of the importance of the AWB?

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 06:24 PM
"My father was born in 1952. He owns an Armalite AR10A4 that I gave him several years ago. This is a post ban rifle manufactured after the 1994 ban. Can my father legally put a collapsable stock on this weapon?

If yes: I'll write you a check. Just PM me with your info.

If no: We can start discussing your payment plan.

Unless you have a different definition of the word effect, you are making a fool of yourself. I'm thoroughly confused about where you got that 1972 date. I think I know what you pulled it out of, but I'll let you confirm."


Let' start discussing your payment plan, otherwise, go home.

RooK
July 17, 2004, 06:30 PM
Let' start discussing your payment plan, otherwise, go home.

Are you say his father can attach a collapsible stock (in which case you'd be wrong) or are you just wanting money? :D

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 06:39 PM
"I understand your logic - that if you could legally buy an "assault weapon" prior to the ban then you're not effected by it. "


Congradulations! If you legally could and you actually DID.


"Using the idea of being able to legally buy before the ban kicked in you should have used September 13th, 1976 as your date. Unless a state has restrictions that vary from the fed then 18 is the minimum age to purchase long guns (including "assault weapons"), not 21."


Excuse me? Show me where 18's been the legal age to buy a gun? Are you nitpicking or do you really not understand the above where you said you DID understand?






"The AWb was passed as part of a larger package, but only the AWB has a sunset. It will not affect the larger package in any way whatsoever."


Noone here has ever said anything about that, what's your point?




"The AWB effects firearms made after 1994 that have a combination of features. If a semi-automatic rifle can accept a detachable magazine (note no capacity is mentioned) & has two of the following features it's an "assault weapon" :

"...a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher..."

The AWB also bans manufacture after 1994 of any magazine (for pistol, rifle or shotgun) with a capacity of over 10 rounds."



Redundancy, what is your point?





"The LEo support you mention is mainly chief's & sheriff's associations. The cop on the beat doesn't usually hold the administrators views. Odds are iin urban areas the street cops will tend to hold similar views, while in rural areas they won't. This is a generalism about all forms of LEO association supported gun control - not just the AWB."




Oh, so chiefs of Police don't come up thru the ranks? Sheriffs don't come up thru the ranks? They just grow on trees and are plucked and placed into top positions? Yeah right. You need to rethink this. These are people who've BTDT.




"Folding & telescoping stocks are convenient for storage. They also contribute to the collector value if they were an original feature. & as has been pointed out collapsible stocks help adjust length of pull for different shooters &/or situations."


Blah,blah, blah, more fodder. Sure if it's pre-ban.



"Most studies indicate that "assault weapons" had a small place in overall crime before & after the AWB was passed. There's more or less been no conclusive study showing the AWB has reduced crime."


Show sources , please.


& while we function as a democracticly elected representative form of government, the majority rules argument is null in certain areas. The 2nd amendment provides a clear prohibition against any federal gun control law & it's not subject to the whims of a majority unless said majority amends the constitution.



What areas? Strictly you opinion. Luckily the top 500 peole that run this Govt disagree with you.



As for it affecting arms I personally like - sorry. I just don't want an "assault weapon". Nothing against them I just have different preferences & desires when it comes to long guns.

__________________

So the truth is, you don't have a dog in this fight.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 06:44 PM
Rook, he has to pay by default. He attempted to place a bet with me using a post ban gun, which was obviously his mistake, he still owes , but I'd settle if he'd just go away.

madcowburger
July 17, 2004, 06:46 PM
If the AWB is renewed, I'll either vote Libertarian again, like I did in 1992 (because of Bush Senior's betrayal of gun owners), or just stay home and watch cartoons or old movies on TV.

I sure wouldn't vote for Komrade Kerry under any circumstances.

MCB

boofus
July 17, 2004, 06:51 PM
I guess what they say is true...

Think of how stupid the average person is. By definition half of them are even dumber than that.

GeneC,

You loss the bet, you haven't provided any hard facts about anything. The CDC report and FBI Uniform Crime Report are publicly accessible from their respective govt websites. BR also gave you links to sites with accurate information. You chose to ignore them and have shown your ignorance on what the AWB does and does not do. You shown your ignorance of the NFA weapon laws and general Federal firearms laws through your own postings. You are terminally infected with a case of the brainfarts. That coupled with your elitist attitude makes you a perfect specimen of Gun Snobbus Ignoramus.

Not much sense in trying to argue facts with someone like you. Congratulations, you have earned the very first spot on my Ignore list. Not even W4rma or Agricola managed to do that. :barf:

With 'fellow enthusiasts' like you who needs the MMM and Brady.

71Commander
July 17, 2004, 07:13 PM
GeneC

http://img2.photobucket.com/albums/v11/tucker13/troll.gif

madcowburger
July 17, 2004, 07:34 PM
What's all this jazz about anyone born before 1972 being exempt from the provisions of the AWB?

I was born in 1957, and I sure ain't exempt.

Yeah, starting in 1989-'90, when I saw the writing on the wall, I bought up all the pre-ban guns and normal-capacity magazines I could prior to the 1994 ban's taking effect; in fact, I went into debt for the frst time in my life, in my thirties, to do it.

The debts have been repaid in full, with interest. But I still have a lot of money -- money needed for other things -- tied up in guns I have little or no *immediate* use for in my present circumstances, which are nothing but a storage/maintenance/security headache to me now, but which I don't dare sell, for fear of *never* being able to replace them if things change and I find I *do* have a use for them all of a sudden.

The only people exempt from the AWB/normal-capacity magazine ban are the PHFLO (People' Heroic Forces of Lawnorder), like those who shot the crippled (not to mention unarmed) old man in his bed in Denver the other day. I'm not surprised they'd want all us "civilians" deprived of any arms more effective than empty soda cans.

MCB

RooK
July 17, 2004, 07:38 PM
"Most studies indicate that "assault weapons" had a small place in overall crime before & after the AWB was passed. There's more or less been no conclusive study showing the AWB has reduced crime."


Show sources , please.

Search the CDC site. They literally state they could 'find no evidence that the AWB had any effect'. If I had a link, I would give it to you.

I also have this article from a scholarly journal (ie, articles well researched and written by people with degrees) that explains how little AWs were used in crimes and an assesment of it's effects on the gunmarket/crimes into 1996:

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2002
"The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on Gun Markets: An Assessment of Short-Term Primary and Secondary Market Effects"
Christopher S. Koper & Jeffery A. Roth

If you care to pm me with an email address, I can email you the *.pdf file (225kb) and you can read it yourself.

Edit: GeneC, you never did answer my various questions/comments...

DevilDog
July 17, 2004, 07:39 PM
I will vote third party candidates, and it will hurt.

It will hurt because I believe the war on terror is important, and Kerry/Edwards do not have the courage to fight it.

A number of congressmen and senators lost their jobs aftwer the AWB was passed, that was a huge message the pro-RKBA sent. We need to send that same message every chance we get.

The "gun control" legislation I would like to see, and this is what I consider "reasonable" gun control is as follows:

If/when any previously convicted felon commits a crime with a semi-auto firearm, he will do one year of mandatory, no parole/probation possible, of time for every round of ammunition he has on him, and for every round he can load into that firearm at once. So if he commits a crime with a fully loaded semi-auto with one 30 round mag fully loaded, he would do 61 years. If he has a second fully loaded mag, he would do 91 years. Add 10 years to the sentence if that firearm was illegally obtained in the first place.

Note the qualifier - the said criminal must already have a previous felony conviction where a firearm was involved. This protects a good citizen who gets in an unfortunate situation and makes a bad judgement using a semi-auto. Considering most of our violent crime comes from repeat offenders, I do not see this qualifier degrading the effectivness of it.

I sincerely believe we would see a huge decrease in criminal use of semi-autos once that law was passed, and the gang-bangers resorting to revolvers.

I did not get this specific idea from someone else, but as a variation on the machine gun control act, which specifies punishment for illegally converting a full-auto as well as using a full-auto in a crime. That is the one "right" thing about that law. The decrease in full-auto use in crimes since that law was passed I believe to be due to the punishment specified and not the silly $200 tax stamp and approval process. This is my opinion because it is rather straightforward to convert many firearms to full-autos, yet criminals don't do it.

That is my idea of effective gun control legistlation and we have 70 years of evidence that it works.

Unfortunately, since the gun control crowd does not want effective legistation, that just want to ban guns, we probably won't ever see this.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 07:40 PM
Boofus(what kinda name is that?), the bet was , if Pres Bush signs the AWB, he'll lose the election! See you on Nov 3rd. Btw , are you in on this bet?

MCB, you were born before 73 and you own pre ban guns, right? If you say yes, then you've proved my point. This isn't rocket science , Gentlemen, nor trickery.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 07:44 PM
Rook said: " If I had a link, I would give it to you."


But you don't , so you won't , blah blah blah.
Btw, the Center for Disease Control?


Ask a reasonable question, I'll give you a like answer.



Devil Dog, good input, you might be on to something.

fix
July 17, 2004, 07:48 PM
I see how it works. Answering my question will do nothing to support your viewpoint, and in fact will just make it look even sillier, so you just pretend the question was not asked at all.

Still wondering how my possession of a rifle with a collapsable stock has a negative impact on the war...

GeneC - Proof positive that the Brady Campaign's money was well spent. Propaganda does work after all. May God help us all.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 07:56 PM
Fix , what question, some stupid thing about a colapsible stock? What is your point? You asked me about a post ban assault rifle. Of course you can't legally alter a post ban assault rifle, you're not even allowed to own one. I never said anything about altering a post ban assault rifle nor made any bets about them. You made some kind of rediculous bet about altering a post ban assault rifle, which I never took you up on. Why are you admitting on here that you purchased a post ban assault rifle and are discussing altering one? My bet was to vanilB that if the Pres signs the AWB, he'll lose the election, which can't POSSIBLY come 'til NOV 4th.

madcowburger
July 17, 2004, 07:56 PM
Yes, GeneC, I own some pre-ban guns and magazines.

Guns get old. They wear out. Parts break. This process is accelerated if you practice enough to be any good with them.

Springs -- magazine springs, recoil springs, main springs, etc. -- lose their tension. Rust and corrosion take their toll. Fire and flood, car crashes, theft, loss, and confiscation ("legal" or not) take their toll.

The only point of yours I can see that I've proven is that someone of a legal age to buy guns prior to the 1994 ban might, conceivably -- if he had any way to raise the money -- have bought some pre-ban guns and magazines, as I did just barely manage to do, at a ruinous financial and social and personal cost.

I don't see why it should be a crime for anyone but the PHFLO to be able to replace, repair, or upgrade their aging weapons just because of a date on a calendar.

It would be okay with me personally if just about all law enforcement agencies and organizations were abolished or disbanded. They've never protected me worth a hoot, but they sure are good at keeping me from defending myself.

MCB

fix
July 17, 2004, 07:59 PM
18 is the legal age to purchase long arms in Georgia.

My 14 year old son is happy to know that folks like you will not care if ALL guns are banned so long as YOU get to keep those you already have. He feels great about the fact that older folks are willing to piss away his rights before he even reaches the age at which he can enjoy them. But hey, at least you got yours. Dumb kid. Should've been born sooner.



:barf:

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 08:03 PM
MCB, all trivial excuses, a point is a point, don't grovel.

fix
July 17, 2004, 08:04 PM
Let me help you out.

You'll find my questions here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1123863#post1123655

Tough I expect you'll dodge them again.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 08:05 PM
So how old are you fix? Were you born before '72? Did you have the presence of mind to get a pre ban, or were you too busy smokin dope?


Listen, rifles can still be bought and always will be. Relax.

