Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[DanAK47 1]

You don't need a bayonet. But the ban does nothing to stop someone who really wants to go stab people with a bayonet. All it does is make older weapons, with bayonet mounts and etc, more expensive.

[Badassdom 0]

finaly our rights have been given back to us.

now we the true patriots of this country can reclaim the land for all the true americaans and shoot all those wussie liberal types and all their talking and peace crap.

because we have proper arms now we can also hunt the great monsters of the North american wildernes such as sasquatch and yeti

[GoOB 0]

Maybe you misunderstood the question... Why would you WANT a bayonet on a rifle which is to be used on the range, or for hunting?

[DanAK47 1]

Maybe it looks cool. I don't know. I don't want a bayonet. That's not what the ban covers. The ban covers the ability to mount a bayonet. So if I want a USGI flash suppressor for my M1A, I couldn't get one. Why? Because it has a bayonet mount. So instead you have to get reproduction parts.

[blackdog~ 0]

I am afraid that they will take away my inert demilled M60 machinegun for mounting on my jeep. And my LAW, AT4, Redeye, and SMAW all demilled as well. This bill must be stopped or it will spread more hippy anti-gun politics throughout the US and eventually lead to them trying to take away demilled military firearms.

Politicians try to take away my jeeps, along with all other equipment that's former DoD. That includes 5 Ton Trucks, restored WWII aircraft and the likes. Don't know who was putting that bullshit in but it was probably largely supported by democrats - edit: yup, sure was... sigh... SENATOR CARL LEVIN... I have choice words that would not be allowed on this board for him...

http://www.lonestar-mvpa.org/presentations/SB1416_etal.htm

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]demilled military firearms

What's demilled - deactivated?

[blackdog~ 0]

Receiver welded shut or just cut out altogether. In terms of jeeps it means:

[sputnik monroe 102]

What do you need a vintage WW2 fighter for? They were made for one purpose war. Let the profesionals have them. You can go pay to watch them.

    As for bayonettes. Some people like to have them so they have a authentic piece of history. Why bother collecting a antique rifle from the Korean War if it isn't in genuine condition? That would be like buying a Stanley Steamer with a peterol engine.

     Bottom line no one has ever been bayonetted in a crime ever. So it's a outlandishly stupid thing to be afraid of.  If some one's going to kill some one with a bayonette they'll use it like a knife. So why ban them when you can achive the same results with a kitchen knife? Or should we ban them to?

[Blake 0]

LOL those jeeps. I'm sure not even far-leftist-commie-liberal would have anything against those

Quote[/b] ]What do you need a vintage WW2 fighter for? They were made for one purpose war.

I bet those machineguns are not working ;) So I bet it's ok to have one.

Quote[/b] ]Bottom line no one has ever been bayonetted in a crime ever. So it's a outlandishly stupid thing to be afraid of.

Is there some kind of law against bayonettes in the US?

What comes to deactivated weapons, surely there are no laws in any country against properly deactivated weapons whatever the caliber or type.

[DanAK47 1]

The assault weapon ban limits the number of features a weapon can have, such as a telescoping stock, bayonet mount, ability to accept a high capacity magazine, pistol grip..

So a weapon could mount a bayonet legally, it would just sacrifice another "assault weapons feature".

[red oct 2]

Is there some kind of law against bayonettes in the US?

What comes to deactivated weapons, surely there are no laws in any country against properly deactivated weapons whatever the caliber or type.

non that i know of, my buddy has a SKS w/ a bayonette that came attached when he got it. it sorta folds back on a hinge and snaps on under the barrel. as far as i know the only thing they forbid on assault weapons is that can't have auto fire. there might be some exceptions that lets you have a permit that allows you to own a automatic assault weapon since in my state you can own a fully automatic M60 machine gun providing you have the money to buy one plus the large tax that comes w/ it and you have to ask permission from the local athorities if they are ok w/ you being aloud to own one.

edit: i found a web site where the gun dealers get their exotic stuff but i must warn you, the Bush testosterone level is amusingly high

http://www.gunsamerica.com/1257/1257-random-1.htm

[General Barron 0]

You seriously beleive that the "people" are more qualified to make new laws, or change existing ones? Please....

Lol... there you have a perfect example of the difference between the liberal/European view on government. You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

Anyway, this topic is about a specific law (the Brady Bill). So instead of talking about gun control in general, I'll talk about this retarded law. Even if you wanted to ban "assault weapons", this law is not the way to do it. Please, someone try to refute me on this point. I'd love to hear it.

Why should having a pistol grip make a weapon illegal? It makes absolutely no sense.... I swear, the law must have been written by a bunch of kids looking at pictures of guns and saying "ooh, that one looks scary". Please, one of you gun control freaks, tell me why this particular law should stay in existance? Or better yet, what should be considered "assualt weapons", if you don't like this bill's incredibily strange definition?

And just to throw some wood on the fire, here's something to ponder: my car (a 95 Integra) can do like 180+mph. There isn't a place in the country with speed limits above 80 mph. So, should my car be illegal?

