Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Ares1978 0]

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

So what rights have you earned?

Quote[/b] ]how about gun nut argument #1. do you agree with me?

What do you think?

Quote[/b] ]milk is better than whiskey. perhaps the milk is safety, whiskey is a gun.

So don't drink whiskey, if you can't handle it. If you are afraid of guns, don't own one. Your problems shouldn't affect the rest of us.

Quote[/b] ]and yet you argue that 2nd amendment is the absolute right.

Black and grey, not grey and not black & white.

Quote[/b] ]than what's the point of having larger capacity magazines?

Why should there be a point? It's reason enough that it's possible.

Quote[/b] ]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.

How exactly is that a logical fallacy? It's a fact. Oh, I see. You didn't understand the difference between hard and impossible.

Quote[/b] ]shows that you are not a shooter to begin with.

Well excuse me for not knowing every abbreviation used in every country. Answer my question, and I'll tell you how many "ND's".

Quote[/b] ]so son of Nixon has to be killed, since he is a failure, right?

And who would that be? Bush? Fine by me.

Quote[/b] ]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.

They obviously don't. I'm not trying to offend you or your parents, but I think they could have taken a more reasonable, neutral, approach, judging by the result.

Quote[/b] ]nope, more with guns.

I bet you counted his kills. Personally, I'm not a fan of him nor the party he represents.

Quote[/b] ]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?

Sure there are. A decision that shouldn't be made based on phobias, by the way.

edit:

Negligent Discharge, right? I'm glad to say it's a nice, round 0.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258

Quote[/b] ]

A False Ad About Assault Weapons

A new Moveon PAC ad implies machine-guns are becoming legal, which isn't true. And it blames Bush, even though Bush said he would have extended the ban on assault weapons.

September 14, 2004

Modified: September 14, 2004

eMail to a friend  Printer Friendly Version

Summary

This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire "up to 300 rounds per minute." That's false.

It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so.

The ad also claims that Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire," which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn't present Bush with a bill to sign.

Analysis

This ad shows an AK47 assault rifle on screen. The announcer says "it can fire up to 300 rounds per minute" and "in the hands of terrorists, it could kill hundreds." A rapid burst of machine-gun fire is heard. The announcer says Kerry "would keep them illegal" while Bush "will let the assault weapon ban expire."

Each of those statements is literally true, standing alone. But taken together they suggest Bush is legalizing machine guns, and constitute false political advertising.

Machine Guns Still Illegal

Contrary to what the ad clearly implies, any weapon that can fire 300 rounds per minute remains illegal for civilians to own without specific clearance by the US Department of Justice.

In fact, machine guns have been tightly regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, in the wake of the gangster era. Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax , and weeks of paperwork. That was true before the assault-weapon ban was enacted in 1994, and it remains true with the expiration of the ban at midnight Sept. 13, 2004.

That's made clear in a question-and-answer document posted Sept. 13 on the website of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), explaining the effect of the expiration of the assault-weapon ban:

ATF: All provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) relating to registration and transfer of machineguns . . . still apply.

The fully automatic version of the AK47 -- pictured and described in the ad -- remains just as illegal as it was before the ban expired.

In fact, the assault-weapon ban only applied to 19 specific semiautomatic firearms (which require a separate trigger pull for each shot) as well as semiautomatic rifles that incorporate at least two military-style features from a list that included folding stocks, bayonet mounts, or flash suppressors. The full definition of previously banned weapons is contained in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations,here .

The impression created by the ad is correct only in one respect -- the appearance of the weapon shown. It is pictured with a large-capacity magazine, which could hold perhaps 30 rounds of ammunition. Before the ban expired, only magazines holding 10 rounds were allowed. It is true that someone using a newly legal, high-capacity clip could fire more shots without reloading than before the ban. But they still couldn't fire 300 rounds per minute, or anything close to that.

Whose Fault?

The ad says "John Kerry, a sportsman and a hunter, would keep them (assault weapons) illegal." But Bush also expressed support. He said during the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault-weapon ban. And in May, 2003 the White House Press Secretary at the time, Ari Fleischer, said Bush still considered extending the ban to be "a reasonable step."

Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?

Fleischer (May 8, 2003): Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban. . . . Often the President will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue he does not. . . .  In this instance, you know what he said, as you pointed out, in 2000. He continues to believe it today.