RooK
July 17, 2004, 08:07 PM
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-06-Mon-2003/opinion/22298965.html

Closest I could find refering to it. As you can see, it was quite a few months ago. Good luck finding the article on the CDC site, I've been trying, but their search engine it terrible. If I do run across it, I'll be sure to let you have it... BTW, what about my scholarly journal offer? It has proof on how little AWs were used in crimes, yet you seem to dismiss it...

Listen, rifles can still be bought and always will be. Relax.

But can we afford them?

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 08:09 PM
fix said: "let me help you out.

You'll find my questions here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.p...863#post1123655

Tough I expect you'll dodge them again."


Ha ha, fix , you don't ask ONE question in this link! Why don't you quit? Better yet, I will.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 08:12 PM
Rook, the Las Vegas Review Journal? The CDC? Scraping the bottom of the barrel?

RooK
July 17, 2004, 08:15 PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=A+sweeping+federal+review+of+the+nation%27s+gun+control+laws+--+including+mandatory+waiting+periods+and+bans+on+certain+weapons+--+found+no+proof+such+measures+reduce+firearm+violence&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Plenty of them refering to the CDC article. Take your pick.

I'm still waiting on the scholarly journal offer. :)

fix
July 17, 2004, 08:23 PM
In 1994 I was 20 years old and already owned 2 AR type rifles. I was not busy smoking dope, I was in fact serving my country as a United States Marine and upholding my oath to support and defend the US Constitution. You have claimed to be a Marine in the past and I have no reason to disbelieve you, but I do have to wonder if you took a different oath as you do not seem to mind trampling over what is arguably the most important part of that document.

If you have a desire to answer my questions just scroll back up to my posts and look for groups of words that end with the symbol that looks like this: ?

I tried to link to the post but apparently failed.

Shouldn't be too hard to find as I have repeated them several times. I'll even make it easy and summarize the "stupid thing about a colapsible stock" here:

You said...

CHL , you taking up fix's slack? I don't have to provide proof , the bill is in place, the ENTIRE LEO supports it, you prove otherwise. Rational , historical ? Almost ALL ammendments is a direct reflection of issues that swept the land and were delt with and this is just another real issue that needs to be dealt with, get over it. We're at war , you either get behind it or get run over.

...and I'd just like to know how a collapsable stock attached to my personal rifle impairs the war effort in any way shape or form.

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 08:54 PM
Here's how your Senators voted: http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=996-L

GeneC
July 17, 2004, 09:02 PM
Fix , for Heavens sake, a collapsible stock has NOTHING to do with anything , so why do you keep bringing it up? The ban covers any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and TWO of the following: pistol grip, threaded barrel, bayonet lug, folding/collaspible stock, so what in the hecK is your point?

fix
July 17, 2004, 09:02 PM
You are aware that you are on a discussion board full of people who are very well versed in the details of this and other anti-gun legislation right? You seem to be going out of you way to "educate the professors" as it were. I am fully aware of how my senators voted with respect to this and other anti-gun legislation as are most other members here. What I am unaware of is exactly how my possesion of a rifle with a collapsing stock would impair the war effort. You appear to be well versed in that subject matter and I am appealing to you for your help.

fix
July 17, 2004, 09:05 PM
:banghead:

I give up. At least you are voting for Bush. Semper Fi brother.

RooK
July 17, 2004, 09:33 PM
The ban covers any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and TWO of the following: pistol grip, threaded barrel, bayonet lug, folding/collaspible stock, so what in the hecK is your point?

His point, is he can't put one on any semi-auto rifle made with a pistol grip since it already has one 'evil' feature, banned by the AWB you are supporting. What's your point?

An example of the idiocy of this law: Take a 10/22, attach a pistol grip target stock and thread the barrel for a compensator. You have just become a member of Club Fed.

What exactly are you debating in this thread GeneC? I think your arguments have reach the point of incomprehension. You have provided nothing more than Brady/VPC/HCI rehtoric, which is based on numbers provided by many government agencies including the CDC. When I show you numerous news articles refering to a CDC report stating that firearm laws cannot be deemed effective, you don't even reply.

Both my senators voted NAY, thank you very much. :)

atek3
July 17, 2004, 11:59 PM
Really, give it up guys, GeneC is just messing with you. He's actually a member of GOA and JPFO, and understands that after evil guns are banned, its a slippery slope to full on confiscation.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/thinkagain_s.jpg

Unless of course he actually does support elitist victim disarmament. In which case maybe http://www.millionmommarch.org/ would be more his style.

atek3

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 06:56 AM
Rook said: "His point, is he can't put one on any semi-auto rifle made with a pistol grip since it already has one 'evil' feature, banned by the AWB you are supporting. What's your point?"


One of my points are that some people will get on here and post without a clue what's going on. That is NOT his point and I do NOT support AWB, I support my Congress and my President. I have faith they'll do the right thing and I don't buy into this doomsday naysayers' rhetoric that this will lead to full confiscation. The AWB of the 30s didn't lead to full confiscation, nor did the weapons ban of '68 , nor did the ban of '86. Klinton/Reno had TWO terms to do so and they really DID want to, but this is as close as they got and the reason we're dealing with this now is 'cause half this Country is off it's rocker and keeps voting in Socialists. That man up there in the White House is doing a HECK of a job, dealing with real issues daily and dealing with all sides and still getting things done. Noone here seems to appreciate how hard that is. There's been Presidents who were hard headed and vetoed everything that came across his desk if there was ONE thing on it he didn't like. He alienated Congress and spent the rest of his term in gridlock and got ZIP accomplished. We are at war at WW proportions, but I don't see any loyalty to the cause here. These'd be the same people that in WWII would be whining and complaining 'cause there was rationing. Fix , to answer your question, you wanting to break whatever rules that were put in place by this Govt at this time for the greater good, means X amt of resources'd have to stop what they're doing and check you out, possibly letting a real terrorist slip by. Why take that chance? Seems to me if you really want to put a collapsable stock on your rifle, you'd just go ahead and do it and noone'd ever know, but you seem to want to flaunt it or something. Just get over it.

ATEK3, you said goodbye, what're you doing back? Btw, hundreds and thousands of kids are being killed on the streets yearly, what's your solution? Do you think you have a better idea or solution than LEO, who says it'll help if all the mac-10s and tec-9s and such'd get off the streets. Maybe you want to help the gangs out and make it easier for them to get guns. Maybe you want to sell them to them yourself. IMO, we have to trust our Govt and our agencies that we hire to serve us and pay heed to their recommendations to help them do their job. Not everything is a political conspiracy.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 18, 2004, 09:44 AM
GeneC:

But you don't , so you won't , blah blah blah.
Btw, the Center for Disease Control?


The CDC tracks and publishes morbidity and mortality data relating to deaths associated with firearms, as does the FBI.

Ask a reasonable question, I'll give you a like answer

Like when?

Art Eatman
July 18, 2004, 10:04 AM
GeneC, it's wonderful for the President and the Congress that you so rely on their good judgement. But I see a problem with your views and their reasoning:

The AW Ban is all about cosmetics rather than function or crime.

The same basic guns are being sold. The post-ban guns function the same as the pre-ban guns. The gun goes bang and self-loads the next round. What useful, anti-crime purpose has been served?

What is the anti-crime utility?

If the alleged purpose is to reduce crime, how are we better served by the ban when for all practical purposes no crime is prevented? (Okay, no more drive-by bayonettings...)

I guess what perturbs me is the passage of a law which has cost the public so much money yet achieved no noticeable result. That is, in spite of FBI/ATF testimony before Congress that EBRs were used in some 1% or 2% of all crimes involving firearms, the ban passed. The costs result from the higher prices for parts and pieces in the world of pre-ban guns, and the costs of enforcement of a non-utile law.

How is there wisdom in wasting tax money inenforcement of a nonefficacious law, and in raising the cost of purchases to the public?

I'm afraid your faith is rather seriously misplaced.

Art

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 10:10 AM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/adducr/age_race_specific.pdf


Well, according to FBI crime statistics from 1993-2001, violent crimes have decreased in half across the board. What about that?
Can you provide a link to the testimony?

My faith is strong as ever and not misplaced.

cuchulainn
July 18, 2004, 10:15 AM
Well, according to FBI crime statistics from 1993-2001, violent crimes have decreased in half across the board. What about that? Are you suggesting a cause and effect relationship with the AWB?

Art Eatman
July 18, 2004, 10:36 AM
Link? Nope. C-Span coverage of the hearings; press coverage/commentary. Memory--I ain't senile, yet.

Given the relatively low percentage of all crime gun usages on the part of the "assault weapons" (regardless of testimony, some things are reasonably seen as common knowledge just from police "take-aways" of criminals' firearms), it is not physically possible for there to be any correlation between the ban and the dramatic reduction in violent crime.

Other factors enter: Longer incarcerations rates, for one. Another is the demographics by age; fewer young people between 18 and 24. (This demographic group, however, is increasing--and so crime rates are expected to rise.)

Art

DesertDogs
July 18, 2004, 10:43 AM
Badnarik gets my vote whether or not Bush vetoes AWB. Out here in California the Democrat candidate is bound to win in any case. The only way I can (possibly, hopefully, maybe??) send a message with my vote is to vote for a third party candidate. Contacting elected officials and their party flacks - Democrat or Republican - generates only form letter replies.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 10:52 AM
I figured as much a response, which shows the folly of this discussion. First everyone wants facts, but when they're produced , they refuse to accept them. Of course other factors enter, but that factors in too.

cuch, are you suggesting that there isn't?

Chris Rhines
July 18, 2004, 11:11 AM
This has got to be the funniest thread on THR in the past month... :D

GeneC, are you sure that you're not pulling our legs? Seriously, you can come clean now...

- Chris

cuchulainn
July 18, 2004, 11:23 AM
cuch, are you suggesting that there isn't?I'm asking you to say whether you believe there was a cause/effect connection between the drop in violent crime and the AWB.

When you explain your position, I'll tell you what I think of it. Before that, I'd be jumping the gun.

atek3
July 18, 2004, 11:31 AM
ATEK3, you said goodbye, what're you doing back?

I know, I'm sorry, but when the F-meter spikes I have to come back...it's a THR compulsion. (The F-meter is my fascist smackto detector.)

atek3

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 01:19 PM
ART said: "Other factors enter: Longer incarcerations rates, for one. Another is the demographics by age; fewer young people between 18 and 24. (This demographic group, however, is increasing--and so crime rates are expected to rise.)
"



http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html



Hmmm, Art, according to US Census statistics, teens below 18 have grown 25%. In fact, pop has increased across the board.


Btw, the 'other factors' are a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act(yes Cuch).

RooK
July 18, 2004, 02:05 PM
Seems to me if you really want to put a collapsable stock on your rifle, you'd just go ahead and do it and noone'd ever know, but you seem to want to flaunt it or something. Just get over it.

No. I just don't want to get pulled over say for a speeding ticket, the officer see my collapsible stock, and I instantly go to prison. Which is what the penalty is for violation the AWB. After that, I wouldn't even be able to own firearms anymore. I'm also glad you encourage breaking the law.

Do you think you have a better idea or solution than LEO, who says it'll help if all the mac-10s and tec-9s and such'd get off the streets.

I already told you, AW are used in around 2% of crime annually. Last I checked, criminals perferred handguns along the lines of Bryco and Ravens. Who's the one distorting the facts here? Every AW sold does not automatically go to the streets. That's just some Brady/VPC/HCI lie.

I figured as much a response, which shows the folly of this discussion. First everyone wants facts, but when they're produced , they refuse to accept them. Of course other factors enter, but that factors in too.

Your Brady link you originally posted wasn't fact. They have proved to lie time and time again. I have provided links to those articles quouting the CDC findings, including one by the Washington Times. I've also constantly offered you a journal article with references you can gladly look up, but you have yet to except my offer. You my friend, are one of the many daft people we have for gun owners, or most anything else in the US; you don't care what they ban/restrict, so long as it doesn't effect you.

