And on that note, I’m done. :rolleyes: Exit stage left…
Nice! Now if you will just tell me that you read the entire thing, understand all of it, before you made your decision, then your constant rambling to me about not knowing the bill would be a valid argument
You got me there. Although I doubt any legitimate hunting is done with an AK-47, automatic or not. Still, the other capabilities of those types of weapons make them more dangerous than your average handgun. I do recall that I didnt say my want of banning these rested on a single criteria, so your objection to this point is noted
I told you already, I trust the people who wrote the law to know what they are banning. And having finally read the wiki, I can say that I was right the whole time. The law provides criteria to determine what an assault weapon is, and not coincidentally, I agree that those types of weapons have no place in the average citizen’s hand.
It brings up another issue, why are you so vehement in attacking a law if it doesnt affect you? If they wanted to make an anti-martian law, I’d laugh and not give a hoot. I certainly would spend hundreds of posts frothing over it with an anonymous internet poster. I’m sure you do think this law is bad because it may lead to other laws, or some other type of similar paranoia. Sorry to tell you this, but I’m simply not that paranoid
The AWB bill provides other criteria to ban other types of guns. I happen to agree with those criteria, as they are dangerous and really add little to self-defense than a handgun wouldnt add. They should be rightfully banned
Fucking finally!
You think maybe next time you should do that BEFORE making yourself look like an uneducated simpleton by entering the debate without any education what-so-ever?
Contrary to the Department of Justice, then?
But that’s the thing – you can’t define how much is necessary to defend someones home. It’s not your place, or mine, or the governments, to legislate it.
Grenades are already banned (controlled, technically) under the Destructive Devices law.
Because Bayonet’s are used in how many crimes?
Why? Those do nothing. And, furthermore, the difference between a flash supressor and muzzle break is so fine it’s arbitrary.
… AWB doesn’t ban easily loaded firearms.
… You realize this statement is asinine, right?
It does nothing to ban weapons (only cosmetic features), and it certainly does nothing to ban deadly guns. Hint: The firearms with cosmetically banned features aren’t even remotely the deadliest guns out there.
Question: if full-auto firearms are not flat-out banned, just very heavily regulated, then why are “assault weapons” proposed for complete banning? Would such a ban really say that I can’t own an AR-15 at all, but I can own an M-16? :dubious:
Are you serious? Really? Seriously?
What? Did you bother reading the entire article?!
If they infringed on a certain, fringe, type of speech, we’d be as vehemently defending it.
… Are you sure you actually read the article?
In a manner of speaking, yes.
Although there are no new M16’s being sold to the public, because the ATF no longer issues the tax stamps on the 1986 amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.
Old AR-15’s would be unregulated, but no new ones would be sold.
Such as bayonet lugs. Can you provide a single case where someone was killed by a bayoneting?
Flash hiders: The ability to direct muzzle flash away from a shooter. Can you provide a single case where someone was killed by a flash hider?
Pistol grip: the term pistol grip essentially applies to any rifle equipoped with a special grip that has been modified from the stock of the weapon. This includes hunting rifles.
Also in the legislation is the provision to allow the Attorney General to determine whether a gun is an AW. There are no checks or balances or challenges in place to argue that point.
Also in the legislation, any gun that is used by the military or any other Federal agency is hereby labeled an AW. They too are banned.
And my favorite, just because a sporting use can be documented does not mean the gun is a sporting weapon.
I posted links earlier with videos containing politicians showing off a remarkably similar lack of knowledge regarding my private possessions that they want to have banned. I expect more from my congress than knee jerk reactions to non-existent problems. If you want to save some lives, go ban swimming pools. As least there is no affirmed right spelled out to get in the way.
All of this can be found in HR1022
Oddly enough, yes.
You’re so far off base that this is a better analogy:
Movies have given people the impression that street races with souped up cars are causing accidents on our streets and killing people. Senator Retard is outraged and proposes the Dangerous Race Car ban.
Now the actual ban he drafts up bans all red cars. And people say “Why are you banning red cars? Not all race cars are red, and not all red cars are race cars. Besides - racing souped up cars isn’t actually really a problem for society anyway. Almost everyone who has a fast car doesn’t do illegal street racing with it”.
And then you come in saying you don’t want to debate the technical details of the car bill, you’re sure Senator Retard would’ve included things in the bill that made sense. Besides, why do you all need your souped up cars anyway? They’re dangerous.
First off, I do not agree that the government has the right to regulate guns, at least not to the extent of prohibiting citizens from acquiring certain types of firearms. The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller even said as much.
Second, you keep talking about how you consider certain types of guns “more dangerous” than others, and that they should be banned for this reason. You even say you want to get them “off the streets,” as if they’re already a major problem there. Can you, perhaps, provide us with some evidence justifying your assertions? Or are we just back to the same old position of “I think those features are scary, and I can’t imagine why anybody would need them, therefore nobody should have them!!”
Well, for one thing, there’s no right to own nukes (or any other ordnance) explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. But aside from that, your comparisons are just asinine. Would you perhaps explain to me the fashion in which an individual can use nuclear weapons for self-defense? Or even for sport, for that matter, since that is also a sufficient reason to possess a firearm.
You’re joking, right? You do see how this is a completely inept parallel to my argument, right?
Just in case you don’t, I’ll spell it out for you: murder is a specific action that directly harms other individuals; owning a firearm is not. A person who murders someone else is a criminal, not just being treated like one.
