Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[DanAK47 1]

Maybe you should be more considerate of other people instead of looking for ways to make yourself invulnerable to them.

[Gordy 0]

You dislike guns because you think they give people more power over you.

Would you speak your mind if anyone had the power to ban you from the forums?

I had a case where I confronted a guy with a hand gun. He lost.

[Pathy 0]

Considerate of other people? Thats rich coming from someone who is willing to endanger peoples lives so he can shoot some tin cans on a weekend off for fun.

[DarkLight 0]

It's funny to see that all of you claim that there isn't more criminality in america yet you all need huge weapons to defend against all those evil ppl in your country.

Strange...

The rest of the world seems to do just fine without them...

[sputnik monroe 102]

He isn't endangering any one. Unless there is some weird phenomenom where some peoples life forces are tied to tine cans.

Guns don't endanger any one. it's certain individuals that use them (read gang bangers and other assorted criminals). Try dealing with them instead of inanimate objects and you might actually come to logical soloution.

[Pathy 0]

Hmm talk about missing the point. By keeping these guns legal so that they can enjoy thier shooting, more people will die due to lax gun regulation Or thats my opinion anyway.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now that is a scary idea you support. You sound like a dictator. God I'm happy your not my overlord.

What the hell are you talking about? Police has more rights than you average US assault weapon Joe will ever have.

Maybe you go around the corner and ask them before you you go on the insult line.

I sound like a dictator ?

Fine, at least I´m an informed dictator who knows about his rights with and without weapons while you seem to be well let´s say...not THAT informed about the things you talk about.

I prefer my bavarian dictator status to your´s...

[Gordy 0]

What I see, is the great need to co-relate the self defence and weapon posession.

When we consider assault rifles as such, we may conclude that great majority is purchased for other reasons than self defence.

If self defence is an aspect here, I would consider to buy a pistol instead, because it is easier to use, cheaper and it stops the bad guy all the same.

Why do you people buy bicycles, cars? Not only for traveling, I guess. Maybe, because some people LIKE riding a bike or a car. Why people buy horses? We have cars, planes, etc. It is not meant as a means of transport, so why?

The same with assault rifles. Do people really NEED to have a reason other than pleasure or personal hobby to obtain sth? If it doesn't harm anyone than why not.

I get to shoot AKs' from time to time and it is a great stress release for me. I don't get a hard on or sudden superioty problem when I am shooting. I am just having a good fun, after which I am relaxed and more friendly towards people. Why can't you people understand that?

[Pathy 0]

Its that, Gordy, that i think is bad. As you said, a majority are brought for pleasure. If its made illegal it ruins your fun. So people like you would rather it was kept legal so you can have your fun, and if more people die or get injured because of it, screw it, as long as your enjoying yourself, it doesnt matter.

[DarkLight 0]

He isn't endangering any one. Unless there is some weird phenomenom where some peoples life forces are tied to tine cans.

     Guns don't endanger any one. it's certain individuals that use them (read gang bangers and other assorted criminals). Try dealing with them instead of inanimate objects and you might actually come to logical soloution.

How do you want to deal with those ppl?

They can just buy their guns in the stores now, you know...

[Gordy 0]

Its that, Gordy, that i think is bad. As you said, a majority are brought for pleasure. If its made illegal it ruins your fun. So people like you would rather it was kept legal so you can have your fun, and if more people die or get injured because of it, screw it, as long as your enjoying yourself, it doesnt matter.

I was exposed to drugs, alcohol, criminal environment and kept clean all the way.

I was mountain biking and other stuff too. Had many injuries and many months on surgery.

All I learnt from this is that I can depend on myself only. I really don't care for other people (my wife is an exception here and she agrees with me). If they want to kill themselves that's fine with me. I cannot control all the people and don't want that. People get killed every day. That was in the past, is now and will be. That is human nature, whether Assault rifles will be banned or not.

It was always a man, who killed regardless of the manner he used and weapons.

I am totaly against any bans and that includes this one.

[Pathy 0]

So for instance, you think nuclear weapons should be allowed to be owned by the public then?

[Gordy 0]

So for instance, you think nuclear weapons should be allowed to be owned by the public then?

Now you exaggerate a bit. Rifle is not a weapon of mass destruction, is it.

[Gordy 0]

it is pretty old and you might have seen it.

Quote[/b] ]Weapons ban purely cosmetic

By Stephen Cathers

Published: Thursday, March 25, 2004

Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

Media Credit: Henry Hsu | Daily Trojan

One of the more important Senate votes of the year took place this month. John Kerry even made it back to the Senate to cast his first vote all year.

The issue: extending the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons by attaching it as an amendment to a bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Kerry and others framed it as a ban on dangerous military-style weapons that only criminals would use. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein called it an issue "as to whether the American people want AK47s, street sweepers and Uzis sold once again." With this kind of rhetoric, it's easy to misunderstand what an assault weapon actually is.

