Questions about gun laws expiring.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loud Dogg

member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
27
Location
portland oregon
I’ve just read a post about how the gun ban on "assault rifles" and “machine pistols†(or something like that) is about to expire.

Is that not bad?

What’s the point of an Uzi in the first place?

There should be limitations on gun rights. If you enjoy firing you assault weapon, think about how much damage it can do if it’s in the wrong hands. Right?
 
Do a search here for AWB and you'll have all the reading on the pros and cons of the subject you could possibly want. From the nature of your thread and post it appears to be a bait. That's why I suggested you search your topic first before poking it with the proverbial "stick".

P.S. They are ALL assault weapons, because "assault" is a verb, not an adjective. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
 
You are falling into the anti-gun trap.

The ban that is about to expire is one that bans "semi-automatic assault weapons." These are NOT machineguns. They are guns that LOOK like machineguns. They entire ban is hype. It bans guns because of cosmetic features.

The ban has had no effect on crime. The guns banned by this law are NOT the guns gang bangers and cop killers use.

Here's some reading material:
http://saysuncle.com/archives/000923.html
 
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/y/YHBT.html

YHBT // [Usenet: very common] Abbreviation: You Have Been Trolled (see troll, sense 1). Especially used in "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", which is widely understood to expand to "You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day". You are quite likely to see this if you respond incautiously to a flame-provoking post that was obviously floated as sucker bait.
Click to expand...
 
I’ve just read a post about how the gun ban on "assault rifles" and “machine pistols†(or something like that) is about to expire.

Is that not bad?

What’s the point of an Uzi in the first place?

There should be limitations on gun rights. If you enjoy firing you assault weapon, think about how much damage it can do if it’s in the wrong hands. Right?
Click to expand...

The gun ban that is about to expire on Sept 2004 is the (quote)Assault Weapon Ban(end_quote). I say (quote) because their definition of Assault Weapon are semi-automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features such as pistol grips, flash hiders and bayonet lugs.

An Uzi that was sold before the AWBan is also a semi-automatic firearm, one pull on the trigger is one bullet down the barrel, until you are empty, same as various other semi-automatic pistols currently being sold.

The AWBan also banned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, the thinking here is that you shoot more than 10 bullets (and kill more than 10 people) before you have to reload. As if killing people were not already against the law...:scrutiny:


I think that there should be no limitation on gun rights. That what 'shall not be infringed' means. Any limitation is an infringement. If you want to limit gun rights, then go through the motions of repealing the 2nd Amendment, instead of going through it under the radar, so to speak. (If you think its good to be able to sneak laws in, don't be surprised when they sneak in a law to curtail your other civil rights. :what: )

I enjoy shooting firearms, I do so on a regular basis, do so safely, and have not killed any people with it. I also think about the damage an assault weapon can do if its in the wrong hands. Thats why I urge gun safety and marksmanship, and education on the proper use of it. I also urge strong penalties for criminals.

Banning something, depriving me, the law-abiding safe gun owner of something, because someone else might misuse it, is punishing me, ME.


If you have two kids, one is well-behaved, and the other one is from an evil alternate universe, and you give both paper, and crayons. The good one draws a beautiful picture of a sunset on paper, while the other writes profanity on the drywall, DO YOU PUNISH THE GOOD KID BY TAKING HIS CRAYON AWAY BECAUSE THE BAD KID WROTE ON THE WALL???
 
This is my troll slaying implement.

Evil features:
1) Threaded barrel
2) Folding stock
3) 32 Round magazine
4) Detachable Magazine
5) Pistol Grip
6) 5" Barrel on a rifle
7) Select-fire

And it's completely legal cause the AWB does not effect real machineguns.
My personal message to gunbanners -> :neener: Get bent feinstein.

lebigmac4.jpg
 
Beautiful Boofus hehehehe. Don't even need to shoot it....it'll give any liberal a heart attack when they realize you can legally own it. :neener:
 
Loud Dogg,

Some background info first. Until 1934, there were virtually NO gun laws in the United States. The few laws that existed then had the objective of keeping guns out of the hands of former slaves.

Even until 1968, you could order rifles through the mail, unless they were machine guns, then you simply had to pay a $200 tax to the gov't. (I'm oversimplifying the edicts, but that is a summary).

It is only in the last 35 years that gun control laws have existed on a widespread level. Somehow this country made it nearly 200 years without gun control.

The "assault weapons ban" was passed in 1994. The intent of the legislators were to ban all semiautomatic rifles, but the language was watered down since instead of banning the rifles, it merely banned semiautomatic rifles with certain "features" (see previous posts). The bill was further diliuted so that it would expire in 10 years. Even then, it only passed by one vote in the House, and only as a result of major arm twisting by the then-democratic majority. But the gun-grabbers got what they wanted: a step towards a total ban on ALL guns.

As to "the point of having an Uzi", what is the point of having a house larger than 800 square feet, or the point of being "allowed" to keep books when there is a library in town? In a Free country, people have a Right to own whatever they please, so long as they do not harm others.

