Assault Weapons Ban

[DEDixon 39]

A repeat of mine... just had to say it again.

Why do gun advocates want assault rifles to be legal? Makes no sense.

I saw this comment a few days ago and have been thinking about it.

It is really no different than the guy who wants the fastest computer, the guy that changes out the V8 in his car for an even bigger V8, the guy that wants the mountain bike with the latest and the absolute lightest materials, the guy that wants the fastest or the biggest and baddest motorcycle (HD is what it is today because of this), the guy that wants the really fast airplane rather than the slower one (howard hughes.... and many others).

None of this "makes sense" either, but it is what it is.

There are enough guys out there that like the guns that are the BMWs in the gun world or the mother of all guns and the NRA is the organization that protects their hobby. For them, they feel it is unfair that their hobby be restricted because some moo foo from the ghetto wants to kill people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A repeat of mine... just had to say it again.

Why do gun advocates want assault rifles to be legal? Makes no sense.

I saw this comment a few days ago and have been thinking about it.

It is really no different than the guy who wants the fastest computer, the guy that changes out the V8 in his car for an even bigger V8, the guy that wants the mountain bike with the latest and the absolute lightest materials, the guy that wants the fastest or the biggest and baddest motorcycle (HD is what it is today because of this), the guy that wants the really fast airplane rather than the slower one (howard hughes.... and many others).

None of this "makes sense" either, but it is what it is.

There are enough guys out there that like the guns that are the BMWs in the gun world or the mother of all guns and the NRA is the organization that protects their hobby. For them, they feel it is unfair that their hobby be restricted because some moo foo from the ghetto wants to kill people.

Yeah, I read that when you posted it. There may be some truth to it.

[elkfarmer 4]

GUN CONTROL, MEANS HITTING YOUR TARGET !

[natty bumppo 297]

A gunman at a McDonald's in San Ysidro , California , opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. A drifter in a Stockton Schoolyard kills 5 and wounds 30 with an AK-47. A disgruntled client at the 101 California office building in San Francisco opens fire with two Tec-DC9s, killing 8 and wounding 6.

These shootings demonstrate the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Guess there should be better ships cause the Titanic went down ...

Edited March 27, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A gunman at a McDonald's in San Ysidro , California , opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. A drifter in a Stockton Schoolyard kills 5 and wounds 30 with an AK-47. A disgruntled client at the 101 California office building in San Francisco opens fire with two Tec-DC9s, killing 8 and wounding 6.

These shootings demonstrate the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Guess there should be better ships cause the Titanic went down ...

Because from 1994 until 2004, there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

[HAL 9000 96]

The escalation of violence in Border Towns in the US by the powerful Mexican Drug Cartels almost make it necessary to have an assault rifle available when the whip comes down! Anybody who lives near Brownsville, TX can vouch for this.

Just heard the mayor of Brownsville and McAllen, TX, on the radio, give quite the reality check that contradicts this silly notion.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

A gunman at a McDonald's in San Ysidro , California , opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. A drifter in a Stockton Schoolyard kills 5 and wounds 30 with an AK-47. A disgruntled client at the 101 California office building in San Francisco opens fire with two Tec-DC9s, killing 8 and wounding 6.

These shootings demonstrate the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

Timothy McVeigh makes a bomb out of common materials (or easily obtained legally) and kills 168 people in Oklahoma.

Members of the Aum Shinrikyo group makes and disperses sarin gas (nerve agent) and kill a dozen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others in Japan.

Hijackers armed with box cutters, mace, and muscle, take over airliners and crash them into buildings, killing over 2000 people.

These attacks demonstrate that fundamentally, if people want to cause grave harm, they will find a way to do it, and it shows they do not need "assault weapons" to achieve their goals.

The laws in place now are not working, do you really think that new ones will make one iota of difference?

The AWB will not stop mass murder.

Sadly, if people want to kill, they will do so. However, if the population is armed, trained, and ready to defend, then maybe, just maybe, some of these attacks would not take place, or at least minimized.

It's a crazy world out there, and it would be a better place if we all could live in peace and happiness, but, as we all know, it's not like that at all.

Oh look, somebody in my old home town protecting his own life with his own weapon, Legal Carry

I must say, I would be more worried about guns that look like "cell phones" then big "assault" rifles. You can at least see the rifles.

[natty bumppo 297]

A gunman at a McDonald's in San Ysidro , California , opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. A drifter in a Stockton Schoolyard kills 5 and wounds 30 with an AK-47. A disgruntled client at the 101 California office building in San Francisco opens fire with two Tec-DC9s, killing 8 and wounding 6.

These shootings demonstrate the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Guess there should be better ships cause the Titanic went down ...

Because from 1994 until 2004, there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

and this ban removed how many from circulation?

and how many more firearms were manufactured with the same operational mechanical features during this "ban"?

maybe for once you'll answer a question ... doubt it ... yet there is always hope ....

Edited March 27, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Your arguments are circular and you are proposing that we give up another of our constitutionally given basic rights and freedoms.

