Good riddance!

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:11 pm

In September the "assult rifle" ban will expire.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
,and these liars are trying to push it again. Even though they promised in '94 that if it didn't make a dent in crime they'd let it expire.
It won't even hit Bush's desk, thank God!

B-

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:33 pm

Good news. The assault weapons ban never prevented anyone from purchasing a look alike copy. No one, unless they had a class 3 license, could ever buy a true assault weapon. What the ban did prevent was any assault looking rifle with certain characteristic from being sold. However if the assault looking firearm was made prior to 1992 (pre-ban) you could still buy it. So what was gained? When I bought my AR-15 the only thing it didn't have and a pre-ban did have, was a bayonet lug, collapsable stock and a flash suppressor. So what did the ban really stop?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:51 pm

Agree. Silly anti-gun measures the same way the anti-drug measures mostly don't work. But nobody wants to be seen as "weak on guns" or "weak on drugs"

Laws should be built on logic, not knee jerk reactions.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:56 pm

Statistics show that weapons used in armed robberies have been increasing in power. A convenience store robber is now more likely to wield a shotgun or rifle than a handgun than ever before.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:33 am

"What the hell is that?"
"This, is a shotgun, Vincent!"
"Shotgun? It's a ★■◆●ing anti-aircraft rifle!"

-Snatch

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:37 pm

Birdseye wrote:Laws should be built on logic, not knee jerk reactions.

Word!
And if the members of the press were worth a crap politicians wouldn't be able to manipulate ignorant voters by playing to their emotions.
The first priority of the press should be to point out the liars and cons no matter where they come from.

No one should be safe to lie to the public through the conduit of the press. Instead the press sells itself out like a 2 dollar whore!

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:47 pm

I have a very Canadian/European attitude towards firearms. Like to got to a range and do some target practice, done some hunting.
I can see the need; and want, for a gun for home and personal protection, even a 12 gauge! But why an assult rifle or heavier piece?
Is it a Constitutional issue? The Constitution says I can have it, so I want it?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:13 pm

Certainly there is no use for an assault weapon for the average person so that leaves collectors, those who recreate by blasting objects to small pieces, militia members and cop killers as the target consumers. The first two groups are harmless and feel they have the right to own any weapon they want, and in the U.S. they are pretty much right. It is the second two groups that worry the law makers because the law makers and enforcers are the targets. In most countries the police and army have the upper hand in situations where they have to face down a segment of the general population (riots, looting, arrests, etc) this is not the case in the U.S. and this is looked on by some as an advantage.

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:11 pm

Advantage or not, Americans enjoy and demand greater freedom then almost anyone in the world, even the right to own and use heavy assault weapons.
I guess that is one reason that civil libertarians come out in force when anyone tries to infringe on Constitutional rights, because who knows what might be next? Freedom of speech, religion etcâ?¦

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 10:59 pm

Yah right we see that all the time those backward countries like Canada and Austrailia and New Zealand. No assault rifles at home no freedom to go to the church of your choice. Now elightened places like Somalia where you can buy an AK 47 at the same store that sell RPG rounds, that's where the freedom is.

I know that's an awfuly black and white rant but give me a break. I need teflon coated body armour piercing bullets or I can't be free?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:16 pm

Arol wrote:Advantage or not, Americans enjoy and demand greater freedom then almost anyone in the world, even the right to own and use heavy assault weapons.
I guess that is one reason that civil libertarians come out in force when anyone tries to infringe on Constitutional rights, because who knows what might be next? Freedom of speech, religion etcâ?¦

The USA is/has been under a lotta pressure from the UN to remove its firearms from its citizen. Scary as hell to try to control a country where half of everyone owns a gun of some kind.

Here in Beaverton, Oregon the police / fire department hold an "event" where you can turn in any firearm if you want. Not sure if they give you a coupon for something of just a pat on back. Either way, I have a feeling they get sold agian. A lot of "confiscated" firearms are resold to generate revenue. :\

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:44 am

Ford Prefect wrote: I know that's an awfuly black and white rant but give me a break. I need teflon coated body armour piercing bullets or I can't be free?

Sorry Ford if you thought that I was advocating assault guns or cop-killers (Teflon coated bullets). I agree with your standpoint wholeheartedly.
But the point I was trying to make, and from what I; a non-American, can garner from following the gun control debate, is that every time an attempt is made to bring some rhyme and reason to the laws regarding the Right To Bear Arms, associations like the NRA and segments from the ACLU (strange bed-fellows it must be said!) start to man the barricades, waving the Constitution.
Also a point must be made for descent law abiding people who say - that as long as the bad guys have these heavy firearms, then they too need them, if only to protect themselves.
All in all, a sticky and apparently unresolvable problem.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:15 am

85% of folks shot in thier homes are done so with thier own guns. The laws concerning "excessive force" for civilians get a little sticky too. The ex-pres of a local NRA group said that if you want something for home defense, an aluminum BAT is much better; legally and physically.