Kerry is currently faulting Bush for not pushing Congress to extend the ban. So are gun-control advocates such as Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady. She said on CBS's "The Early Show" that letting the ban lapse was "purely political."

Sarah Brady: The real onus fell on President George W. Bush. . . . He has exerted absolutely no leadership. We have a president and leadership in the House and Senate that simply do not want to face this.

That's an opinion, of course. And indeed, we could find no instance of Bush himself even mentioning the assault weapons ban in his official appearances as President. Furthermore, when pressed repeatedly by a reporter Sept. 13, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan would not cite the name of a single member of Congress that Bush had called to ask that the ban be extended.

Q Isn't it kind of disingenuous for the President to say that I'm for the assault weapons ban, but then not spend a nickel of his political capital to fight for it?

McClellan: I disagree. His position has always been well-known, and it's been clear going back to his first campaign for President.

Q That he was for the ban?

McClellan: For a reauthorization of the current ban.

Q . . . so if he's for the ban, and he doesn't do a thing --

McClellan: Well, keep in mind that the Congress is the one that sets the legislative timetable, and Congress has made clear that it's not going to be coming up. . .

Q He was happy to let the authorization lapse, wasn't he?

McClellan: Oh, you know that's a ridiculous assertion.

Q Name one thing, one step that the President took to have the assault weapons ban reauthorized?

McClellan: That's why I said, Ron, his position has been very well-known. We've restated that position. It remains unchanged. But he does not set the legislative timetable. Members of Congress set the legislative timetable. And Congress has stated -- congressional leaders have stated that it's not going to come up for a vote.

Q Is there one congressman, one congressional leader who he has called in Congress, and said, please put it on the timetable? . . .

McClellan: Let's debate the real issue here . . .

Q Name one person who he called to lobby on behalf of legislation.

McClellan: -- his position has been made well-known.

Q So there's nothing more he could have done to get the ban extended?

McClellan: Well, I think members of Congress have stated -- congressional leaders have stated that it's not going to be coming up for a vote. . . .

Q Can you name one person who he's called on the Hill on behalf of this legislation?

McClellan: Look, members of Congress know his position very well, Ron.

Q So has he made a call to any of them?

McClellan: His position is very well-known, Ron, and members have known his position. And it's been discussed with members, too.

But it is also a fact that Bush was publicly committed to sign an extension if Congress passed it, and it was Congress that failed to do so.

Sources

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban,  QUESTIONS & ANSWERS," 13 Sep 2004.

US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Volume 2:   27CFR478.11.

US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Volume 2:  PART 479--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "ATF F 5320.4 (Form 4) - Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm."

The White House, "Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer," 8 May 2004.

Mary Dalrymple, "Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban, promotes crime-fighting program," The Associated Press 13 Sep 2004.

The White House, "Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan  Aboard Air Force One," 13 Sep 2004.

So it goes,

Billybob2002

[RooK 0]

This has mostly evolved from an AWB issue into gun ownership as a whole. My original post was just to show that the banned firearms/features were no more dangerous (in crime or lethality) than firearms not banned. No point in arguing about gun ownership itself because you won't sway people based on their established mindsets, if strong enough. Especially ones who have never owned a firearm, most have never fired one.

Anyway, for those arguing about self-defense and the police, it might be a different situation in your country, but here in the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not responsible for a citizen's personal saftey. If you call 911 and ask for help, they can legally tell you to f*** off. Many people that do call get an answer that 'all units are busy,' which is just a politically correct version of the former. If you die because they didn't have enough units on patrol, your family can do nothing (in legal terms) because they cannot be held responsible. Police don't stop crime, they cleanup the mess afterwards, which includes carrying you off to the morgue if they couldn't make it on time. Starting to have even a little more insight into why firearms are needed for self-defense?

[toadlife 3]

40 reasons to support gun control

[ralphwiggum 6]

40 reasons to support gun control

man..i really gotta dig up thred where i couter argued that line by line.