[blackdog~ 0]

You seriously beleive that the "people" are more qualified to make new laws, or change existing ones? Please....

Lol... there you have a perfect example of the difference between the liberal/European view on government. You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

Anyway, this topic is about a specific law (the Brady Bill). So instead of talking about gun control in general, I'll talk about this retarded law. Even if you wanted to ban "assault weapons", this law is not the way to do it. Please, someone try to refute me on this point. I'd love to hear it.

Why should having a pistol grip make a weapon illegal? It makes absolutely no sense.... I swear, the law must have been written by a bunch of kids looking at pictures of guns and saying "ooh, that one looks scary". Please, one of you gun control freaks, tell me why this particular law should stay in existance? Or better yet, what should be considered "assualt weapons", if you don't like this bill's incredibily strange definition?

And just to throw some wood on the fire, here's something to ponder: my car (a 95 Integra) can do like 180+mph. There isn't a place in the country with speed limits above 80 mph. So, should my car be illegal?

Crabby old democrats...

http://www.frazmtn.com/~bwallis/DF_DODO.PDF

[red oct 2]

You seriously beleive that the "people" are more qualified to make new laws, or change existing ones? Please....

Lol... there you have a perfect example of the difference between the liberal/European view on government. You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

Anyway, this topic is about a specific law (the Brady Bill). So instead of talking about gun control in general, I'll talk about this retarded law. Even if you wanted to ban "assault weapons", this law is not the way to do it. Please, someone try to refute me on this point. I'd love to hear it.

Why should having a pistol grip make a weapon illegal? It makes absolutely no sense.... I swear, the law must have been written by a bunch of kids looking at pictures of guns and saying "ooh, that one looks scary". Please, one of you gun control freaks, tell me why this particular law should stay in existance? Or better yet, what should be considered "assualt weapons", if you don't like this bill's incredibily strange definition?

And just to throw some wood on the fire, here's something to ponder: my car (a 95 Integra) can do like 180+mph. There isn't a place in the country with speed limits above 80 mph. So, should my car be illegal?

Crabby old democrats...

http://www.frazmtn.com/~bwallis/DF_DODO.PDF

heheheh, thats pretty funny and pathetic at the same time. i remember the first time my dad took me to a shooting range the 3 rules i was taught was treat every gun as if it were loaded, never carry your weapon loaded until your are ready to shoot and certianly never have your finger on the trigger until you are aimed at your paper target and ready to fire.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lol... there you have a perfect example of the difference between the liberal/European view on government. You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

He was pointing that the people don't make the laws by making noise on some issues, they elect the lawmakers (the parliament, thus the government indirectly). Groups like NRA, anti-gun groups or individuals don't make laws they just lobby eg. affect lawmaker's opinions and vote in elections. Same system in US and Europe, I don't what does being liberal has to do with that

I'm beginning to see that this Brady Bill law is indeed a bit strange and hammered by those who don't know much about guns, so they should make a proper one.

Quote[/b] ]my car (a 95 Integra) can do like 180+mph. There isn't a place in the country with speed limits above 80 mph. So, should my car be illegal?

Guns are designed to kill, cars are for transportation as somebody quite clearly pointed out.

[Blake 0]

http://www.frazmtn.com/~bwallis/DF_DODO.PDF

LOL. Isn't that BTW same kind of AK-47 with drum mag that was used in the infamous 'North Hollywood shootout' by bank robbers?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Same system in US and Europe, I don't what does being liberal has to do with that

I

You see,

Republicans and Liberals in the United States are very hateful of eachother. Democrats are usually covered by the word liberal.

It is the duty, I'm guessing from what I've seen in many places and in my own experiences, for each political party to constantly insult, moan, hate, spit at, moon, berate, hiss, boo, lie about, loathe, and try their best to inflict harm while declaring the other is evil.

AFAIK, a liberal in the United States means a far far left politician. Liberals in Canada are more towards the middle, leaning far to the left.

To a Republican, being called Liberal is like having forced sexual contact with their wives. Vica Versa.

Of course, I'm mostly jk.

[ralphwiggum 6]

You are too stupid to make your own choices. Oh well, I guess some people feel the need to be lorded over...

flamebaiting?

[ericz 0]

Those that call themselves "liberal" usually are on the anti-gun side of the equation.  Since anti-gun groups are mostly contributors and supporters of the  Democratic Party side of the house, the connection is made Anti-gun = liberal = democrat.

As an aside, I know quite a few registered Democrats that are pro-gun and dislike the anti-gun groups intensly.

[ericz 0]

Red Oct

Quote[/b] ]there might be some exceptions that lets you have a permit that allows you to own a automatic assault weapon since in my state you can own a fully automatic M60 machine gun providing you have the money to buy one plus the large tax that comes w/ it and you have to ask permission from the local athorities if they are ok w/ you being aloud to own one.

All firearms, particularly AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are governed by Federal law. A state or locality may add restrictions but they can in no way relax federal firearms law at their choosing. In order to legally own automatic weapons you must have a license issued to you by the ATF.