Also, the NFA, a good idea at the time, then turned into the complete ban of full-autos after the '86 law. Shows how one law can be turned around and used against us and why no one likes registration. It has been used too many times, even in modern day CA/NY to confiscate their populations firearms. When some people are hell bent on tottally banning firearms, you need people like us that will be their to fight them. Otherwise they'll chew the rights away peice by peice. What are you going to do when they ban hunting rifles because they penetrate kevlar vests? Ted Kennedy is currently trying and you can bet his friend in Senate are helping. You can't always trust the government to do what is right.

cuchulainn
July 18, 2004, 02:24 PM
Btw, the 'other factors' are a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act(yes Cuch). Why won't you verify whether you believed there was a cause and effect betweent the AWB and the drop in violent crime?

No offense, but if you think you are being clear, you aren't :)

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 02:32 PM
Oh, you mean this? "The CDC said the report suggests more study is needed, not that gun laws don't work. But the agency said it has no plans to spend more money on firearms study."

Or this:

"Some conservatives have said that the CDC should limit itself to studying diseases, and some have complained in the past that the agency has used firearms-tracking data to subtly push gun control. In fact, since a 1996 fight in Congress, the CDC has been prohibited from using funds to press for gun control laws. "

Or this:

"When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."

or this:Among the problems:


Studies on firearm bans and ammunition bans were inconsistent. Some showed the bans decreased violence; others found the bans actually increased violence. Many firearm bans grant exemptions to people who already owned the weapons, making it hard to tell how well a ban worked. Other evidence showed that firearms sales go up right before bans take effect.

Studies on background checks were also inconsistent, with some showing decreased firearm injuries and others showing increased injuries. A major problem with those studies, the report said, was that "denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means."

Only four studies examined the effectiveness of firearm registration on violent outcomes, and all of the findings were again inconsistent.

Too few studies have been done on child-access gun laws to gauge their effectiveness.


Study periods often are too narrow to tell whether gun laws work. The task force noted that "rates of violence may affect the passage of firearms laws, and firearms laws may then affect rates of violence."



Pretty lame.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 02:37 PM
Let's try another:


U.S. finds no proof gun control reduces violence

ATLANTA (AP) — A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun-control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons — found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.
The review, released yesterday, was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.



OOPS, that's based on the flawed CDC report.


Another:


Home > News
Gun control has limited effects
By Kristen Wyatt
Published: Friday, October 3, 2003
Article Tools: Page 1 of 2

ATLANTA - A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof they reduce firearm violence.
The findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could be used to undercut the gun-control movement.


Yikes, another based on the flawed CDC report


Fact is rook , you sources are flawed. All my sources are not.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 02:42 PM
I can see some people need to do more homework: http://www.guncite.com/

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 18, 2004, 02:45 PM
GeneC:

Well, according to FBI crime statistics from 1993-2001, violent crimes have decreased in half across the board. What about that?
You're making the very common mistake of confusing coincidence with causality.

The crime rate was decreasing prior the the AWB's passage, and for reasons completely unrealated to it. Reasons which were (are) related to a decrease in the number of inner-city 16-24 year old minority males in the US population, minimum mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance policing, etc.

Again, you have not provided one shred of evidence that the AWB has had any effect on crime rates in the US.

Again, you have not provided any figures showing how many crimes committed with a firearm involved the used of "Assault Weapons" both pre-ban and post-ban.

Can you provide a link to the testimony?

Again, I am not in the position of having to prove my case, YOU are. YOU are the one advocating placing a restriction on a Constitutional right. Again, at this time show some evidence that the restriction you advocate is necessary. I do not have to prove that restrictions on my liberty are unnecessary. That's how the American system is supposed to work.

It's a damn shame people like you have such blatently unAmerican attitudes and such contempt for the Constitution and for freedom in general.

My faith is strong as ever and not misplaced

Sounds like a quote direct from Jonestown, Guyana.

fix
July 18, 2004, 02:56 PM
CHL, you ever seen the Southpark episode where Johnny Cochran uses the infamous "Chewbacca Defense?" :D

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 02:58 PM
CHL, you don't know anything about me. My point here is most people are just spouting rhetoric they heard from someone else. Btw, can you provide a source for this?:

"The crime rate was decreasing prior the the AWB's passage, and for reasons completely unrealated to it. Reasons which were (are) related to a decrease in the number of inner-city 16-24 year old minority males in the US population, minimum mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance policing, etc."


You know the 'minimum sentencing' and zero tolerance' is from the VCC&LE Act.

G1FAL
July 18, 2004, 03:31 PM
I picked "against Bush", but even if it sunsets, I'll most likely vote against him anyway. The only way I would vote FOR him is if he made sure the AWB were to sunset, had yet another re-interpretation of the "sporting purposes" section of the GCA so that we can stop worrying about the stupid US parts count, and then went to work on getting rid of the PATRIOT Act and the Komitet Gosudastvennoy Bezopasnosti, aka, Dept. of Homeland Sekurity.

HankB
July 18, 2004, 03:49 PM
If the AWB is renewed before the election, not only will I vote against Bush, I'll vote against ALL GOP candidates for ALL offices. With the GOP controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency, any AWB renewal or extension will be a GOP gun ban - I can, and will, hold the PARTY responsible.

Fortunately, I believe the AWB will expire in September.

I'm not so confident it will "stay" expired after Inauguration Day, especially if, God forbid, we get President Kerry . . . followed by Supreme Court Justice Hillary and Attorney General Schumer. :what:

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 04:05 PM
Y'all realize there's a whole bunch of other good this Administration is doing, like winning the war on terrorism. If we lose this war, parts of this country will be in trouble, possibly contaminated by nuclear fallout , our infrastructure will be in trouble, getting supplies thru will require escort, water won't be able to be mass purified, gas won't be available, groceries won't be available and all this personal freedom will be a thing of the past, 'cause you'll be too busy just trying to survive. I'm positive the awb'll sunset, but the world doesn't revolve around that, there's FAR more important things at stake here and this Administration is the most qualified to handle it. Our world has changed , folks and the sooner people realizes that , the better.

RooK
July 18, 2004, 04:07 PM
My point here is most people are just spouting rhetoric they heard from someone else. Btw, can you provide a source for this?

Are you doing any different?

ATLANTA - A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws - including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons - found no proof they reduce firearm violence.
The findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could be used to undercut the gun-control movement.


Yikes, another based on the flawed CDC report

Uh? The fact they couldn't find that guns laws made any difference in crime is my whole point. What was flawed about the report? The fact that they couldn't come to any conclusions due to lack of data? That seems a like a pretty fair answer in their case, imo.

You know the 'minimum sentencing' and zero tolerance' is from the VCC&LE Act.

Why do you keep bringing up the Crime Bill? The Crime Bill isn't sunsetting, just the AWB amdendment. The only way they could pass the AWB back in '94 is if it killed itself in 10 years. Which is what will happen. That doesn't mean that they won't pass another though.

I didn't want to upload to my site for bandwidth reasons, but here's that journal article. I offered numerous times to email it to you... Read it. http://www.markii.org/11303536.pdf

fix
July 18, 2004, 04:18 PM
Gene I agree completely with your last post. That is the argument you should be making rather than attempting to justify the AWB. At this point, a renewal of the AWB is probably the only thing that could cost Bush my support. I fully believe that the Administration is well aware of that and has no intention of touching the issue. I also believe that Bush will step back over to the right after he is re-elected and do what he should have been doing all along. I'll stand behind him all the way, but if I see him moving to get behind me, and he has a knife in his hand (AWB Renewal) I'll drop him like a bad habit...just like gunowners dropped his old man in 92. Fighting the war on terror is priority number one, but we have to remember what it is we're fighting for. It does no good to win the fight if the America we are left with isn't the one we started with. It is a tough fight, because we are at war with external and internal threats to our liberty and survival. The external threat has to be destroyed through force of arms, but the internal threat is a different animal altogether. It must be destroyed through legislation (or lack thereof), and to do that we must make our political leaders aware of our desires. Arguing in support of leftist legislation like the AWB sends the wrong message and does nothing but strengthen the enemy within. Hopefully this message doesn't fall on deaf ears.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 04:25 PM
Rook: "Are you doing any different?"

Yes, I'm showing credible sources and showing flaws in yours.


Rook: "What was flawed about the report?"


When we say we don't know the effect of a law, we don't mean it has no effect. We mean we don't know," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, chairman of the CDC task force. "We are calling for additional high-quality studies."



Rook: " Why do you keep bringing up the Crime Bill?"


Because you, et al, keep saying it's not because of the awb that crime has dropped, it's because of 'minimum sentencing' and 'zero tolerance', WHICH IS THE CRIME BILL, WHICH THE AWB IS ATTACHED.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 04:28 PM
Fix, I in NO way support the awb( I just want anyone who debates issues to have good sources and have good info to debate with, 'cause I'll call 'em on it). I even stated early on that it wasn't the awb I supported , it was this Administration. I'm just one gun owner and American that will admit that we have a crime and gang problem in this Country and now we're at war with terrorism and I'm willing to make sacrifices to deal with it. I personally believe that once the awb sunsets, the Crime bill will be a good thing.

fix
July 18, 2004, 04:33 PM
Well then that's settled. I have to admit, I was beginning to wonder if you had a screw loose. I guess the internet isn't the most accurate form of communication. :D

RooK
July 18, 2004, 04:39 PM
Because you, et al, keep saying it's not because of the awb that crime has dropped, it's because of 'minimum sentencing' and 'zero tolerance', WHICH IS THE CRIME BILL, WHICH THE AWB IS ATTACHED.

So you agree that the AWB is useless as to its effect on crimes? Seeing as the AWB is only an amendment to the crime bill, it's fine if the amendment drops away an never returns? :)

I don't remember one person here saying they wanted the crime bill to go away, just the AWB amendment. Except for restricting the rights of people who want to stay legal, it does nothing. As stated, I could build a post-ban AW right now, but I won't since it's illegal.

Fix, I in NO way support the awb( I just want anyone who debates issues to have good sources and have good info to debate with, 'cause I'll call 'em on it).

Read that journal yet?

Justin
July 18, 2004, 04:48 PM
I have no doubt that GeneC will utterly ignore what I'm posting, and he seems generally immune to facts, figures, and historical precedent. I'm simply engaging him in debate for the fun of it, and for our fans watching at home.


I'd say read up on it and glean your own opinion. If this was just a willy nilly stand alone bill, I'd be totally against it, but the AWB is part of a whole package that addresses gang violence and crime in this Country, which we all know is an epidemic. Part of that package also required background checks at purchasing, which I completely agree with. The fact is , the AWB will only ban FUTURE manufacture/import of AK-47, M-16, Mac 10/11, Tec-9, Uzi,etc type weapons with high cap (50 or more) mags and is easily concealed.

Gene- First off, you're sources aren't flawless. The Brady campaign is an advocacy group whose sole purpose is to enact more gun control. It's self-evident that they are spinning things. Second of all, the sunset only applies to the ban on so-called "assault weapons." It does not apply to any other part of the law that was passed in 1994.


Who here needs a folding stock, threaded barrel and bayonet lug? Any AR existing now will NOT be banned. The entire LEO community are for it and I think they should take precedence since they have to deal with it on a daily basis.

It's not a matter of need. My Thunderbird doesn't need a V8 engine, therefore should I be prohibited from having one? Besides, who decides what constitutes need? Should I come into your house and tell you what you do and do not need? Why or why not?

Folding stocks useful for transport? More useful for concealment. If you have a transport issue for a hunting rifle, you do have an issue.

Really? Have you ever tried to conceal a rifle with a folding stock for any lengthy amount of time?


All Y'all can read more history, the fact remains, like it or not, the AWB is only a PART of a comprehensive bill that addresses gang violence and crime in this Country and now we're at war. Y'all act like this is some kind of Sunday picnic by the lake.