This has mostly evolved from an AWB issue into gun ownership as a whole. My original post was just to show that the banned firearms/features were no more dangerous (in crime or lethality) than firearms not banned. No point in arguing about gun ownership itself because you won't sway people based on their established mindsets, if strong enough. Especially ones who have never owned a firearm, most have never fired one.

for some reason, both sides get caught up. gun lovers tend to view this as an attack on 'god given rights' while the other side view this as the 5th horesman of apocalpyse.

[ralphwiggum 6]

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

So what rights have you earned?

Quote[/b] ]how about gun nut argument #1. do you agree with me?

What do you think?

Quote[/b] ]milk is better than whiskey. perhaps the milk is safety, whiskey is a gun.

So don't drink whiskey, if you can't handle it. If you are afraid of guns, don't own one. Your problems shouldn't affect the rest of us.

Quote[/b] ]and yet you argue that 2nd amendment is the absolute right.

Black and grey, not grey and not black & white.

Quote[/b] ]than what's the point of having larger capacity magazines?

Why should there be a point? It's reason enough that it's possible.

Quote[/b] ]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.

How exactly is that a logical fallacy? It's a fact. Oh, I see. You didn't understand the difference between hard and impossible.

Quote[/b] ]shows that you are not a shooter to begin with.

Well excuse me for not knowing every abbreviation used in every country. Answer my question, and I'll tell you how many "ND's".

Quote[/b] ]so son of Nixon has to be killed, since he is a failure, right?

And who would that be? Bush? Fine by me.

Quote[/b] ]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.

They obviously don't. I'm not trying to offend you or your parents, but I think they could have taken a more reasonable, neutral, approach, judging by the result.

Quote[/b] ]nope, more with guns.

I bet you counted his kills. Personally, I'm not a fan of him nor the party he represents.

Quote[/b] ]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?

Sure there are. A decision that shouldn't be made based on phobias, by the way.

edit:

Negligent Discharge, right? I'm glad to say it's a nice, round 0.

seems like you are now resorting to avoiding/dodging manouver instead of debating, and with that i see no point of having a discussion. But I'll remember the great comments by you, especially ones that related to democracy, and not knowing abbreviation ND, which you would have known if you were genuinely interested in safety, and the logic of 'one's son is same as the father'.

[BoweryBaker 0]

Ya'll should read this: English law of self defence.

[RooK 0]

That doesn't apply here.

Kentucky State Constitution

Quote[/b] ]Section 1. Rights of life, liberty, worship, pursuit of safety and happiness, free speech, acquiring and protecting property, peaceable assembly, redress of grieveances, bearing arms. - All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

http://fact.trib.com/1st.kentconst.html

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]not knowing abbreviation ND

Semantics. That doesn't mean he didn't know the underlying concept.

That's like me calling a sniper a poor shot because he doesn't know what BRASS stands for.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]not knowing abbreviation ND

Semantics. That doesn't mean he didn't know the underlying concept.

That's like me calling a sniper a poor shot because he doesn't know what BRASS stands for.

negligent discharge is fundamental problem arising from not following the basic safety rule. the acronym was used in context of safety and should not have been a surprise question.

[GoOB 0]

I only have one final input to this debate, since this seems to have strayed from assault weapons to regular firearms.

Owning a gun does not protect you from crime, owning a gun does not make you safe. Rather the opposite.

[DarkLight 0]

I only have one final input to this debate, since this seems to have strayed from assault weapons to regular firearms.

Owning a gun does not protect you from crime, owning a gun does not make you safe. Rather the opposite.

It gives a fake feeling of safety, that's why a lot of ppl believe that you are safe with it.

[RooK 0]

Owning a firearm does stop crime. I had a cousin who used one to save her life. If you can ever take the time to pick up an NRA magazine, they have a section specifically called Armed Citizen in which they have small peices where civilians defended themselves with firearms

Besides, if possession of a firearm didn't stop crime, why do police have them and use them? They already have enough gear they have to carry around, if the handgun was useless they could not issue them. It would also save a lot money.

[DanAK47 1]

Ralph, that totally went over your head.

[GoOB 0]

Owning a firearm does stop crime. I had a cousin who used one to save her life. If you can ever take the time to pick up an NRA magazine, they have a section specifically called Armed Citizen in which they have small peices where civilians defended themselves with firearms

Besides, if possession of a firearm didn't stop crime, why do police have them and use them? They already have enough gear they have to carry around, if the handgun was useless they could not issue them. It would also save a lot money.