Ban proponents and the media certainly won't give people a straight definition of what they mean by assault weapons. Judging by the AK47 and Uzi references, it's easy to think that machine guns are being banned.

Many news reports fail to even mention that the guns in question are semiautomatic, not automatic. One gets the impression that the NRA is fighting for the right to go hunting with machine guns. Even "The Simpsons" lampooned the ban's opponents, with Lenny (speaking at an NRA meeting) claiming that assault weapons are "manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals."

Given these impressions, it's interesting to find out what's actually banned.

The law classifies assault weapons as "a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount; (iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher." Several types of pistols and shotguns are also banned, along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Notice that automatic weapons are not covered, because they've been strictly regulated by the federal government since 1934. Basically, the assault weapons ban bans guns that look scary. Assault weapons are actually only semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns that are functionally exactly the same as other semiautomatics, which fire one shot per pull of the trigger.

The guns shoot the same type of ammunition with the same power as traditional guns. For instance, the banned TEC 9 uses 9mm ammo, which is also used in many legal pistols, such as the Glock 17. Gun-control advocates have decried manufacturers for "violating the spirit of the law" by making "slight cosmetic changes" to guns in order to escape the ban.

What makes this claim so ironic is that the ban was always based on cosmetic features. These cosmetic features make no functional difference. Indeed, it's hard to understand why some of them were included at all.

Remember the last crime committed with a bayonet? Neither do I.

You might think that a flash suppressor hides where a shot comes from, but it actually only hides the temporarily blinding flash from the person firing the gun. Gun-control advocates claim that features such as folding stocks and pistol grips make it easier to spray bullets indiscriminately, causing greater casualties and damage. Of course, assault weapons fire no faster than any other semiautomatic weapons. Nor does the evidence bear out claims that assault weapons lead to increased damage in crimes. During the Clinton administration, the Justice Department study "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996" found that "the ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds."

Interestingly, ban proponents are quite short on evidence that the ban has fulfilled its ostensible purpose: reducing crime. While Sen. Feinstein trumpets the statistic that assault weapons now represent 1.22 percent of all recovered crime guns (down from 3.57 percent in 1995), she gives no evidence that this has actually led to a decrease in crime. Tom Diaz, of the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center, even said, "If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another ... reducing death and injury." As long as the ban has failed to reduce crime, it seems rather odd to rejoice that the look of the weapons used for crimes has changed.

Perhaps the most powerful claim made by ban proponents is that one of five cops killed between 1998 and 2001 fell victim to an assault weapon. Yet the VPC, which came up with this statistic, inflates these numbers by neglecting to use the definition of assault weapon defined in federal law. Nor does it show that these murders were because of any special properties of assault weapons.

For instance, according to its Web site, one of the murders involved a policeman who was shot multiple times from behind. Another involved a policeman ambushed by a subject who was hiding behind a door. You have to wonder what difference it would have made if the murderers had used a more traditional gun.

So if assault weapons are no more dangerous than other legal guns, why do gun control groups make such a fuss about them? Because, with the collaboration of a media that overwhelmingly favors gun control, they're able to play on public confusion over what assault weapons really are. Indeed, in 1988, the VPC's Josh Sugarmann wrote, "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

One might wonder why citizens should care about merely cosmetic bans that do little to actual gun effectiveness. But the government ought to have a compelling reason before it restricts the freedoms of anyone. The burden of proof ought not be on those defending the constitutional right to bear arms but rather on those seeking to abridge it. Arbitrary bans erode respect for Americans' fundamental rights. As Jacob Sullum wrote in the magazine Reason, "The 'assault weapon' ban sets a dangerous precedent precisely because the justification for it is so weak. It suggests that you don't need a good reason to limit the right to keep and bear arms, and it invites further restrictions down the road. As far as the gun banners are concerned, that is the whole point."

The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who's pro-gun control, admitted that the ban's "only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." The ban erodes respect for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The assault ban, while little more than symbolic, does have political effects. It allows gun control advocates to portray themselves as favoring reasonable restrictions while condemning the NRA and others who fight arbitrary restrictions as "gun nuts" who reject even "moderate, rational" measures.

The VPC study "Assault Weapons & Accessories in America" claimed the ban would "damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby." Moreover, it moves the debate away from the Second Amendment and its protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

If gun-control supporters can create a debate where gun owners must justify the right to own a gun solely by its utility in hunting and target shooting, they'll have won the ideological war. The tyranny of complete gun confiscation won't be far behind.

Ultimately, the bill which contained the renewal of the assault ban was voted down, and the ban will expire this September.

Expect for Kerry and his allies to make an issue of this in the coming election. But politicians such as Kerry, who claim to believe in Second Amendment rights, ought to reject this cynical wedge issue and protect Americans' freedoms.