And like I've stated before, none of the rest of the legislation will sunset. Maybe you should try reading the text of the original bill.

Then GeneC goes on to say:
noone here has ever said anything about that, what's your point?

The point is that you initially crowed on about how if the ban is allowed to sunset, the rest of the bill with anti-gang laws would sunset as well. You've been proven to be spinning hogwash.


I'm a registered Republican and hold a CCW here in FL and own a Ak-47, with a 100 rd drum and several 30 rd mags and have a pistol grip on my 12ga shotgun and I feel confident that if my Congress and my President feels it necessary to halt FUTURE production/import of "assault weapons", I'm gonna back 'em 100%, like a good American should and I also feel confident I'll continue to own my weapons for the rest of my life, so long as I don't commit any felonies.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical situation: What would you do if they passed a new federal law requiring one to register any magazines that hold more than 10 rounds as destructive devices? (For a reality check, I'll point out that Columbus, Ohio has had a law on the books stating that 30+ round magazines are indeed destructive devices.)

I think y'all just don't like anyone opposing your own personal opinions.

No, I don't like people opposing my civil liberties.

What facts, fix? The fact that this is America and it works on the will of the majority?

So if the majority says something is right, it must be so? Wow.

Last year I had 3 teen gang members break into my house and steal a Kimber CDP pro, a SIG p-220, a brand new Ruger sp101, A Mitch Rosen IWB holster, A Wilson tactical holster and a bunch of ammo. I am personally at war with gangs and crime and I back this Govt. and I'm NOT sorry if it isn't in line with you few.

And obviously your emotional reaction to this occurrence has clouded your ability to think rationally.

the ENTIRE LEO supports it,

Really? Every single cop in the whole country supports this ban? All of them? Because that's what you said.

Banning guns from law abiding citizens? Who's banning guns from law abiding citizens? What % of people here was born after 1972? How about before? The AWB effects NO ONE born before 1972. All I can say to anyone who's born before '72, if you didn't get yours , too bad. What was you doing, smoking dope and protesting 'nam? This isn't about banning from law abiding citizens, it's about getting illegal guns off the streets.

I was born in 1978. I didn't turn 21 until 1999. You, sir, are guilty of engaging in rhetoric that is both ageist and classist. Your post implicitly states that you distrust both young people, and those who can't afford to buy one of the few pre-bans that are on the market because of their inflated prices.

You think you've thought of everything and are judge and jury and are passing sentence.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.


"Most studies indicate that "assault weapons" had a small place in overall crime before & after the AWB was passed. There's more or less been no conclusive study showing the AWB has reduced crime."


Show sources , please.

Assault weapons were used in less than 2% of crimes involving firearms, and less than .25% of all violent crime before enactment of any nat'l or state aw ban. - Gary Kleck "Targeting Guns" 1997

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Stats, prior to 1993, "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of all homicides.

What areas? Strictly you opinion. Luckily the top 500 peole that run this Govt disagree with you.

Gene, in addition to being ignorant about gun laws, you're also ignorant about history. Go read the Federalist papers, the Constitution, and any of the other reams of paper filled with ink by the founders and tell me that they wanted a total democracy.

Rook, he has to pay by default. He attempted to place a bet with me using a post ban gun, which was obviously his mistake, he still owes , but I'd settle if he'd just go away.

But Gene, you said:

The AWB effects (sic) NO ONE born before 1972.

Those were your exact words. In essence, one only needs to show that the AWB has had an effect on anyone before then. My father was born in the 1940's. As of 2004 he has to pay inflated prices for preban magazines or weapons. Given that he was born before 1972, and that the AWB has forced him to pay inflated prices I submit that the ban has indeed affected him.

Your attempts to rationalize that statement by hanging ex post facto qualifiers on it shows how tenuous your stance really is.

In other words, your assertation is as ridiculous as saying "Anyone who wants to can shoot an anti-tank rocket launcher any time they like."

And then when someone speaks up by saying "I can't" you qualify it with "Well, you just have to join the military, go through basic training, join the infantry, and be assigned to a dedicated tank-killing unit."

You are twisting the facts, and changing the rules of the game. The problem is, there's a definate electronic trail of your missives, and you've been had. Sorry, but fix wins the wager.

Rook, the Las Vegas Review Journal? The CDC? Scraping the bottom of the barrel?

That's funny, coming from a guy who thinks that the Brady Campaign United With the Million Mom March, aka The Brady Campaign, aka Handgun Control, Inc. is a font of veritable wisdom.

Fix , for Heavens sake, a collapsible stock has NOTHING to do with anything , so why do you keep bringing it up? The ban covers any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine and TWO of the following: pistol grip, threaded barrel, bayonet lug, folding/collaspible stock, so what in the hecK is your point?

Gene, would you clarify this? If a collapsible stock has NOTHING to do with anything, then how come it is specifically prohibited in the law? Please tell me how in one sentence it has nothing to do with it, and in the next it most obviously does?

I support my Congress and my President.

Congress and the President are nothing more than groups of men and women. Yet you talk about them as if they are all infallible. I have not yet met even one human being who is completely infallible. That includes members of the House and Senate.

I figured as much a response, which shows the folly of this discussion. First everyone wants facts, but when they're produced , they refuse to accept them. Of course other factors enter, but that factors in too.

Once again, Mr. Pot and Mr. Kettle are getting together. Especially since you have yet to materialize one fact from anywhere showing that the AWB led to a decrease in crime.

Btw, the 'other factors' are a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act(yes Cuch).

Prove it.

Fact is rook , you sources are flawed. All my sources are not.

ROFL! What sources? Thus far you've cited one source: The Brady Campaign, aka Handgun Control Inc.

Y'all realize there's a whole bunch of other good this Administration is doing, like winning the war on terrorism. If we lose this war, parts of this country will be in trouble, possibly contaminated by nuclear fallout , our infrastructure will be in trouble, getting supplies thru will require escort, water won't be able to be mass purified, gas won't be available, groceries won't be available and all this personal freedom will be a thing of the past, 'cause you'll be too busy just trying to survive. I'm positive the awb'll sunset, but the world doesn't revolve around that, there's FAR more important things at stake here and this Administration is the most qualified to handle it. Our world has changed , folks and the sooner people realizes that , the better.

First of all, that statement is outside the realm of this discussion. We're talking about the 1994 gun ban, and how it relates to the current presidential election. If you want to talk about all the other stuff the administration has done, start a new thread. Second, you're guilty of specious reasoning. I have a little rock I carry with me everywhere. I've never been attacked by a tiger. Therefore this rock protects me from tigers.

Rook: " Why do you keep bringing up the Crime Bill?"


Because you, et al, keep saying it's not because of the awb that crime has dropped, it's because of 'minimum sentencing' and 'zero tolerance', WHICH IS THE CRIME BILL, WHICH THE AWB IS ATTACHED.

NONE OF WHICH WILL GO AWAY IF THE BAN SUNSETS! THE TEN YEAR SUNSET ONLY APPLIES TO THE BAN ON SO-CALLED "ASSAULT WEAPONS!"

I'm just one gun owner and American that will admit that we have a crime and gang problem in this Country and now we're at war with terrorism and I'm willing to make sacrifices to deal with it.

Hmm. Statistics have been posted by no less of an unimpeachable source as yourself stating that crime has been falling for the last decade. To me, falling crime levels hardly represents a crime and gang problem.

In the end, I question whether I should have even responded to Gene. I'd probably be better off if I'd simply stuck to posting his material.

*Edited to fix a couple of problems with the quotation functions.

cuchulainn
July 18, 2004, 05:14 PM
The first rule of appointing yourself devil's advocate is to get your own facts and logic in order.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 08:08 PM
Justin, Is this bordering on unbecoming of a moderator?

It don't get no more 'official' than this:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3355_en.htm


Now , there's the entire Crime Act, let's go to there.


Personal attacks are against the rules here aren't they? Btw, you're going to have to show me where I said that the entire bill sunsets.

"In the end, I question whether I should have even responded to Gene. I'd probably be better off if I'd simply stuck to posting his material."

Yeah, you probably should have just not posted at all, with all the personal attacks and lies you told.

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 08:25 PM
Justin said: "ROFL! What sources? Thus far you've cited one source: The Brady Campaign, aka Handgun Control Inc."


Absolutely NOT true.

Here's one :http://www.guncite.com/

Here's another:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/2/203149.shtml

And yet another:http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ITNDrop=996-L

And yet, still another:http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/adducr/age_race_specific.pdf

And still another :http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm

Publicola
July 18, 2004, 08:47 PM
GeneC,

Just for the sake of clarity (since it seems many side issues are being argued) what is your main point?

GeneC
July 18, 2004, 09:20 PM
"And then when someone speaks up by saying "I can't" you qualify it with "Well, you just have to join the military, go through basic training, join the infantry, and be assigned to a dedicated tank-killing unit."

Another lie, I NEVER said that.

"The point is that you initially crowed on about how if the ban is allowed to sunset, the rest of the bill with anti-gang laws would sunset as well. You've been proven to be spinning hogwash."


Another lie. I challenge anyone to show where I said that.

stevelyn
July 18, 2004, 09:55 PM
Without getting involved in the debate I'll just answer the original question: If the AWB is renewed how will you vote?

Whether the AWB sunsets or not is irrelevant to how I'll vote. The AWB is near the bottom of my list of reasons Bush is not getting my vote.

Farm bill.
USA PATRIOT Act.
Support for and insisting on PATRIOT II
Iraqi war.
Establishment of Homeland Security Dept. (Precursor of the American Gestapo)
McCain-Feingold
Law prohibiting ordering prescription drugs from Canada.
Condoning Mexico's border incursions and lack of border enforcement.
Medicare bill.
Verbal support for the AWB.
And the list goes on........

BADNARICK '04!

Justin
July 18, 2004, 10:15 PM
Hmm...ok, I stand corrected. But sorry, Gene, none of your citations thus far have shown in any fashion how the AWB has reduced crime. Allow me to quote, for those who don't want to go back and search through your voluminous postings:

Here's how your Senators voted: http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegisl...x?ITNDrop=996-L Oh, wow, thanks Gene. I had no idea how my senators voted on any of the attempted renewal, nor the original ban as passed in 1994. Thanks. You're such a beam of enlightenment. Or at least would be if you weren't covering well-trod ground. A quick search will turn up tons of threads with that info. Oh, and that's another thing, you don't offer any context or reason for citing this source. You just plop it in the middle of the thread, completely out of left field.


I can see some people need to do more homework: http://www.guncite.com/

Ok, here you offer a link to a website with a rather sanctimonious admonition implying that we're all stupid. Never mind that you don't actually post to a particular article, or any segment with relevant information to the discussion at hand. Nope, you just post a link, but with no defining context as to how it relates to the discussion at hand. So I apologize, you obviously posted a source, but it seems self-evident that you neglected to use that source for anything.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/adducr/age_race_specific.pdf


Well, according to FBI crime statistics from 1993-2001, violent crimes have decreased in half across the board. What about that?
Can you provide a link to the testimony?

My faith is strong as ever and not misplaced.
Once again, GeneC comes up with a source, but fails to mention why he's citing this source, especially in relation to the AWB. We're all just expected to read through all 81 pages of the linked document in order to dig out the information that Gene thinks is relevant, and then somehow imagine how he would have used that data in the context of this discussion.

http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm


More info. Sorry, full sincerity here. BR, what'd be the use for folding stocks, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs and 50 rd mags? Once again, Gene posts a link with elementary information, and then throws some sort of half-baked emotional appeal in regarding 50 round magazines. Once again, a citation with no context where we're just expected to read the entire link and somehow divine what information Gene thinks is important.


Here's another:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../2/203149.shtml Sorry, Gene, can't find where you've posted this link in the discussion anywhere except the one above post.