That's an idiotic statement, a police officer is meant to stop violent crimes, and crimes involving guns. A citizen is supposed to rely on the police, not on their own guns.

And have you also read about the people that use guns to their advantage to get into night clubs (sometimes ending in shootouts)? Most of those people aren't criminals, just people who think owning guns equals respect and safety.

You are just as likely, if not more likely to be killed during a stick-up robbery if you are armed. I was robbed under the threat of a knife once in downtown Stockholm, and had I tried to resist with a gun or a knife of my own I'd be in the ground by now. To me, losing my cellphone and my MP3 player is a good price to pay for my life.

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]

For Immediate Release Contact: Sam Paredes

September 14, 2004 (916) 967-4970

Schwarzenegger proves to be a “Girlie Man†on guns!

(Sacramento) While the U.S. Congress moves to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens by allowing the Clinton/Feinstein Gun Ban to sunset, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stomps on California citizen's rights by banning .50 BMG single shot bolt action rifles. These are firearms that have never been used in the commission of a crime in the state in over 81 years of existence.

This is the first time in California history that a single shot bolt action rifle of any kind is banned in the State. Schwarzenegger makes history again by being the first California Governor to ban a firearm that has never been used in a crime. Even former Governor Gray Davis doesn't have that distinction.

The Governor crushed the rights of law-abiding gun owners by signing the .50 BMG ban (AB 50 Koretz-D) while at the same time he considers whether to protect his Hollywood cronies by signing SB 231. Sources say SB 231 was required by Federal firearms officials or Hollywood would have had to shut down any television and movie production having to do with a firearm. Firearms used in television and movie productions are real firearms even when modified to shoot blanks. Production companies just handed the firearms over to the actors in violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding lending and transferring without background checks – even though some of the actors are ineligible to touch a firearm because of prior criminal convictions. SB 231 would create a system that will allow the studios to comply with the law but does nothing about years of previous felony violations.

On screen, the Governor may portray a tough action hero but off screen he has proven to be a “Girlie Man†with regards to the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment in particular.

Welcome to occupied Kalifornia…

Contact Governor with your outrage!

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Misfires

John Kerry aims all over the map on guns.

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Kerry's flip-flopping on the Iraq war is well known. His statements on hotly contested social issues have also been all over the place. (Kerry says that that life starts at conception, but he votes consistently in favor of abortion.) On guns, the senator's position is even more confusing.

Last Tuesday Kerry's campaign claimed: "John Kerry's opponents are worried because he's the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter.... The Republican Party and George Bush's campaign will stop at nothing to mislead voters about John Kerry's record." Campaigning in St. Louis last Thursday, Kerry again claimed, "I support the Second Amendment. I've been a hunter all my life." Earlier this year, Kerry said, "I believe that the Constitution, our laws and our customs protect law-abiding American citizens' right to own firearms." If you believe some of the responses from voters, Kerry's statements and his constant photo-ops with guns have convinced many that he supports gun rights.

Yet, according to those on both sides of the gun debate — the Brady Campaign and the NRA — Kerry has voted for every gun-control bill before the Senate over the last 18 years. He has consistently voted for restrictions, from banning semi-automatic guns to mandating storage rules. He refused to rein in the lawsuits against gun-makers.

Kerry has also voted to ban hunting on federal land and to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the rounds most commonly used by hunters (positions that please the animal-rights groups, with whom he also has a perfect voting record of support).

Kerry has hesitated little in claiming to be everyone's friend. This year Kerry told outdoor writers about his commitment to hunters and that "I do a better job of fighting for the rights of sportsmen than George Bush does." Addressing the Humane Society, he bragged that "I've had my name on every piece of animal-rights legislation ever passed by Congress!"

Of course, Kerry's claims about being "the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter" are nonsense. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton all have hunted. Clinton went hunting frequently while he was governor and John Kennedy hunted deer at least once. Johnson was famous for bringing politicians to his ranch and demanding that they go hunting as a test of their manhood. Carter was a genuinely avid hunter and tracked everything from possum to deer to duck; he starting hunting with his dad as a young child. Both Kennedy and Johnson were NRA members.