Ford, are you using sarcasim here? I ask cuz I honestly can't tell. I might add that Somalia is tearing tiself appart with civil war and the like. ( i assume this is why you dropped that in there as you did. )

To both of your's previous comment. There are radical groups on both sides wanting EXTREME results. There are people out there that want to see many / most of our freedoms taken away. That is done one thing or step at a time; not all at once. There are groups out there that are working dilgently to take religious freedoms away as well. Where firearms are concerned, My belief is that moderation should be used. Personally, I see no Need to own an assault rifle, but for those who want to and act responsibly, then sure. It's what our founders believed to be important. We won our independance that way. Arol, there are a lot of hoops you have to jump thru to buy a gun .. unless you go to a gun show .... go figure.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 7:22 am

"Certainly there is no use for an assault weapon for the average person so that leaves collectors, those who recreate by blasting objects to small pieces, militia members and cop killers as the target consumers."Ford

Since AR-15's, M1A's and M1 Garands are all military "assault" weapons, in their semi-auto persona, are also used by the general public in service rifle competition, your above statement is typical anti-gun rhetoric. With your stellar logic, we don't need high performance sports cars sold to the public (speed kills), tobacco(lung cancer) or any other of a myriad of items that the general public just doesn't need.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:07 am

Duper wrote:85% of folks shot in thier homes are done so with thier own guns.

And how many of that 85% are suicides? Take out the suicides and try to make your point.

Don't play with the numbers, use them to compare the usefullness of a weapon with the dangers of having one.

How many people actually have there gun taken away and used on them by an intruder (as your statistic is designed to infer) versus the 2 million per year than use a gun to deter a crime usually without firing a single shot?
By the way, the 2 million per year figure is from a survey of Sheriffs offices nationwide and was considered a conservative estimate because law enforcement personel think many such instances go unreported.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:13 pm

Actually we don't need high performance sports cars, we don't need 90% of the SUV's driving around and we don't need tobacco products. The first two are just conspicuous consumtion items that serve no purpose but to kill our children and polute our atmosphere the third, like all drugs is a health problem. All have in common that they are "good for buisness". Money rules above common sense in some places.

Guns used in skill competitions such as target and trap fall into the "people that recreate by blowing things into small pieces" catagory. I see absolutely nothing wrong with such gun uses. Handguns have always been availible in Canada for those uses and they are otherwise heavily restricted. Assault rifles have been excluded since there are lots of high velocity sport rifles around that do the same job.
My brother uses one on gophers (.223?) and belongs to the 500 yard club. ( That means he has killed a gopher at 500 yards.) He also owns 3 hand guns, a black powder rifle, a couple of hunting rifles of various calibers and several shotguns including the ones he uses to win trap championships around the province.
And I don't see anything wrong with that. They are all owned legally. But I don't feel any less free than if I lived in the U.S.

I guess I just don't get this freedom thing.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:42 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Duper wrote:85% of folks shot in thier homes are done so with thier own guns.
And how many of that 85% are suicides? Take out the suicides and try to make your point.

Don't play with the numbers, use them to compare the usefullness of a weapon with the dangers of having one.

Relax Dude! sheesh. This was a number that was given to me. I didn't compile the data myself.

Just as an odd not about how NOT to handle a gun. A guy here a couple years back accidently killed his wife then the LOADED revolver he kept UNDER HIS PILLOW went off when he grabbed it in his sleep. The muzzle was point in her direction (of course). He was not brought up on charges. A bat would not have done this. Or keeping it in a near, but safer loaction. Apparently, he had been having trouble with violent trespassers on his property out in the sticks and the sherriff was unable (or willing, I don't quite remember). But what a tragedy. :\

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 6:51 pm

Three words: Manatory Firearms Training.

It should be one of those rites of passage when people reach a certain age, like 18 or so, with an option to take it well before then if the parents of the individual feel theyre ready or if they need it (like families who hunt together)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:58 pm

Duper wrote:Relax Dude! sheesh. This was a number that was given to me. I didn't compile the data myself.

Sorry, I didn't mean to target you personally. It's just that that is one of the more common of those twisted statistics which, in my opinion, are responsible for the average person having an unfounded bias against gun ownership.

Word on the gun under the pillow thing. I purposely keep my home defense pistol far from the bedroom in a special lock box that by the time I reach it I'll be wide awake. If I don't wake up before a bad guy is already standing over me it's too late anyway...

My bedroom defense weapon will be the metal bar that the clothes hangers hang from in the closet or the top to the toilet tank.
I'll fight my way to the pistol

lol

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:09 pm

A rottweiler makes a good early warning system.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:09 pm

NP man. I understand this is a rather heated topic.

That particular stat was given in the class I took to get licenced to carry a concealed weapon. Learned all sorts of stuff ... much of which I've forgotten ... 6 years later. Stuff like the different kinda actions and such. Basic guns stuff I've known for years.

I'm all for owning guns, just don't be stupid about it. .. that's asking a lot of some folks tho. I did for a time work for Leupold & Stevens. Being in the repair dept, I've read sowm really wild stuff and it unnerves me a bit knowing what kinda people out there own guns. some in excess of 400 ..."each with a Leupold Scope on it...." like gee.. thanks .. um..I wonder if the FBI knows about some of these guys.

About 5 years back, the cops busted a white supremist group with a nasty weapons horde. Gernades, AK-47's all sorts of ammo and explosives and chit. Was just down the street from me.

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:09 pm

woodchip wrote:A rottweiler makes a good early warning system.

Always nice to have a good pal watching your back!

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:33 am

woodchip wrote:A rottweiler makes a good early warning system.

Actually, if you really wanna keep the burglars out, get a pet skunk and get its stink gland removed. Everyone avoids skunks.