This does not preclude law breakers from modifying their weapons into automatics.

[Ares1978 0]

Well like it or not, that IS democracy. It´s the majority who decides. No matter if they are stubborn mules or highly educated rocket scientists...

I will not go into your example. It´s just too off.

It's not democracy when the majority isn't even heard.

The example was pretty much the situation in the US today.

[Frisbee 0]

People are idiots, people elect officials based on promises and good faith. Officials (hopefully) aren't as idiotic as normal people, officials try to do what's best for normal people, witht the power people have democratically given them.

Representative republic or something like that?

True democracy is impossible for a nation today, it was done in Greek city-states like Athens way back when.

(Via a rotated city council, but even then : no women or slaves, naturally)

The US is nowhere near closer to the "real democracy" dreamt about here than any other nation in the world.

You're sick, you go to a doctor and follow his advice, you don't decide for yourself, and I doubt you'll go ask ten random people in the street. (I think this was from Plato or Socrates, not sure)

I'm sure the rag-tag bands of militia will be able to overthrow the tyrannical governement when it's needed, they always look so fit in those documentaries. (before I get the "all americans aren't fat! all americans aren't rednecks! stfu and go watch some more fahrenheit 9-11 you america-bashing idiot!" over me, this was just poking some harmless fun ::):)

Seriously, a tyranny being born in a country where there's full freedom of media? If you even tried something like that the (if there's still a free press agency out there) press would be all over you.

If it does happen, it will be the Hitler way, gain popular support and find ways to democratically get dictatorial powers, by popular support, then they just have to allow full-auto weapons and other heavy weapons and they'll have the support of those with guns who could harm them.

[Ares1978 0]

Yeah but with assault rifle can hold 30 rounds in a clip, bolt action maybe 5 plus you have to operate the bolt all the time.

So you have a 6 x more chances to hit a guy with an assault rifle. Or take an account a situation in a crowded place.

That's the bullcrap for you. Why is it so hard for you to admit that an assault rifle is potentially more lethal weapon than a bolt-action rifle is beyond me.

That's bullcrap. So what if it holds 30 compared to 5? Ever heard of "reloading"? "In a crowded place".. How many can you kill in a crowded space with a knife or a katana? Inifinite number of people?  

Why can't you admit that the weapon itself is not lethal, it's the person using it that makes the decision? And why make it easier for a lunatic by allowing him to unhindered kill people with an illegal weapon, when you can at least let the rest of the population have a fighting chance?

Law was the same for all and worked both ways. People had guns, even workers. You are missing the point by using 1918 as a reference in the first place, since gun ownership did not decide the faith back then nor it will now. And I'm still waiting for your answer on why gun ownership is more important now than ever - maybe there's a coup being planned secretly?

So you really don't understand that guns were much less common among the workers as the rest of the population? Gun ownership really did decide the fate back then, just as it did in the later wars.

And that question of yours is pretty pathetic, how about you explaining how tyranny is gone for good, how "times have changed" etc.

"It's like requiring adults to drink only milk because babies can't handle whiskey".

[Ares1978 0]

And just to throw some wood on the fire, here's something to ponder: my car (a 95 Integra) can do like 180+mph. There isn't a place in the country with speed limits above 80 mph. So, should my car be illegal?

Yes it should. In fact, all vehicles that aren't powered by the driver should be banned. By doing that you can save 42,643 lives per year and prevent 2.89 million from being injured.  

Oh, and any bike with over 10" tyres should be banned.

[ericz 0]

Frisbee

Quote[/b] ]People are idiots, people elect officials based on promises and good faith. Officials (hopefully) aren't as idiotic as normal people, officials try to do what's best for normal people, witht the power people have democratically given them.

Newsflash for you....officials are people too and if you think that by virtue of being "officials" they always "try to do what's best for normal people", I ve got prime agricultural land in antartica I love to sell you.

BTW, if you believe people in general are idiots, I should think you would be afraid of a "true democracy".  No, no, no much better that a few enlightened intellectuals or academics should teach us (brainwash) to develop a society where we live harmoniously together working for the betterment of humanity through our (their) ideology.  Of course we must always guard against counter-revolutionaries and be prepared to fight them where ever they appear even within our midst.

Quote[/b] ]The US is nowhere near closer to the "real democracy" dreamt about here than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. is a "representative" democracy and I've never dreamt of a real democracy.

Quote[/b] ]You're sick, you go to a doctor and follow his advice, you don't decide for yourself, and I doubt you'll go ask ten random people in the street.

Nowadays, with the level of medical competence available, you go to the doctor and if he diagnoses you with a serious illness,  you do your own research and get a second opinion.  Particularly when you have an HMO plan.

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, a tyranny being born in a country where there's full freedom of media? If you even tried something like that the (if there's still a free press agency out there) press would be all over you.

Tyranny can take many forms...forcing me to turn in my firearms is one of them.  BTW, that is the ultimate goal of many anti gun advocates.  They are just smart enough to go one step at a time in order to appear to be reasonable to the majority.