Possibly the Kerry campaign meant that he was the only Democratic candidate this year who supported the Second Amendment. But what was most striking this year was that all the Democratic presidential candidates had extremely uniform views on guns. In essentially the same language, all said they supported the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to own guns, subject to "reasonable restrictions."

It is not surprising that last year Democratic pollster Mark Penn produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats] can run on and win on." It hasn't been lost on Kerry and other Democrats that Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists believe that Al Gore's strong stand for gun control probably cost him states such as Tennessee — and thus the 2000 presidential election.

But even if this sudden conversion by Democrats was actually heartfelt, where is the line drawn on reasonable restrictions? What does it mean to the Democrats that the Second Amendment is an individual right? During January this year, the policy gurus for the five leading Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at an American Enterprise Institute breakfast in Washington. Given their candidates' stated support for the right of individuals to own guns, I asked where the candidates stood on, say, the bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia?

Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. Lieberman "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." He challenged the other Democrats to join him. But Kerry's representative, as well as those for Dean, Edwards, and Clark, all refused to respond.

Polling may have convinced Kerry to change his rhetoric, but his voting record and his refusal to "oppose an outright ban on handguns" show his constant endorsements of the Second Amendment mean little.

— John R. Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's an idiotic statement, a police officer is meant to stop violent crimes, and crimes involving guns. A citizen is supposed to rely on the police, not on their own guns.

A police officer can't stop a violent crime, unless either:

A. He's at the scene by pure coincidence.

B. The crime is a prolonged siege.

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police won't come until you call them (Making noise in the process). And the police don't come immediately, in fact in my area they'd take about 10-15 minutes to get to my house if they raced directly from the station to my house.

Quote[/b] ]Owning a gun does not protect you from crime, owning a gun does not make you safe.

And somehow the NRA manages to always have a fresh supply of incidents for its Armed Citizen magazine page...

[CrackerJack 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's an idiotic statement, a police officer is meant to stop violent crimes, and crimes involving guns. A citizen is supposed to rely on the police, not on their own guns.

A police officer can't stop a violent crime, unless either:

A. He's at the scene by pure coincidence.

B. The crime is a prolonged siege.

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the police won't come until you call them (Making noise in the process). And the police don't come immediately, in fact in my area they'd take about 10-15 minutes to get to my house if they raced directly from the station to my house.

Quote[/b] ]Owning a gun does not protect you from crime, owning a gun does not make you safe.

And somehow the NRA manages to always have a fresh supply of incidents for its Armed Citizen magazine page...

If a robber enters your house, who do you think he would shoot: the father with the gun or the mother who is unarmed?

[DanAK47 1]

He wouldn't shoot anyone because he would be dead.

Quote[/b] ]A citizen is supposed to rely on the police

Wrong.

[Balschoiw 0]

You all must be living Beirut 1974...

If I were you I would move to Europe. All that daily shootouts at your homes...that would really scare me....

I´m feeling so sorry for all of you US citizens...all that danger everyday...yeah I guess it´s best if you all get some MBT´s and defend like in the good ol days of western trails...

And yeah...the NRA magazine...totally unbiased...I know...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]And yeah...the NRA magazine...totally unbiased...I know...

"Lies! Zee eveel NRA magazine eez all LIES!!!"

Quote[/b] ]If I were you I would move to Europe.

And then I'd have a higher chance of being physically assaulted out on the street. No thanks.

Quote[/b] ]All that daily shootouts at your homes...

Not daily, but it's good to always be prepared just in case a criminal does try to break in or assault you.

[CrackerJack 0]

He wouldn't shoot anyone because he would be dead.

Quote[/b] ]A citizen is supposed to rely on the police

Wrong.

Does he really deserve death just because he wanted to rob someone? The man with the gun isn´t a judge.

If you really want to defend your selves, put up a group with gunowners and declare war on North Korea and fly to them.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Does he really deserve death just because he wanted to rob someone?

Your home is your sanctuary. A burglar violates this sanctuary and wrecks the safe feeling of a home. Yes, it's quite permissable to kill a burglar.

Note - You could try to incapacitate the burglar, but then he'd come back and sue you. Therefore, most homeowners shoot to kill.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]If a robber enters your house, who do you think he would shoot: the father with the gun or the mother who is unarmed?

Uh, is it worth robbing someone's house if you have to shoot them?