Justin
July 18, 2004, 10:36 PM
Another lie, I NEVER said that. My bad. I neglected to put a forward slash into the end quote tag. Regardless, you should have been able to tell the difference between my writing and yours quite easily.

Another lie. I challenge anyone to show where I said that. Well, let's see, you rather blatantly implied that the sunset clause applied to the entire law when you posted this:

All Y'all can read more history, the fact remains, like it or not, the AWB is only a PART of a comprehensive bill that addresses gang violence and crime...

and this:

Because you, et al, keep saying it's not because of the awb that crime has dropped, it's because of 'minimum sentencing' and 'zero tolerance', WHICH IS THE CRIME BILL, WHICH THE AWB IS ATTACHED.

If that wasn't the point you were trying to make when you posted the two above statements, then perhaps you'd like to clarify why you included them at all in the first place.


:rolleyes:

Justin
July 18, 2004, 10:42 PM
Personal attacks are against the rules here aren't they?

I don't see anywhere in any of my posts where I typed anything outside of the rules. I may be vitriolic, but I didn't do any name calling. If you don't like the flavor, stay out of the Kool-Aid. Put another way, some people seem to be able to dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

Yeah, you probably should have just not posted at all, with all the personal attacks and lies you told. Personal attacks? Lies? Where? I misread a couple of things you posted, but nowhere did I tell an outright lie.

Besides, all of this is beside the point. Nowhere have you shown where the 1994 AWB led to a decrease in actual crime.


:rolleyes:

It seems you'd rather obfuscate than actually debate anything.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 18, 2004, 10:53 PM
GeneC:

CHL, you don't know anything about me. My point here is most people are just spouting rhetoric they heard from someone else. Btw, can you provide a source for this?:

"The crime rate was decreasing prior the the AWB's passage, and for reasons completely unrealated to it. Reasons which were (are) related to a decrease in the number of inner-city 16-24 year old minority males in the US population, minimum mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance policing, etc."

You know the 'minimum sentencing' and zero tolerance' is from the VCC&LE Act.

No, the concepts of minimum mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance policing, abolishment of parole, etc. were tried first at the State or City level long before any Federal involvement.

Again, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat this since you are obviously trying to duck this point, I am not the one who is in the position of having to provide any evidence in favor of my position. YOU are. YOU are advocating the extension of the AWB, therefore YOU are advocating a restriction on a Constitutional right. YOU need to justify that restriction. You still haven't done so.

Your implied statement that I have to provide support for the absence of a restriction is absurd.

Treylis
July 18, 2004, 10:54 PM
Wow, this sure got busy while I was reading other stuff.

GeneC, I actually would not care if the AWB reduced crime. People should have the right to own anything or do anything so long as it harms nobody but themselves or potentially other consenting adults. Concordantly, mere ownership of property should never be illegal--there can be no criminal objects, only criminal actions.

You might start saying "But people use these things to kill cops!", "Nobody needs 30 rounds to hunt deer" and other Brady rhetoric. I don't care. It's still an object, devoid of a mens rea, and it's fundamentally morally wrong to restrict people from owning something because they just possibly maybe MIGHT do something bad with it. That's one hell of a slippery slope, my friend.

As to need... I don't even want to hear "you don't need" arguments unless I'm passing by you while you're subsistence-farming in a field and giving everything extra that you don't "need" away to passers-by. You don't need more than a few hundreds of calories a day to survive, but not everyone prefers to look like they just got out of Dachau. The logical endpoint of all need-based arguments is the Fourth-World peasant toiling over grain and barely surviving. I don't want that, I hope very dearly that you don't want that, so, please, never invoke "need" as the arbiter of anything.

fix
July 18, 2004, 11:06 PM
Actually I don't think Gene meant to put himself in a position to argue in favor of the AWB. I think he was trying to express that a renewal of it would not cause him to drop his support of the President. That's actually the one thing he made fairly clear towards the end of the thread. He just spent a lot of time attacking the problem the wrong way. Rather than convincing all of us that the President deserves re-election by maximizing the President's successes, he tried to minimize the AWB by convincng us that it isn't that bad...even though the Pres hasn't signed it. I think Gene's position could be summed up in one sentence:

Gene's support for the President is stronger than his opposition to the AWB and he will be voting for the President regardless of the disposition of the AWB.

Clarity and simplicity can often prevent mass confusion and bickering.

GeneC
July 19, 2004, 01:12 PM
You're absolutely right Fix, thanks for having the clear head here. I started out by voting that I'd re-elect Bush, in the hypothetical event that he signed it's renewal, as I'd have faith that'd he surmise that if Congress passed it, it be for Natl security reasons and he'd err on the side of caution and I believe the main issue this election is to win the war on terrorism, which this Adminsitration is infinitely more capable than ANY other, but then I saw alot of comments of non-logical reasons why people'd abandon Bush if he signed, that'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I started questioning their sources and when I checked them, found flaws, but as we all saw it just snowballed. I tried to address every issue with an open mind and searched for credible sources and explained my point with the sources and my point for presenting the sources. I think that if nothing else, this thread showed that some people's minds are made up and reality and logic won't stand in their way and will resort to attacking the person rather than confront the issues.

GeneC
July 19, 2004, 01:19 PM
Treylis said: "People should have the right to own anything or do anything.." "You might start saying "But people use these things to kill cops!", "Nobody needs 30 rounds to hunt deer" and other Brady rhetoric. I don't care. It's still an object, devoid of a mens rea, and it's fundamentally morally wrong to restrict people from owning something because they just possibly maybe MIGHT do something bad with it. That's one hell of a slippery slope, my friend."


I didn't say that, the International Association of Police Chiefs and the Natl Sheriffs Association and the Police Benevolent Society, et al said that. I really don't know, but I'll sure take their word for it. So, surely you don't mean that ANYONE should be able to own ANYTHING they want, even though that's what you say. So either you're actually saying something you don't really mean or...what?

Justin
July 19, 2004, 04:12 PM
So long as they don't violate the non-agression principle, I couldn't care less what someone owns.

:rolleyes:

Sam Adams
July 19, 2004, 04:21 PM
Against. I won't accept that kind of betrayal. I am, however, now set to vote enthusiastically against Lurch (i.e. less than enthusiastically for Bush), and that vote is a LOCK unless the AWB is renewed IN ANY FORM.

However, I don't see this happening - too many people on the Dem side don't want to get burned (i.e. thrust involuntarily into the private sector come January) to give the Wicked B!tch of the West (Feinswine) a victory on this obsession of hers.

madcowburger
July 19, 2004, 07:21 PM
Except for the 20-25 percent of them who are killed with their own or a partner's gun, cops get killed with pretty much the same kind of guns we mere mortals and "civilians" get killed with: mostly cheap and/or stolen handguns, and a mixed assortment of mostly "sporting"-type .22 rifles, deer rifles, and shotguns.

The closest thing to an "assault weapon" that even shows up much in the hands of actual criminals is the SKS, popular just because it's cheap.

You rarely see expensive weapons like AR-15s, Galils, FALs, Springfield M1As, etc. in criminal hands.

The average crook doesn't see any good reason to spend more than about $100 for a gun. If he's got $1,500 to $2,500 he's going to spend most of it on crack, meth, strippers/hookers, booze, gaudy "bling-bling" jewelry, bulky athletic shoes with light bulbs in them, baggy designer jeans, etc. If there's hundred bucks left over on the morning after he might spend that on a Lorcin or Bryco pistol, or an SKS carbine.

This stuff about the police being "outgunned by criminals" is mostly just propaganda.

MCB

atek3
July 19, 2004, 07:43 PM
madcowburger is speaking the straight dope. Criminals use junky guns, its a fact(oid).

atek3

insidious_calm
July 19, 2004, 08:05 PM
I will not allow myself to vote for Bush if the AWB is renewed in any form. I would reluctantly vote libertarian, even though I've never voted for a libertarian before. It would essentially be a protest vote.

I know some of you are saying "But Kerry will win and he would be worse!". Maybe so, but you are not looking at this from the right perspective then. If Bush, or ANY POLITICIAN votes to extend the AWB and you in turn vote for them you are giving them a pass on their actions. If the AWB gets renewed Kerry just might win, but we will pick up at least 6 pro-gun seats in the senate and many more in the house. The GOP will know that the AWB votes hurt them bad and they won't likely let it happen again. The ripple effect from AWB II will be bigger and longer lasting than the first time.

It's like spanking a misbehaving child, you don't really want to do it but you know it's for the best in the long run. Vote your gun. Vote your constitution. Always remember that freedom isn't free.


I.C.

GeneC
July 19, 2004, 08:23 PM
MC, Atek3, sources please, or is this just personal opinion? I can tell you my detective bought my stolen SIG p-220 from a gang member for $50 and my Kimber CDP Pro was used/recovered in a home invasion/robbery.

Sam Adams
July 19, 2004, 08:34 PM
I know some of you are saying "But Kerry will win and he would be worse!". Maybe so, but you are not looking at this from the right perspective then. If Bush, or ANY POLITICIAN votes to extend the AWB and you in turn vote for them you are giving them a pass on their actions. If the AWB gets renewed Kerry just might win, but we will pick up at least 6 pro-gun seats in the senate and many more in the house. The GOP will know that the AWB votes hurt them bad and they won't likely let it happen again. The ripple effect from AWB II will be bigger and longer lasting than the first time.

I couldn't agree more. I am currently quite ticked off at Bush for a bunch of reasons (immigration, signing the Campaign Finance Reform law that HE HIMSELF said was unconstitutional, spending like a drunken sailor, doing deals with Ted Kennedy (Drunken Murderer, MA), etc.). However, I am very pleased with what is NOW my most important issue, the War on Terror. He hasn't given in to the UN, the Germans, the terrorists or to the worst of the bunch, the :barf: Frogs:barf: :barf: . Kerry represents the opposite of all that I stand for, and while Bush is far from perfect, he's mostly in my corner.

HOWEVER , the moment that Bush signs a renewal (whether partial, whole or worse than that) of the AWB, then THAT will become my single issue. Bush, if he fails that test, loses my vote. Liberty is far more important than who holds the White House for 4 years. No one person can destroy this country in only 4 years (although I'd rather not test that out with Kerry or, in 2008, with *****lery), but the continued erosion of our most basic right IS something that will destroy us over time - mainly because we've only been losing, we've been only sliding down the slippery slope for 70 years, and a renewal would not merely reinforce that trend, it would give new energy to the anti-gun statists and accelerate the process. Punishing Bush and a bunch of others who act to destroy our rights would send a powerful message. The Dems got it in '94 and again in 2000, which is why many of them are gunshy (pun intended) now. The Republicans have yet to receive that message, and I hope that threads like this prevent the need for such a message this year.

I can put up with a LOT of crap from politicians, especially if they are generally for limiting the power of our government here and aggressively defending us overseas, but there is NO KERRYING WAY that I will tolerate any more erosions of our right to self defense and defense of our liberties. MY LINE IN THE SAND IS THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN - IF IT DIES, BUSH GETS MY VOTE; IF NOT, HE DOESN'T. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

Apache
July 19, 2004, 08:54 PM
You're talking about the gang problem? People that will rob you,rape your daughtweror any other woman they find isolated. They're called politicians,and btw you need a gun for protection!:fire:

RooK
July 19, 2004, 09:07 PM
MC, Atek3, sources please, or is this just personal opinion? I can tell you my detective bought my stolen SIG p-220 from a gang member for $50 and my Kimber CDP Pro was used/recovered in a home invasion/robbery.

Proof please, we can't just take your word for it. Some scanned police reports or the like would be sufficent, thank you.

Justin
July 19, 2004, 09:32 PM
MC, Atek3, sources please, or is this just personal opinion? I can tell you my detective bought my stolen SIG p-220 from a gang member for $50 and my Kimber CDP Pro was used/recovered in a home invasion/robbery.


Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999html/ycgii/graphics/tab5b.gif

Table taken from the National Tracing Center (NTC)’s Crime Gun Trace Reports via ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which can be found here:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999html/ycgii/introduction.htm#int

Sorry Genester, but your Kimber and SIG don't even rate a blip on the radar.

But yet somehow the Genevenator will spin my answer, or claim I'm making personal attacks, all just so he can support a law that makes it a felony for you or I to possess a stamped piece of sheet metal. Nevermind that there has yet to be even one study that has shown that the AWB has resulted in any sort of significant positive impact on crime.

But then again, how many street criminals are going to buy a 7 lb., $1200 rifle just so they can relieve the Quik-E-Mart attendant of the $50 in the register?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 19, 2004, 11:02 PM
If the AWB gets renewed Kerry just might win, but we will pick up at least 6 pro-gun seats in the senate and many more in the house.

BY my own analysis, six seats in the Senate is an absolute best-case scenario and picking up more than six seats in the House would be way above the best hopes of any analysis I've done.

I'm curious to hear your take on this that makes you feel so optimistic.

atek3
July 20, 2004, 02:34 AM
hey justin can you find the list of top ten rifles used? Realizing of course that rifles make up only a vanishingly small percentage of overall crime guns. I'd guess that the SKS, ruger PC9, and ruger mini-14, make up the majority of the rifles used in crime.

atek3

PATH
July 20, 2004, 02:49 AM
I will be writing in a name as is my right to do!

Cinomed
July 20, 2004, 03:13 AM
Reluctantly against


GeneC, you need to stop arguing for arguments sake.

"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."
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Shall NOT be infringed.

nuff said.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 03:24 AM
hey justin can you find the list of top ten rifles used?

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2002/06/27/entindex.gif


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999html/ycgii/graphics/tab7.gif

They don't come right and say it, but there seems to be some confusion over just what, exactly, a North China Industries 7.62mm rifle is- at times they reference the SKS, and other times they reference the MAK 90. It seems that in the end, they just muddled the SKS and the MAK90/Kalashnikov clones together. Since they list North China Industries specifically, I'd be curious to find out if there is any truth to the rumors that the Chinese offloaded a few thousand AK's illegally in the early to mid '90's.

There are further breakdowns along age, but nothing that singles out rifles. It's either long guns or handguns, take your pick.

atek3
July 20, 2004, 03:34 AM
Oh come on, not one rifle in a real caliber like 223 or 308?
Criminals are lame.

atek3

Justin
July 20, 2004, 03:41 AM
lol.

The ATF stats go on to show that in 1999 they were requested to trace all of 9, count 'em, 9 AR15's used in crime.

Unfortunately, they've only been doing the YCGII studies since the late '90's, but I would surmise that you could do a comparison with the FBI Uniform stats from before 1994.

*edit*
Unfortunately the FBI studies cut off at 1995.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

While I can't find a direct link to the actual UCR study from 1994, I have found a number of sources stating that so-called "assault weapons" were used in less than 2% of all gun crimes, and citing the 1994 UCR study as the source.

However, at this point we're dealing with such a small cross-sample of arms that measuring any statistically significant changes becomes impossible. You may as well count the angels on the head of a pin.

Of course, all of this pushing around of numbers is really nothing more than a game. Even if every gang member was toting a full-on JP Enterprises AR15 tricked to the hilt with all of the goodies, it would still not be a valid reason for removing mine, yours, or any other responsible citizen's RKBA.

Or, at least, if one were to make the argument that it were, they should be invited to put their money where their mouth is, and start campaigning to outlaw pump-action 12 gauges and .22 LR rifles.


Far, far, more .22's and 12 gauges are used, and have been used in crimes than any sort of EBR.

Moparmike
July 20, 2004, 04:34 AM
So we should ban .22's and 12 gauge shotguns! Do it for the children!!! I am writing my senators, and doing it fooorrr thhheee chhiiillllldddrrreeeeennn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


/Moonbat :D ;)

71Commander
July 20, 2004, 05:49 AM
I can tell you my detective bought my stolen SIG p-220 from a gang member for $50 and my Kimber CDP Pro was used/recovered in a home invasion/robbery.

Why weren't these guns returned to the proper owner after recovery?:cuss:

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 06:24 AM
No, no Justin, you got me all wrong. I'm here to raise the bar for THR folks. You presented a GOOD source, that's what I'm talking about and it shows that BG used almost as many Rugers and S&Ws as Lorcin , but 50% more Rugers and S&Ws than Davis or Raven. Oh I had a brand new Ruger Sp101 that has not been recovered and a Colt Combat Commander.

Now, on the long gun chart , you can say that Bg used AK( ATEK, 7.62 IS .308) more than any other, eccept Mossberg and Marlin, but used 50% more Mossberrg 12ga shotguns than AK , but 50% more AK than Winchesters. I'd rather a BG use an Ak than a 12 ga shotgun, if I had to pick one or the other.

Tenn, they'll keep the guns 'til after the trials, but I will get them back.

atek3
July 20, 2004, 07:07 AM
Newsflash from GeneC: 7.62mm=.308
Thank you, Captain Obvious. A "North China Industries" 7.62mm rifle is chambered for 7.62x39, not .308 which refers to 7.62x51.
And if you want to get picky 7.62x39 actually uses .311 inch bullets.

Oh come on, not one rifle in a real caliber like 223 or 308?

When people say a rifle in 308, 99% of the time they aren't refering to a 7.62x39, 300 win mag, or 300 WSM.

atek3

RooK
July 20, 2004, 07:10 AM
( ATEK, 7.62 IS .308)

Chances are if it was a .308, being here in the US, they would have listed it as ".308". More than likely that refers to the 7.62x39mm cartridge used by the SKS/AK rifles. The only .308 Norinco imported was some M14 clones in limited quantities.

Edit: Posted right after you. :)

Lobotomy Boy
July 20, 2004, 10:42 AM
I don't agree with GeneC, but I respect the boy for sticking to his beliefs. And I'm pretty danged sure that no one here is going to budge him from those beliefs if this thread keeps going for another 50 pages.

So back to the original question about voting. Lately I've been thinking that things worked pretty well back when we had a divided government. When the Dems controlled both the executive and legislative branches we got the AWB. When we had divided government we got Monica and Sploogegate. Now we have a Republican president and a Republican legislative branch and we're still worried about the AWB being renewed. Frankly I'd rather have the president splooging on some skankho's dress and using her nether regions as a humidor than passing legislation like the AWB and the Patriot Act.

I plan to vote Libertarian for president, knowing full well it may mean we get Kerry/Edwards, but also voting for Republicans for congress and state legislators. I've decided that a paralyzed divided government beats the heck out of a government that actually does something.

Treylis
July 20, 2004, 12:30 PM
I didn't say that, the International Association of Police Chiefs and the Natl Sheriffs Association and the Police Benevolent Society, et al said that. I really don't know, but I'll sure take their word for it. So, surely you don't mean that ANYONE should be able to own ANYTHING they want, even though that's what you say. So either you're actually saying something you don't really mean or...what?

Well, you said it, quoting them. You're getting into semantic twisting here, I think you know what I meant from my statement.

And, well, yes, I meant exactly what I said. I try to do that, clarity in writing is a virtue. ANYONE should be able to own ANYTHING unless their possession of that thing directly presents a threat to other (non-consenting) people or their property.

Why on earth would you think I would say something directly like that and then go: "Oh, well, I didn't really mean it"?

RevDisk
July 20, 2004, 03:05 PM
I will not be voting for Mr Bush regardless. I disagree with many of his policies, his past activities and the people with whom he associates.

On the other hand, I will not be voting for Mr Kerry either dispite my status being registered as a Democrat. Sorry, I neither like nor trust Mr Kerry.


I have proved my patriotism over and over. Not with harshy written words, but with deed. Part of being a true patriot is being educated about things. I have read much on both candidates and in good conscious I cannot abid by either. Take it or leave it, I'm voting according to my beliefs.


Mr GeneC, I respect your beliefs. I respect your words of standing up to others to defend your beliefs. I extremely disagree with your beliefs. I was 13 in 1994. I have proved myself a good citizen in every way possible that I know. I signed up for the Service, I hold public office, I vote, I write/call/visit other public officials, etc. I have never been convicted of any crimes, I have never had a single traffic/parking incident.

I fall to understand why I should be punished for my age. Why should I pay more for magazines and weapons that are functionally no different than those made 11 years ago? Why should I have to put up with aging normal capacity magazines?

I was trusted with weaponry that 99% of Americans will never likely see, let alone operate. To own such weaponry as a civilian, I would have to pay four or five digits for a weapon that is nearly 20 years old, after submitting to background check that that is likely more time consuming than my military security clearance. Even after I was checked out, I would still be subject to intense scrutiny. It takes a long time to make enough money to save up four or five digits on my current pay level... I'll do it anyways.

Why is that? What else do I need to prove that I haven't thus far?

itgoesboom
July 20, 2004, 03:17 PM
Gene,

I really don't want to go back through all the pages, so I am going to paraphrase you.

You said that the AWB doesn't affect anyone born before 1972. I will ignore the innacuracy of the date, since in most states, and under federal law, people can purchase rifles at the age of 18.

But, what about people who were financially uable to purchase so-called "assault rifles" prior to the banning? Most college students don't have the extra income to plop down $1000+ for a rifle. What about people who are in the service. What's the yearly pay for servicemen when they first join? Do you think that a PFC in the army is going to be able to save up and buy a $1000 rifle with extra magazines while being paid $12,000 a year? Somehow people who have more money should be considered better and not be subject to the same laws?

And what about those of us who were unable to vote for our majestic leaders back then? Personally, I was born in 1978, so I hadn't had a chance to vote against those who placed the restriction against us.

Now I have my chance to make my voice heard. If the AWB is renewed, I will vote against the those who support it in every election possible. Period.

Frankly, I am finding your attitude to be similar to that of a slave. Your masters decide what is best for you, and you just go along with it. Whats more, you don't seem to care whether or not others will be enslaved too.

To be honest with you, I like GWB, but I don't like certain things he has done. At the same time, there are things he has done that I do like. I would prefer him to John Kerry, but if he signs the AWB renewel, then that will be the straw that broke the camels back, and I will vote against him. I will do that soley to send the message that any politician that supports limiting my rights will lose my support.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 03:33 PM
Now, on the long gun chart , you can say that Bg used AK( ATEK, 7.62 IS .308) Not really. Like I said, in the ATFe report it looks like they've muddled together two different models of 7.62mm rifle from the same manufacturer. I get the distinct impression that when they say 'North China Industries 7.62mm rifle' they are talking about both the SKS and the MAK90, both models that are specifically mentioned in the ATFe report. I In other words, among crime guns, you don't even begin to see a statistical representation of any sort of self-loading rifle until you simmer the stats down to just long guns used in crime, and even then, they have to cook the books by passing off two distinctly different models of firearm as the same thing. Even then, neither the SKS nor the MAK90 are considered to be assault rifles by anyone's definition, be it the military, or the stipulations of the 94 AWB. In other words, even when you break the stats down this far, the numbers continue to bear out that "assault weapons" as defined by the 94 AWB never were, and have not become the gun of choice for criminals.

In other words, out of nearly 1.4 million violent crimes committed in 1999* autoloading rifles that could even be loosely construed as based on a military pattern (note that I did not say they were actual assault rifles or "assault weapons" per the 1994 AWB) were involved in somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 crimes.

*FBI 1999 UCR, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99c2_02.pdf

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 05:21 PM
You might be trying to split hairs here Justin. This is a mak90:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36258&item=3655271701&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V#ebayphotohosting


Btw, the problem with the info you cited is no info was collected as to what weapons were used in forcible rates, so that throws off all other stats, but I'm plaesed to see violent crimes dropped 28% from '90-'99.