[DarkLight 0]

Quote[/b] ]Even "The Simpsons" lampooned the ban's opponents, with Lenny (speaking at an NRA meeting) claiming that assault weapons are "manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals."

Muhahahaha gotta love that one

Kinda like in south park where those 2 gun freaks shout

Quote[/b] ] *insert animal name here*(fe BIIIIRD)!!! ITS COMING STRAIGHT FOR US!!!

 and then they shoot the animal to pieces while it was just flying through the air minding its own business...

Hehehe those 2 were only allowed to kill animals if they were being attacked by them, i think

[Acro 0]

Quote[/b] ]Even "The Simpsons" lampooned the ban's opponents, with Lenny (speaking at an NRA meeting) claiming that assault weapons are "manufactured for a reason: to take out today's modern super animals."

Muhahahaha gotta love that one

Good 'ol Simpsons

[sputnik monroe 102]

How many times do I have to tell you all, guns are not the problem.

If guns didn't exist the same problems would exist. Obviously guns are not the friggin problem people. You guys really need to get off the guns are the issue trip. It's like blameing car wrecks on cars rather than the drivers.

Really contemplate that. A car accident what do you blame, the car or the driver? Its that simple really.

[ozanzac 0]

How many times do I have to tell you all, guns are not the problem.

Your absolutly right. Guns are not dangerous, but the mentality that guns are a right and not a responsibility IMO, is.

If you want to change the conservative publics opinion (those that beleive guns are dangerous), that guns aren't dangerous, the NRA, and other pro-gun lobbyists and, are going to have to actively promote and support responsible, safe, and strict gun ownership.

On top of that, They're going to kerb the amount of 'yahoos' that go out to the middle of nowhere, shoot off a million rounds and a couple of mortars, then post it on the net as a demonstration of their responsible ownership with a rock soundtrack playing in the background.

It's the yahoos that make guns look bad, and ultimatly attract the stigma of 'gun nut' even though their activities aren't all that threatening. But, even so, it wouldn't be too comforting knowing you live next door to one.

[Ares1978 0]

What a load of crap.

1. No civillian has the sam rights as police

2. Every civillian that forces someone by using weapons

is a civillian that wil be in jail soon.

3. A civillian is not the one to decide what is against law. That´s police work

As a short reminder you might want to check how many arab looking men were threatened, beaten and some shot on FALSE suspicion after 9/11 in the US. That´s what happens when people think they can run their own private police mob.

Whatever. If there was something you didn't understand, why didn't you just ask, instead of freaking out like that?

I'm not talking about vigilantism, I'm talking about self defence, defence of others and defence of ones own property.

[Ares1978 0]

and same goes for anti-safeties like you too.

You got it all wrong. Pro-gun, pro-safeties. Anti-gun, anti-safeties.

Quote[/b] ]you sure about that? you just said 'considering the multitude of governements' and then say 'it's about individual ownership'.

So what part didn't you understand?

Quote[/b] ]nope. did you fight british?

Yes it has. Did you surrender to British?

Quote[/b] ]again, gun nut's argument #1: ban all things! whiny baby tactic.

"Ban guns" is the whiny baby statement.

Quote[/b] ]if you are not good with metaphorical phrases, here's more blunt one. gun lover's 'rights' may not be applicable to all others.

Everybody has to drink milk because you can't handle whiskey. Got it.

Quote[/b] ]the world is not black and gray

That's exactly what it is.

Quote[/b] ]how about better training instead of more missing bullets?

Even better. But that's no argument against large capacity mags.

Quote[/b] ]didn't you just say something about banning big coats?

I thought that was your next step.

Quote[/b] ]so how many NDs have you had so far?

And ND would be an abbreviation of..?

Quote[/b] ]so how can you show that the kid who was struck with bullet is supposed to be cleaned out of gene pool?

He's the son of an idiot.

Quote[/b] ]there you go. misunderstading the sentence. I said educate kids about lethality(how it can be lethal - a bullet can kill you) and danger(you abuse it, you hurt something/someone), not guns are baaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd.(unless Bryco, Jennings) FYI, I was saying along the lines of safety for kids taught at Boy Scouts and other places, but you just had to misunderstand the argument. How about educating gun nuts what safety is? instead of putting more things in them like 'this is freedom, our right'.

No, you misunderstood. Kids don't understand until something actually happens, just like antis don't understand what a gun is until they learn to use one.

Quote[/b] ]ja, aye am governator. just look at recent movies. Resident Evil, Man on Fire, Collateral. name one movie that opened this summer that tells about 'how guns are evil'

So now using a gun is actually glamourization of guns? Once again, brilliant deduction. (or was it abductive reasoning?)

Didn't the governator kill more people with his bare hands than with guns in his movies? Wasn't that one of his trademarks?

