"assault weapon" bans are mad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,800
Location
Chairborne HQ, MA :(
Have you ever just taken a step back out of it all, and just looked at how gun control, specifically the banning assault weapons, has no valid argument?

I was thinking, from even a nuetral standpoint and maybe even an almost anti gun point of view, the reasons "assault weapons" are banned in CA, and the "reasons" for an assault weapon ban nationwide are completely childish.

One example is the AR platform. Just as simply as putting a non pistol grip, non folding/telescoping stock on it makes it legal. What purpose does this serve? "But, well, the pistol grip makes people kill" Its rediculous how many people beileive this crap. But what about the north Hollywood shootouts? Regardless is pistol grips were legal or not when the whole thing happened the BGs were going to get them anyways.

I just cant comprehend the ignorance and gullibility(is that a word?) of the general populace.
 
It is a "sensible" ban on A GUN, A BAN that they were able to sell by using lies, false campaigns, and misleading, wrong or made-up stats. ANY GUN ban is a good ban for the antis - it does not have to make sense, THEY WANT THEM ALL!

"Saturday Night Sepcials"? .50BMG? Military style? Hi-cap? Scope Rifles? Air Guns? etc. etc. etc...
 
Gun control is based on emotion, not logic. It's kind of like when your girlfriend or other significant is mad at you because you cheated on her in a dream. :rolleyes:

My favorite gun control fairy tale is the no guns allowed signs. I really don't understand how anyone thinks these are supposed to work as intended. :confused:

Then again, that's just it, they don't 'think'. They tend to believe in it because they want it to work. If you close your eyes, cross your fingers and repeat "I wish, I wish", violence will just go away. "poof!"
 
I was thinking, from even a nuetral standpoint and maybe even an almost anti gun point of view, the reasons "assault weapons" are banned in CA, and the "reasons" for an assault weapon ban nationwide are completely childish.
CA's first AW ban came about when a mad man named Purdy shot up a Stockton school yard full of children. The ban was encouraged by an attorney general named Van de Kamp, who marched into a joint session of the state legislature carrying an AK type rifle and announced that in 20 seconds he could kill every assemblyman and senator present, 120 in number.

Pilgrim
 
Two robbers pull ski masks over their heads, jump out of their getaway car weilding sawed off remington 870's and run towards the front door of a local bank. Suddenly robber number one screeches to a halt, almost tripping in the process and robber number two runs into him.
"What the hell man?"
"Dude, we can't go in there...check it out" as he points to the NO WEAPONS ALLOWED sign.
"oh man, that sucks. Lets just go home and watch I Love Lucy reruns instead then."

They aren't afraid to rob a bank, possibly kill patrons and tellers, shoot it out with the police afterwards, violate NFA laws, or take daily showers...but you can bet they'll obey that idiotic sign just like us good law abiding citizens do. Yessir. :barf:
 
Emotionaly based laws and theories fail in the end. And assault weapon bans are one of them. They use non existent words to describe a rather useful style of rifle to make criminals.

And if you really wanted to get nit picky about the definition of "assault rifle", your would realize the bullpup replacement stocks sold for the Ruger 10/22 qualify as an assault rifle, by wording, in California
-black plastic
-pistol grip
-removable magazine holding more then 10 rounds in front of pistol grip/trigger assembly
 
CA's first AW ban came about when a mad man named Purdy shot up a Stockton school yard full of children. The ban was encouraged by an attorney general named Van de Kamp, who marched into a joint session of the state legislature carrying an AK type rifle and announced that in 20 seconds he could kill every assemblyman and senator present, 120 in number.
Legislation based on emotion. Big time.


I think legislators should have a manditory 90 day "cooling off" period before any law gets voted on.
 
The purpose, intent and rationale behind the Second Amendment is to provide THE PEOPLE with the means to ensure a "free state."

Current thinking by constitutional scholars about "well regulated militia" is that the intent is for THE PEOPLE to "regulate" the "militia." Militia as viewed by the framers would be ANY armed branch of the govt. That includes the police, INS, BATF, FBI, Army, National Guard, etc, etc. It is THE PEOPLE who are afforded the right to "regulate" their government and the government militia through the means and mechanism of having free and uninfringed access to arms.

(The Bill of Rights generally is about LIMITING the power of the government over the lives of THE PEOPLE. Have a look.)

This view derives from English Common Law and is a departure from Napoleanic Code which it displaced. Napoleanic Code holds that "the king" possesses the firearms (also all the land). English Common Law holds that land and the guns are property of THE PEOPLE.

-- and so, the govt. shouldn't have access to any "arms" not available to THE PEOPLE. I'll pass on nuclear weapons, but if police can own high capacity firearms, THE PEOPLE are afforded by the Second Amendment the right to possess the same arms in order to "well regulate" the police and to ensure that the govt. does not become a tyrant.

That's the current thinking amongst Constitutional scholars. It's called the "Insurrectionist View" of the Second Amendment.
 
We in MD just fought an AWB with over 200 pro-gun, myself included vs 10 antis at the hearing. I saw firsthand the logic that the head of the brady campaign and ceasefire Maryland used in their testimony and have outlined the formula they obviously used.