If you enjoy firing you assault weapon, think about how much damage it can do if it’s in the wrong hands. Right?

So what? Think about the damage your car could do in the "wrong hands". Or some of the tools in your garage.

Furthermore, the 20th century has showed us that there are no "worse hands" to have guns, than governments. Wars waged by governments killed millions last century, and even more people were massacred by their own government. A well-armed populace reduces the chances of such happening (if the Jews all had Uzis, do you think that 6 million of them would have been killed by Hitler?)

In a Free society, laws are not based on "what could happen", but rather individual actions. Yes, you could kill 3000 people with a box cutter, so does that mean anyone who has a box cutter is a murderer? The same applies to guns.

It is very dangerous to have laws punishing people for what they own, or what they think, as opposed to what they do.
 
Putting aside the details of the ban for the moment, here's my question:

Why on EARTH would you ASSUME that a law is a good law when you have NO IDEA what it says? Doesn't it make sense, at the bare minimum, to find out what the law DOES before you chastise people for wanting it to go away? For all the effort you put into finding out what the Assault Weapons Ban does, for all you know, it might have been a shell bill that actually banned cameras.

You are enjoying the internet. Imagine what people with bad intentions are doing with the internet RIGHT NOW. Somewhere on the same internet, a pedophile is grooming a victim right now. Another is sending someone a packet of 10,000 images of children and babies in sexual situations--real photos taken of real children. A terrorist is plotting his next attack. Another is posting photos of a hostage--or a beheading.

Why don't we shut down the internet? Because you can't destroy the technology and the knowledge that created it. You can't deny anything to bad people by trying to deny it to all people.







The "Assault Weapons Ban" deserves to go away for these reasons:
  • It is counter to our Constitution and thus void anyway. The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." If you think that's wrong and that "some" infringements should be accepted, then you should be campaigning to have the law of the land amended, not ignored and trampled.
  • The weapons it "bans" are not "assault weapons" by any genuine definition.
  • The weapons it bans are useful to a citizen militia, which was the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. Thus it doesn't just violate the letter of the Constitution, but the spirit as well.
  • How do I know that "assault weapons" are Constitutionally protected? I'm not guessing. The Supreme Court said so in Miller v. U.S. back in 1937. Their rationale was that certain arms could be banned, but ONLY because there had been no evidence presented that they were of a type generally used by soldiers (thus militia weapons.) Since the AR-15, AK-47, and yes, the Uzi are neutered versions of weapons used by soldiers, they are supposed to be protected. The Supreme Court has never contradicted Miller and in fact has refused to hear another case for the last 70 years or so.
  • Even if you believe heartily in the cause of gun control, the AWB is a fraud. IT DOES NOT BAN ANY GUN. None. Not one. It only bans inconsequential features and the new production of normal-capacity magazines, thus driving the cost up. There's not a single gun, no matter what Sarah Brady implies in press releases, that you'll be able to get on September 14 that you can't get right now at the same store. The difference between a "banned gun" and a "legal gun" is this:
postbanAR15A2standard.jpg

vs this:
prebanAR15A2.jpg


I would be willing to bet you can't tell me what the difference between the two is. By the way, one of those is an "assault weapon" which is only legal because it was built before the "ban" took effect, while the other is a "post-ban" rifle which is not considered an "assault weapon" under the ban. I'll give you a hint--their function is entirely identical, as are ALL the internal parts, the caliber, etc. So can you tell us which is banned and which is not?
 
Why do you guys even bother? If I went over to the Brady site to do some rebel rousing, do you think anything they try to tell me might convert me to become a flaming liberal?

This individual sounds like a kid anyway. At least his communication skills lead me to believe as such.
 
In the wrong hands, an AR-15 or an AK is actually a pretty bad implement of mass destruction, particularly if they've bought into the hip-shooting BS that's fed to unthinking minds.

You can't establish a proper sight picture or index the weapon properly to the target. Thirty or forty rounds of unaimed fire may look and sound impressive, but the hit rate is pretty low. It's the technique of uneducated "shooters" who learn everything through tv and the movies.

Army and Marine soldiers are taught to shoulder their weapon, acquire the target in the sights, and use *aimed* fire to eliminate threats.

If you watch the Iraqi guerillas on video - they love to pop out from behind a corner and blast from the hip. What you don't see is the American infantryman shouldering his rifle, squinting into his Aimpoint or ACOG, and squeezing off a single shot.

BANG! Thud.

And another jihadi earns his 72 virgins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Major rant -- may get me booted
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
keithernTN
K
S
  • Locked
Our new adversary: the Religious Right
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
O
  • Locked
Duke University's Chronicle, comments on the death of the AWB
Replies
10
Views
648
Aguila Blanca
A
D
  • Locked
CA: Your Walther P22 is now an Assault Weapon
2 3
Replies
68
Views
14K
franconialocal
franconialocal
2
  • Locked
Hollywood vs. "Stupid" America
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
jimpeel
J
Back
Top