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 06:13 PM
Revdisc & IGB, too bad, don't blame me 'cause y'all were born when you was. Those too young to vote just has to live with whatever was voted. What's the problem? Do you think you should get some kind of special consideration 'cause you were teenagers and are still being effected by a law you don't agree with? I joined the Marine Corps when I was 17 and that was in '76, so I still couldn't fight in 'Nam if I wanted to (which I didn't), it's just the grace of God when you're born, so what's your point?

My point (which is ancient history now) was that the awb has never effected any assault rifles bought before '94 and those eligible to buy them up to '94 had to of been born before '76( ok,ok I concede '76, but that just means certainly by '72).

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 06:21 PM
"Newsflash from GeneC: 7.62mm=.308
And if you want to get picky "

Well let's don't , let's move on.

itgoesboom
July 20, 2004, 06:37 PM
Gene,

My point is that my generation sees this as an opportunity to change things for ourselves, and not have to live under the laws that were passed while we were unable to vote.

Just because you feel happy to be subordinate to our elected officials doesn't mean the rest of us do. If status quo is enough for you, fine, but some of us want a return to our rights. Throughout history there have been many people willing to live as slaves and subordinates. Wonder why we never hear about them?

So you go about your life, happy that you got yours, don't worry about the rest of us, and don't feel any obligation to help leave this world as well or better off than when you joined it.

I.G.B.

itgoesboom
July 20, 2004, 06:41 PM
Nice edit there Gene, but I already copied it.

Newsflash from GeneC: 7.62mm=.308
Thank you, Captain Obvious. A "North China Industries" 7.62mm rifle is chambered for 7.62x39, not .308 which refers to 7.62x51.
And if you want to get picky 7.62x39 actually uses .311 inch bullets.



Well let's don't , let's move on.
Btw:


7.62 mm = .300

So you tell him you agree and don't want to be picky, and move on, and then in the next line, start getting picky and try to throw in a little jab?

Nice.

BTW, 7.62x39 DOES infact use .311 diameter bullets.

Kinda like .38 spcl bullets aren't actually .38, but I am sure you already knew that, since you seem to act like you know everything.

I.G.B.

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 08:14 PM
IGB, so tell me young man, what you're gonna do different that your father and grandfather didn't do to change things?

So what? The fact is, he talked about being picky and said 7.62 +.311 and the FACT is 7.62=.300, but I decided that it wasn't worth bickering over , so I editted it out, but you decide that some conspiracy is in effect so you decided to "expose" it, in your youth, but don't realize that nothing was gained and you really didn't "expose" anything, which is why there's an age limit to responsible things, 'cause apparently young people lacks the wisdom and experince to know when diplomacy is being exercised for the greater good, or even understands the sacrifices for the greater good, but I can give you an example, if you and me and 2 or 4 other 'soldiers ' were a squad and on patrol somewhere and you started talking the crap your talking about how this or that ain't fair and personal freedom this and that, we'd leave your self-centered butt on the trail somewhere, 'cause you just don't get it.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 08:15 PM
Gene, I'd appreciate it if you'd assume that I have a certain level of competence regarding firearms, and please not lecture me about a model of firearm that I own.

http://i24.ebayimg.com/02/i/01/46/ed/7e_1.JPG

The MAK90 Sporter is a firearm that is designed to meet to the ATF specification that all imported guns should conform to some level of 'sporting use.'

As a result, when these rifles are imported into the USA, the requirements that define an assault rifle are actually stricter for foreign-made guns than for domestically made ones. (Generally speaking, domestically produced rifles are allowed to have one more "evil feature" than foreign ones.)

You'll note that the rifle in the picture you posted has neither a flash hider or bayonet lug. I'd be willing to bet that when that particular rifle was imported into the United States that it also had a thumbhole stock on it. You'll notice that the pistol grip on that particular example is a different color than the rest of the furniture on the gun? Keep that in mind.

Ok, this is gonna get bumpy, but try to stay with me.

Upon buying the imported MAK90, the owner went out and purchased a US made parts kit. Now, according to the law, if a firearm has 10 or more parts that were made in the USA then the law judges it to have been manufactured in the USA. So, swapping a few parts (including the stock/grips) in a Chinese made MAK90 turns it into an American made MAK90.

Since the weapon is now legally considered to be a product of the United States, the owner can then legally attach one more "evil feature" to the weapon without it becoming a violation of the 1994 AWB.

You can accuse me of splitting hairs 'til the cows come home, but by the legal definition, the rifle picture you posted is most emphatically not an "assault weapon" as defined by either the ATF's importation standards* or the domestic 1994 AWB**.

What you've done is post a picture of a Fiero while trying to pass it off as a Ferrari.



*Since it is now legally considered a domestically produced firearm.

**Because it doesn't exceed the allowed minimum number of "evil features" for a domestically produced firearm manufactured after Sept. 13, 1994.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 08:27 PM
So what? The fact is, he talked about being picky and said 7.62 +.311 and the FACT is 7.62=.300, but I decided that it wasn't worth bickering over , so I editted it out, but you decide that some conspiracy is in effect so you decided to "expose" it, in your youth, but don't realize that nothing was gained and you really didn't "expose" anything, which is why there's an age limit to responsible things, 'cause apparently young people lacks the wisdom and experince to know when diplomacy is being exercised for the greater good, or even understands the sacrifices for the greater good, but I can give you an example, if you and me and 2 or 4 other 'soldiers ' were a squad and on patrol somewhere and you started talking the crap your talking about how this or that ain't fair and personal freedom this and that, we'd leave your self-centered butt on the trail somewhere, 'cause you just don't get it. I'm starting to wonder if Chris Rhines was right. Gene, are you sure you're not just funnin' us?:p

I'd also like to point out that by this point it should be pretty obvious that the sacrifices made in the name of the 1994 AWB have not had any effect resulting in any gains for the ever-nebulous "greater good."

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 08:34 PM
Then I have to ask ( since you seem to be on some kind of bickering fest), what the heck is your point? The freakin' graph YOU presented shows the 3rd top gun used in violent crimes was a 7.62. What is the point of trying to speculate or extrapolate or spin or spend ANY time trying to defend something that DOESN'T NEED DEFENDING?! It's almost as bad as IGB trying to split hairs on 11 thousandsths of an inch , when his context was why didn't criminals use "man-sized" calibers, when in fact they do! My whole point for even pursuing this thread was that people use credible sources and the one YOU just cited clearly said that they DID NOT gather info on guns used in ANY forcible rapes (which there were hundreds), so ALL the rest of the numbers WERE NOT ACCURATE and therefore your cite wasn't accurate.

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 08:49 PM
I'd also like to point out that by this point it should be pretty obvious that the sacrifices made in the name of the 1994 AWB have not had any effect resulting in any gains for the ever-nebulous "greater good."


__________________

Then you truly don't read these posts , since I have said many , many times that I truly believe that the awb WILL sunset, 'cause I believe my
Govt will do the right thing and I have indicated that the awb has had NO effect on crime, BUT the VCC&LE Act has.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 08:53 PM
Because, Gene, you're trying to tell me that the stats show an assault weapon being listed in the top 10 of all federally traced crime guns, when that is most evidently not the case.

Assault rifles, "assault weapons" or whatever you want to call them have never been used by criminals in any numbers that come close to even measuring a blip of statistical significance.

My point is, that after 7 pages of debate, there is no evidence that has shown that the 1994 AWB had any practical effects on violent crime rates in this nation.

You may as well outlaw pink stuffed bunnies with button eyes in the name of stopping crime. It would do about the same level of good.

You have maintained throughout this entire thread that the 1994 AWB must somehow, in some way be good for the country. Every argument you have presented has been smashed, stomped, crushed, burned, or otherwise obliterated, and yet you cling to this silly notion out of some sort of misguided faith that other men are somehow infallible because they won an election!

The onus has been on you to show that the ban has had any positive effects, yet you have not shown even one remotely compelling reason for why this law should exist.

Throughout this thread, you've shown a streak of bigotry towards young people as well as those without the financial means to pay the artificially inflated prices of preban merchandise.

You've been egotistical, sanctimonious, and insulting to both other members of THR as well as myself. You've continually twisted what you've posted, ignored those with valid questions or critiques, and fired back with accusations of stupidity, drug use, or whining.

In short, you've shown a level of irrational, stubborn, voluntarily ignorant blind faith that is utterly staggering.

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 09:20 PM
Justin , what is your problem? I JUST GOT DONE SAYING THAT THE AWB HAD NO EFFECT ON CRIME and no, I just said it was a 7.62.. As far as youth, I CLEARLY pointed out it was simply a matter of being born at a particular time. You either Don't read posts or you TOTALLY misinterpret them, either way , GET OFF ME and go find something else to do. Btw, I can practice my faith the way I want to. That's what this Country is founded on.

Justin
July 20, 2004, 09:31 PM
I said:
you cling to this silly notion out of some sort of misguided faith that other men are somehow infallible because they won an election!
Gene replied:
Btw, I can practice my faith the way I want to. That's what this Country is founded on.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/eek7.gif WHAH?!

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 09:38 PM
I don't expect you to understand, I just expect you to leave me alone.

atek3
July 20, 2004, 10:12 PM
Btw, I can practice my faith the way I want to. That's what this Country is founded on.

From the GeneC lexicon:

Faith: The belief of the "founders" that whoever is in power must be vested with total control of the country, and always makes the RightDecisions(tm).

GeneC
July 20, 2004, 10:20 PM
Well, lucky for you Atek, this Administration HAS been making the right decisions, as you're able to freely get on your computer tonite and post some rediculous post instead of having to be out there patrolling your neighborhood 'til 3am for terrorist activity.

RevDisk
July 20, 2004, 11:56 PM
Revdisc & IGB, too bad, don't blame me 'cause y'all were born when you was. Those too young to vote just has to live with whatever was voted.


Wanna put a wager on that? I have and I will continue to fight against immoral and unconstitutional laws. Being young does not mean being a slave.



What's the problem? Do you think you should get some kind of special consideration 'cause you were teenagers and are still being effected by a law you don't agree with? I joined the Marine Corps when I was 17 and that was in '76, so I still couldn't fight in 'Nam if I wanted to (which I didn't), it's just the grace of God when you're born, so what's your point?


I'm probably not the same religion as you, but I accept you intended it just in passing.

How is being displeased with an unjust and fairly pointless law "thinking I should get special consideration"? I don't want special consideration, I think all people should have the same chance.

My point is that the AWB is a bad law, and I'm glad it's going away. After the AWB is gone, maybe we can work on repealing other bad gun laws. A certain law of 1986 comes to mind. Someday, maybe NFA. I doubt it will happen, but I'll give it a shot anyways.



My point (which is ancient history now) was that the awb has never effected any assault rifles bought before '94 and those eligible to buy them up to '94 had to of been born before '76( ok,ok I concede '76, but that just means certainly by '72).


My point is that you old people shouldn't get special consideration. :rolleyes:



Well, lucky for you Atek, this Administration HAS been making the right decisions, as you're able to freely get on your computer tonite and post some rediculous post instead of having to be out there patrolling your neighborhood 'til 3am for terrorist activity.


They've made a few good calls, and a lot of bad ones. Bush is not the reason why America is safe, Americans are why America is at the level of safety it is. Americans are the ones physically guarding and on watch. No one person deserves all of the credit nor all of the blame.

Ironically enough, most of those people doing the guarding are my age, not your's. You owe a lot of that safe and comfy feeling to the folks you think shouldn't have the same oppertunity. Something to ponder, eh?

itgoesboom
July 21, 2004, 02:55 AM
So what?

I was just pointing out the hypocricy of your arguments. There you are, in one sentance agreeing with someone that you shouldn't be picky over such a small difference, and the very next you continue your argument. And by the way, while 7.62mm equals .300 inch, 7.62x39 still uses .311 diameter bullets. So by arguing that, you were also showing ignorance.

we'd leave your self-centered butt on the trail somewhere, 'cause you just don't get it.