1. refer to an "independent study" conducted in some junk science sort of way. they used "every 48 hours" it claims an AW can be traced to a crime in MD every 48 hours, although out of the 550 murders over a 3 year period only 4 semi-auto rifles of any type were used. They included children as young as 25 in the "children harmed by guns" section. They included crimes where the weapon was indirectly involved, ex. AW's were stolen from a gunshop(if 5 were stolen thats 10 days), traffic violations, people convicted of a felony possesed AW before the trial and so on.

2. Refer to notworthy crimes. The north hollywood shootout, Columbine, or the DC sniper. all during the clinton AWB, some with illegally obtained or modified arms. Afterall, by their very definition criminals break laws such as those against murder, robery, and rape, of course they will obey all firearms regulatons and never buy smuggled or stolen guns. Look at the gun-crime rates in England after just about all firearms were made illegal.

3. Use the expert testimony of people who have no clue what they are even talking about. They used the former Mayor of Indy to spin a yarn how AW are designed to be sprayed from the hip with ultra-powerful cartridges designed to kill people, and can kill hundreds at a time, but also can kill from a mile away. Use dramatic visualizations like a picture of osama bin laden firing a full auto AK in one of his death to america videos, then as if by magic hold up a picture of a semi auto externally similar AK implying they are not only the same arm, but have similar links to terrorism.

4. They have no "sporting or hunting" value, Zumbo to the rescue! (as one can clearly see by its requirement in the 2nd ammendment), hi-power and DCM do not exist. A 308 bolt gun fires a hunting cartridge, but an AR-10, M1A1, G3, and FAL do not. The most popular target and competition rifle of all time the AR-15 is not used for targets or competition.

5. They are never against the 2nd ammendment, hunters, or legal gun owners. They would NEVER ban all guns at once, only 1 at a time. The constitution was written a long time ago, by people who wouldn't have dreamed of a society like ours, and is a living document, so we can change it at will. The 2nd is the only ammendment that has the word "regulated" in it. It protects your rights to own a musket, within the militia, but they meant the National Guard (est.1903 by the militia act.)

6. The media is your friend. You can always count on the media to be fair and unbiased, and show a montage of gun related tragedy with demonstrations of M2's, MP5's and the latest Al-queda video to show exactly what they are attempting to protect us from. This also includes singling out the one guy that is wearing his 1944 german army fatigues, or acid washed cut offs, mullet and novelty T-shirt for a "comment from those opposed to the ban"

7. Avoid questions like "will this stop any crime", "won't this criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens", or especially "criminals do not follow laws" like the plague. These rational and comon-sense ideas are poison. If needed answer "we would like to think so", "hunters do not use these weapons" and "but it will make it harder for them to get guns" in that order. always cap it off with "if we could just save one life", or "how many have to die before we take action". Make sure not to include any SHTF scnarios where law abiding people may use them to defend their families lives against mobs or looters such as the LA riots or katrina aftermath.

8. When all else fails, a pretty young girl crying can do wonders. Why not, the brady's milked this one for all it was worth, Miss MIller whose father, an FBI agent was gunned down by a madman 8 years ago with a black market full auto mac-10. This ban on legally purchased semi autos would apparently have prevented that.

As you can see slow sunday at work, hope sharing my observations helps.
 
Last edited:
Make sure not to include any SHTF scnarios where law abiding people may use them to defend their families lives against mobs or looters such as the LA riots or katrina aftermath.
of course, because being prepared (even if it takes minimal actual effort. ie: leaving a couple mags for the AR that you shoot every weekend loaded) for something that is unlikely to happen means you're completely paranoid. However, spending millions of tax dollars to ban guns that are unlikely to be used in crimes is common sense.
 
They are reactive when they pass legislation limiting what lawful owners can purchase. They need to be proactive in regards to fighting crime. They know that us, law abidding(sp) citizens, who go to licensed dealers, will not go out and by illegal arms.

They cannot win the war on crime, drugs, terror, illiteracy, or any of the other arbitrary campaigns. So they attack the easy targets, we gun owners. Most of us are worried about the legal ramifications of using our legally purchased firearm to defend ourselves. We sure aren't going to go into downtown and pick up a illegal firearm. We have families, careers, livelihoods(sp), and care about what our neighbors and the communtiy think about us. As legal gun owners we will not buy things that will jeoprodize(sp) our way of life. They add all the guns we can't purchase to the list. The list includes all the illegal activities as well as our restricted items. Essentially legal gun owners are being added to their role sheets to increase the numbers and make them look better.

We, gun owners, are easy targets. Fighting crime is difficult. It takes money, time, equipment, personel, and a spine. Signing a law limiting the Rights of legal gun owners is easy in comparison. They are taking the easy way out.
 
I was thinking, from even a nuetral standpoint and maybe even an almost anti gun point of view, the reasons "assault weapons" are banned in CA, and the "reasons" for an assault weapon ban nationwide are completely childish.
CA's first AW ban came about when a mad man named Purdy shot up a Stockton school yard full of children. The ban was encouraged by an attorney general named Van de Kamp, who marched into a joint session of the state legislature carrying an AK type rifle and announced that in 20 seconds he could kill every assemblyman and senator present, 120 in number.

Pilgrim

Imagine if some of those present were carrying concealed weapons... I suppose that might have rained on his parade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top