Quote[/b] ]then how the heck did the 'anti-gun' laws are made? 100 miliion gun owners, and how many of them are voting?

Doesn't quite fit with the idea of democracy, does it?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If there was something you didn't understand, why didn't you just ask, instead of freaking out like that?

I did understand. There´s nothing to ask for that I don´t already know.

Freakin out ?

If you assume this freaking out you have never seen one freakin out.

I was just pointing out that police and civillian are two complete different set of rights. Nothing else.

Yeah yeah...defense....hurrah !

As like you had to defend your property with your dead cold hands every day and every morning. And sure....a gun is always the best to do that. Gung - Ho !

[Ares1978 0]

Quote[/b] ]If there was something you didn't understand, why didn't you just ask, instead of freaking out like that?

I did understand. There´s nothing to ask for that I don´t already know.

Freakin out ?

If you assume this freaking out you have never seen one freakin out.

I was just pointing out that police and civillian are two complete different set of rights. Nothing else.

Yeah yeah...defense....hurrah !

As like you had to defend your property with your dead cold hands every day and every morning. And sure....a gun is always the best to do that. Gung - Ho !

You're freaking out again. Please stop.

Look, you obviously didn't understand that I wasn't talking about vigilantism. Otherwise you wouldn't have started ranting about things like this:

"1. No civillian has the sam rights as police

2. Every civillian that forces someone by using weapons

is a civillian that wil be in jail soon.

3. A civillian is not the one to decide what is against law. That´s police work

As a short reminder you might want to check how many arab looking men were threatened, beaten and some shot on FALSE suspicion after 9/11 in the US. That´s what happens when people think they can run their own private police mob."

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe I wasn´t talking to you ?

[Ares1978 0]

Maybe I wasn´t talking to you ?  

If you are quoting me, you are talking to me. But I guess you have a point. You were more like talking at me.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and same goes for anti-safeties like you too.

You got it all wrong. Pro-gun, pro-safeties. Anti-gun, anti-safeties.

so pro gun is pro safety? yeah sure. and anti-gun is anti-safety? yeah sure.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]you sure about that? you just said 'considering the multitude of governements' and then say 'it's about individual ownership'.

So what part didn't you understand?

that's the question i'm asking you.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]nope. did you fight british?

Yes it has. Did you surrender to British?

uhm....that's not even a correct response. so you must be the oldest living person....

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]again, gun nut's argument #1: ban all things! whiny baby tactic.

"Ban guns" is the whiny baby statement.

how about gun nut argument #1. do you agree with me?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]if you are not good with metaphorical phrases, here's more blunt one. gun lover's 'rights' may not be applicable to all others.

Everybody has to drink milk because you can't handle whiskey. Got it.

milk is better than whiskey. perhaps the milk is safety, whiskey is a gun.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]the world is not black and gray

That's exactly what it is.

Quote[/b] ]

and yet you argue that 2nd amendment is the absolute right.

how about better training instead of more missing bullets?

Even better. But that's no argument against large capacity mags.

than what's the point of having larger capacity magazines?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]didn't you just say something about banning big coats?

I thought that was your next step.

no it was your logical fallacy to say that criminals can hide guns, but you also say that it is hard to conceal a weapon.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]so how many NDs have you had so far?

And ND would be an abbreviation of..?

shows that you are not a shooter to begin with.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]so how can you show that the kid who was struck with bullet is supposed to be cleaned out of gene pool?

He's the son of an idiot.

so son of Nixon has to be killed, since he is a failure, right?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]there you go. misunderstading the sentence. I said educate kids about lethality(how it can be lethal - a bullet can kill you) and danger(you abuse it, you hurt something/someone), not guns are baaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddd.(unless Bryco, Jennings) FYI, I was saying along the lines of safety for kids taught at Boy Scouts and other places, but you just had to misunderstand the argument. How about educating gun nuts what safety is? instead of putting more things in them like 'this is freedom, our right'.

No, you misunderstood. Kids don't understand until something actually happens, just like antis don't understand what a gun is until they learn to use one.

they know what guns are. they know what it does. i've known that since i was little and thank god my parents taught me not to take it lightly.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]ja, aye am governator. just look at recent movies. Resident Evil, Man on Fire, Collateral. name one movie that opened this summer that tells about 'how guns are evil'

So now using a gun is actually glamourization of guns? Once again, brilliant deduction. (or was it abductive reasoning?)

Didn't the governator kill more people with his bare hands than with guns in his movies? Wasn't that one of his trademarks?

nope, more with guns.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]then how the heck did the 'anti-gun' laws are made? 100 miliion gun owners, and how many of them are voting?

Doesn't quite fit with the idea of democracy, does it?

doesn't quite fit the idea of democracy when there are more people who are willing to vote for a ban than not, doesn't it?