More hypocrisy by Gene, what a suprise. This whole argument you have been showing that attitude, "well, I got mine, who gives a damn about the rest of you", and you dare call me self-centered??? :confused:

And honestly Gene, if you and I were on a patrol together, I highly doubt that anyone on the patrol would trust you with a firearm, considering how you have proven your turn-coat ways.

And what don't I get? That whenever the .gov tells me to do something I should do it without question? Soley because those who went before me made mistakes in who they voted for? Or because some politician decides that my rights mean less to him than a extra paycheck by a special intrest group?

I guess I don't get it.

I don't get how this fits the American spirit. I wonder what America would be like today had our forefathers had that attitude. I can just see Thomas Jefferson saying "Well, my pappy and grandpappy were happy sending all their money over to King George, so I might as well be happy doing it too. Lord knows there is no reason for me to be happier and more secure and freer than my parents and grandparents."

BTW, What am I doing that my parents and grandparents didn't do? Well, how about I call my congressmen and reps and let them know how I feel about issues that they are going to be dealing with. I vote in every single election. I communicate with other voters, and sign petitions when I feel the need. I help get other non-voters active in politics, and work to change America for the better. When a Senator or Rep or local town council member votes in a way that I disagree with, I don't just sit around and say "well, that was a pretty poor decision, but, well, despite the obvious ineptitude, and the fact that this Rep/Senator/TC member cares not about me or my community or even society at large, but rather himself, I will still support him blindly. Where is my checkbook again?" Rather, I call and let them know that they dissapointed me, and let them know how they can regain my vote AND my money come time for elections.

If they don't respond to my pleas, and the pleas of other concerned voters, that I work to get that person ousted from office.

I honestly hope that you are just pulling our chain here Gene, because, unfortunatly, your logic throughout this argument has been more than just confusing, it is lunacy.

But, hell, what do I know, I am just some dumb kid, who by the way is paying money into social security to help support the generations that came before me, that I will never get back. But, I am self centered.

I.G.B.

Moparmike
July 21, 2004, 03:35 AM
From my occasional glances at this thread, I can safely say that I am glad I put a certain antagonist on my Ignore List. I suggest that some of you do the same.


Sometimes, the trolls just arent worth it.

Art Eatman
July 21, 2004, 10:25 AM
From the ridiculous to the sublime to the bickerfest.

And so, once again, a cheery "Good night!" to the Bickersons.

:D, Art

Art Eatman
July 22, 2004, 08:52 AM
Reopened by request.

Puhleeze: Repetition does not create truth, nor does sincerity of belief...

:), Art

GeneC
July 22, 2004, 05:35 PM
Then, what does?

Publicola
July 22, 2004, 06:12 PM
Truth is not created; it's discovered. :cool:

But trying to get things back on track.... arguments for or against are cool. Mainly I just want to know everyone's reasoning (well, not everyone - just the people who offer an opinion) on why they will or won't vote for Bush if he signs an AWB renewal.

GeneC
July 22, 2004, 06:26 PM
"Truth is not created; it's discovered."

Now, is that a truth or an opinion, 'cause I know it implies the "TRUTH" just exists( which implies a SUPREME BEING that expounds thruth) and it's just a matter of 'discovering it, but is it that simple? Another person said truth was created and that implies that "TRUTH" IS created, but NOT by sincerety of belief (but if it IS created, then by what process?), but you say it isn't , so was what they said an opinion or what? Btw, so, you're not interested in the truth, you said you just want opinions, but what are opinions based on, or does that not matter either?

fix
July 22, 2004, 06:30 PM
:confused:

...again.

itgoesboom
July 22, 2004, 06:42 PM
Gene,

What does that have to do with anything?? :rolleyes:

If you want to argue something, lets argue the topic.

If not, then back under the bridge with you.

I.G.B.

GeneC
July 22, 2004, 07:14 PM
Everything anyone says is supposed to be the truth or based in the truth, but as this thread shows, the 'truth' can be just about anything. Now, two people have given made statements (based on THEIR truth) about truth. One says truth is created, but not by sincerity of belief and one says truth is not created, but discovered. This thread was closed, then re-opened and I believe that we need to determine what truth is , due to the person who has the power to close or open threads said that repitition nor sincerity in belief creates the truth, so I think a fair question is what I asked, "Then, what does?"

IGB, I take offense to your post. I don't WANT to argue, while maybe you do. I want to discuss, but that seems to be a problem , so I think some things need to be clarified. Just 'cause you don't see the connection, doesn't give you the right to break THR rules and make a personal attack.

Publicola
July 22, 2004, 07:31 PM
GeneC,

If you wish to argue the philosophical origins of Truth then I'll be happy to oblige. Just not here. Find a suitable forum for such a discussion & then tell me where it is & I'll jump right in. Perhaps you shoudl create a thread int he General Discussion or the Roundtable forums here?

The topic we're trying to discuss here is whether or not a person will vote for Bush if he signs an AWB renewal. I'm not saying that we cannot deviate fromt hat question one iota, but staying in the ballpark would be preferable.

So if you wouldn't mind please stick to the subject of why you would or wouldn't vote for Bush if he signs an AWB renewal.

itgoesboom
July 22, 2004, 08:01 PM
GeneC

Just 'cause you don't see the connection, doesn't give you the right to break THR rules and make a personal attack.

Once again you show your hypocricy.

Look back a page or two, and you will find this little quote, by you.


we'd leave your self-centered butt on the trail somewhere, 'cause you just don't get it.

So, as far as I can see, you made a personal attack on me (which I as able to disprove, and put back on you ((BTW, you never responded to that either))) prior to me calling you a troll.

So you once again prove that you are a hypocrit. Nice work. :D

I.G.B.

GeneC
July 22, 2004, 08:30 PM
So, I tell you what I KNOW that me and the rest of the guys in my patrol squad would do to a self centered , "personal freedom, personal comfort, it's all about what I want." person, you somehow equate that with you calling me a troll ( and now a hypocrit) as being on equal ground. Well , let me show you the difference between me and you. See, I understand where you're coming from. You took what I said( about leaving you on the side of the trail ) as a personal attack, which it wasn't and I'm gonna guess you've never been in a situtation that I'm refering to (the squad patrol), 'cause if you ever was, for one , you'd know that a squad never gets the luxury of personal freedom, they have to be prepared to sacrifice EVERYTHING, even their life , for the other guys in the squad and as long as every man has that attitude, we won't leave them behind, but an Ahole starts talking or acting like his life or even his 'personal freedom' are more important than the rest of the guys , or the mission, we'd leave them there and split his gear, but then if you ever was in a squad , you probably know that. Btw, thousands of soldiers over there are dealing with this on a daily basis, so you can sit there and call me names. So you see, my 'truth' is different than your 'truth' and others' 'truth' , so it's something we need to get clear,imo.

Moparmike
July 22, 2004, 09:00 PM
This really isnt going anywhere reguarding the AWB and people's votes.

GeneC
July 22, 2004, 09:21 PM
Well ,maybe it does MM, 'cause apparently, 68% are out of touch with the "truth" , which is that there's NO way this President is gonna sign the awb, but he won't even have to deal with it , 'cause Congress ain't even gonna pass it, but the mission this Administration is on is FAR more important than the awb, so the MOST this poll shows is that 68%'d cut off their noses to spite their faces, which seems pretty foolish to me. A rational person who had a grasp of the real situation'd say, "Man, I'd be pissed if he signed , but he's the only one we got that can win this war, so I'm gonna vote for him and then let him know how much he sucks for signing the awb and then once the war is won, we can elect someone else.", or something like that, but 68% is saying , "Oh, he signed the awb , so I'm gonna vote for kerry, who'll cut back on the military, hand America over to the UN, expand the awb to include handguns and invite terrorist leaders to the White House for dinner and try to schmooze them."

Moparmike
July 22, 2004, 09:36 PM
Very few who vote against Bush will vote for Kerry. A 3rd party that represents the views of that voter would be more likely.


And protecting the civil liberties of all US Citizens is the #1 job of all POTUSes. No matter what they actually did. Has it occured to you that the pro-AWB stance of GWB might not be the only reason that someone would not vote for him? It is one of many reasons why I will most likely not vote for him.

But anything but the lesser of two evils is a sin to you, so I will leave you to your soon to be re-locked flame war.

itgoesboom
July 23, 2004, 02:30 AM
Gene,

You crack me up.

First of all, this isn't a squad situation. This is America, where we are all guaranteed certain personal freedoms by a certain famous document. Maybe you have heard of it, its the constitution.

Second of all, if you don't believe in personal freedoms, than what were you willing to fight for? The whole reason why I enlisted in the Army as soon as I turned 18 was because I felt the need to defend my country, and to fight for the personal and collective freedoms that we were guaranteed.

Now, you are right, I was never in a squad situation. I blew out my knees just before basic. Had I been able to walk more than 100ft without support, I would still be in the military, because that is what I had wanted to do with my life. Sometimes things don't go your way, so you adapt.

Back to the topic.

Once again, you made a comment about me being self centered, because I believe that Americans have certain rights. I never insinuated that it was all about me.

However, you did, when you came in the attitude that the AWB never infringed upon anyone who was old enough to purchase ahead of time, and screw those that were too young. You got yours, who cares about us. I want all Americans to have those rights. You don't care who has the rights, as long as you got yours. Who is self centered again?

Gene, that is what makes you a hypocrit, and that is why others called you an elitist, and that is why you are making your way onto many peoples ignore list.

Think about what you are saying.

You have made this all about you, and why the law isn't an infringment because YOU are still able to own assault rifles. That is how you seem to define infringment.

I don't quite get it. I know that when I have kids, I want them to have the same rights I have had, no less. Therefore, one of the main reasons I bought and "evil black rifle" and 50 hi-cap magazines, is so that my kids will always have one, even if they are unable to purchase one due to some stupid law that gets passed.

I can't prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed, but I can do what I can do, and that is pass my rifle down to my son or daughter, so that they can enjoy the same freedom that I did. Hopefully, they will enjoy even more freedom than myself.

I.G.B.

GeneC
July 23, 2004, 06:14 AM
IGB, I'd buy the rhetoric of elistism, but you same folks that call me elitist( 'cause I said that the awb didn't effect those who got AR before the ban, which is just a plain fact)( btw, I NEVER said srew everyone else, I said it was too bad they were born late), are the same folks that say screw illegal aliens, we're here and they're not , screw them, kick 'em out and then pull our troops out of every Country and keep them here, they're saying screw the the world. Those are the TRUE elitists and have the gall to call me a hypocrit. As far as infringement, as the other thread shows, everyone has different views about that too, so what you call infringement, I call sacrifice for the greater good.

1911Tuner
July 23, 2004, 07:25 AM
Fascinating thread. Amazing what lengths..um...never mind.

I read a post on a forum somewhere that stated that truth,
like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.:rolleyes: And
here all this time I didn't have a clue that Slick Willie Klinton
would ever post on a gun forum.:D

And...7.62 Nato, doesn't =.300...It's .308...So is 30-06 and
.300 Winmag, and .300 Weatherby, and the list goes on.
if you wanna get real picky, the bullet diameters can vary from
.3075 to .3082...but that's splittin' hairs. .308 will do, for all practical purposes.

7.62X39 = .310-311, depending on who makes the bullets,
as does .303 Enfield ammo...Hard to tell the players without a program sometimes...I've miked some old British WW2-era bullets at .312
inch...

8mm Mauser is actually 7.92, and can be either .318 or .323...depending...and though the larger one will probably chamber in a rifle designed to take the smaller bullet, firing it would be an interesting experience, guaranteed.

Cheers!

Tuner

Art Eatman
July 23, 2004, 08:35 AM
And this is now irrevocably gone to the nether regions.

If you enjoyed reading about "If the AWB is renewed, how will you vote?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!