You can't build your own nuclear bomb. There are restrictions on explosive devices. The larger question is where do you draw the line between protecting citizens and personal liberties? If you believe the 1st Amendment is absolute, then any weapon should be legal...any. If you agree that some weapons should be illegal - then what is your criteria?

time to get out the fishing rods, it's a

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your arguments are circular and you are proposing that we give up another of our constitutionally given basic rights and freedoms.

You can't build your own nuclear bomb. There are restrictions on explosive devices. The larger question is where do you draw the line between protecting citizens and personal liberties? If you believe the 1st Amendment is absolute, then any weapon should be legal...any. If you agree that some weapons should be illegal - then what is your criteria?

time to get out the fishing rods, it's a

Care to answer what I wrote in bold?

[SuperDuper! 230]

I wonder if these bad guys had their assault rifles properly registered? The police only had relative pea shooter guns to fight back with and had to break into a sporting goods store and borrow assault rifles just to keep up.

Would an assault rifle ban stopped these bad guys from robbing the bank? Nope. Would more gun restrictions leave law abiding citizens less able, and more vulnerable to defend themselves against the bad guys? Yup.

I'm afraid we need some fresh ideas, folks. Cause what we are doing now just aint working.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and this ban removed how many from circulation?

and how many more firearms were manufactured with the same operational mechanical features during this "ban"?

maybe for once you'll answer a question ... doubt it ... yet there is always hope ....

Wouldn't a better question be, how many people who went off the deep end and decided to take revenge on society didn't have access to assault weapons which could have given them the chance to kill many more people?

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Your arguments are circular and you are proposing that we give up another of our constitutionally given basic rights and freedoms.

You can't build your own nuclear bomb. There are restrictions on explosive devices. The larger question is where do you draw the line between protecting citizens and personal liberties? If you believe the 1st Amendment is absolute, then any weapon should be legal...any. If you agree that some weapons should be illegal - then what is your criteria?

Your wrong.

You can build your own nuclear bomb with the technology available today. Any good machinist, lens maker, and some good CNC equipment, can make a workable device.

Right now the limiting factor is the nuclear material to make it go boom. Why do you think the NRC cracks down on rouge nuke reactors around the world?

Again, you are comparing nuclear devices to "assault" weapons/guns. They are not in the same class - not one bit.

Restrictions on explosive devices? If your talking about C-4/Simtex, then yes, it is hard to get. But as I pointed out in my other post, you can easily make your own explosives in you garage if your so minded.

Most weapons require permits, or special license to have. There is a line drawn by the government on how big your "civilian" weapons can be. Personal weapons are just that, personal. (nukes, as you like to use, are not)

But, again, if your a criminal, do you think a "law" would stop you from having something your not suppose to have?

[HAL 9000 96]

A gunman at a McDonald's in San Ysidro , California , opens fire with an UZI, killing 21. A drifter in a Stockton Schoolyard kills 5 and wounds 30 with an AK-47. A disgruntled client at the 101 California office building in San Francisco opens fire with two Tec-DC9s, killing 8 and wounding 6.

These shootings demonstrate the fundamental danger assault weapons pose to our society.

Timothy McVeigh makes a bomb out of common materials (or easily obtained legally) and kills 168 people in Oklahoma.

Members of the Aum Shinrikyo group makes and disperses sarin gas (nerve agent) and kill a dozen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others in Japan.

Hijackers armed with box cutters, mace, and muscle, take over airliners and crash them into buildings, killing over 2000 people.

These attacks demonstrate that fundamentally, if people want to cause grave harm, they will find a way to do it, and it shows they do not need "assault weapons" to achieve their goals.

The laws in place now are not working, do you really think that new ones will make one iota of difference?

The AWB will not stop mass murder.

Sadly, if people want to kill, they will do so. However, if the population is armed, trained, and ready to defend, then maybe, just maybe, some of these attacks would not take place, or at least minimized.

It's a crazy world out there, and it would be a better place if we all could live in peace and happiness, but, as we all know, it's not like that at all.

Oh look, somebody in my old home town protecting his own life with his own weapon, Legal Carry

I must say, I would be more worried about guns that look like "cell phones" then big "assault" rifles. You can at least see the rifles.

Somehow I don't think inner-city gangbangers interested in offing their rivals would be interested in buying up loads of fertilizer ala McVeigh... or spending hours in a home lab making purified pesticide mixtures for Sarin that has ironically a relatively short half-life. As for hijackers... well... you'd think that the TSA was effective at catching some of these weapons. Haven't heard of much happening since 9-11. And if former gun-toting freaks want to use blades... well... let them.

Its not like you can have a drive-by sword/knife victim in the same frequency as you can a shooting victim right?

Lets use some common sense now.

[natty bumppo 297]

and this ban removed how many from circulation?

and how many more firearms were manufactured with the same operational mechanical features during this "ban"?

maybe for once you'll answer a question ... doubt it ... yet there is always hope ....

Wouldn't a better question be, how many people who went off the deep end and decided to take revenge on society didn't have access to assault weapons which could have given them the chance to kill many more people?

true to form ... you have no answer. geez

guess diesel and fertilizer will be next to ban ....