Jesus, we’re not asking that you be able to cite the exact wording of any given subsection here. We are only suggesting that maybe (just maybe) you should have at least a faint understanding of the subject addressed by the proposed legislation before you open your mouth to make broad sweeping statements about it.
Your trust is badly misplaced.
And anyway, if I may ask, why do you think that such weapons have no place in the average citizen’s hand?
Uh, perhaps I’m not understanding your point, but how does this not affect us?
But even if it didn’t, why shouldn’t we stand up and object when somebody’s rights are being violated? I’m not gay, but that doesn’t stop me from supporting gay marriage rights, and arguing (sometimes rather vehemently) against the people who oppose those rights. Are you really saying that if we see somebody’s rights being stepped on, we should just shut up and look the other way if it’s not affecting us directly?
Again, just the fact that something is dangerous (or seems dangerous to you, as you’ve yet to demonstrate any evidence suggesting there is any increased danger from “assault weapons”) does not give you any authority to prohibit it to lawful and responsible people. Such a ban is only “rightful” in your mind, where apparently you have divine license to ban things that make you uncomfortable.
If I may attempt to speak for our uninformed poster, I would guess that since 98% of all gun crimes are not committed with AW’s it wont affect us. Now, doesn’t that equate us to criminals?
Ha - yeah, I was trying to figure that out myself. No one ever said “it wouldn’t affect me”, but that it wouldn’t have a substantial effect on criminals.
I suppose we can infer that to Yog, we’re all criminals - hence he sees us complaining, yet saying it won’t affect crime much, as contradictory.
I can’t believe I’ve read all 8 pages. I think I’ll go outside and argue with a personal flotation device, it would be far more rational then a Lovecraftian demonoid
Sorry, I missed this brain fart. Any centerfire rifle .22 caliber or better should make a nice hole through that vest. Thereby making all hunting rounds except for the .22 cal rimfire “cop killer” bullets. Why don’t you jump on that bandwagon next.
On the other hand, if one were to wander into a message board thread on a particular topic and begin to hold forth on that topic, it would generally be considered polite, at the very minimum, to have some slightest clue to the actual issues involved. We do not require that level of expertise to post, here, but your whining that you have been “attacked” ignores the fact that you were blatantly ignorant of the specifics of the topic for well over half of the thread’s current length–and your more recent posts strongly indicate that you have misunderstood what you may have finally read.
This suggests, to me, that you would have objected to white folks opposing Jim Crow laws. Now, I have no reason to believe that you actually feel that way, but that is the direct conclusion to be drawn from the logic you employed in this paragraph.
= = =
EVERYONE: Tone it down. No more comments about fools or rabid dogs or any similar slurs. I realize that i should probably simply move every gun control discussion to the BBQ Pit as soon as it appears, but it would be nice to see a few of you attempt to carry on a discussion without the vitriol once in a while.
[ Moderating ]
If it was proven that I could be safer wearing a bomb, then I wouldn’t be endangering people any more than if I were carring a gun.
You mean more safe, like those who live in Washington D.C., Chicago, or New York feel, since the possession of firearms is, and has been verboten for quite some time now??
Maybe thats true. However I’m finding it hard to eliminate my ignorance with all of the shouting and ad hominem attacks. I only give when I receive, and I tend to think I’m actually holding back a bit
Nah, I consider race to be a bigger factor than guns. I consider such social injustice to affect me, and everyone, more than guns. Anyone who says that skin color should be a basis of discrimination is using superficial and poor logic. But as far as guns go, thats a matter of safety and necessity mostly. For the same reason why people are allowed to own some types of guns, and not other types of armaments (the nukes thing), then there can be said to be a sliding scale of safety to liberty that we employ. I simply draw the line in a different place than most
So I cant disagree with the DoJ, but you can disagree with elected congressmen?
Besides, its not like they are banning it in a vaccuum. Many people wanted the law passed. I would wager to guess at least some of them know what they are talking about. Its a stretch to assume that ALL people opposing your views are uneducated. I suggest you get some diversity training or something
Which is the exact same argument for allowing people to own nukes or grenades. Yeah, I know its addressed in other posts but I’ll make it easy and put it here. The whole nukes and grenades are argument by the gun advocate side on this thread is seemingly dishonest and contradictory. You guys are essentially saying that things like that are already banned under the law and therefore thats the end of it. Whatever happened to the whole “its my job to determine whats necessary to defend myself” argument? You’re just throwing it all away because conveniently, theres a law already in place so you dont have to submit yourself to the hypocrisy
My whole point about the AWB is that the government has the right to regulate things, though apparently that DC case makes that moot now. But I think it *should *and thats why I’m debating this issue. Since that is my conclusion, I freely bring up nukes and grenades because I see that as an example of what the government can do, and extend that to AWs because, like nukes and grenades, the government CAN regulate stuff. All you guys have been saying is a paradoxical attempt at defending what the government already bans and trying to distance that from what it can ban. They’re one and the same! If the government can ban things like bombs on the basis of safety, recklessness, and necessity, then it can do the same to guns, knives, spitballs, and anything else it wants! Whether those items constitute such a danger is another matter, but dont tell me that the government cant ban guns when it already bans plenty of armaments
My reasoning is: anything that makes a gun more dangerous. You want to defend your home, fine. Have a handgun, the end. No need to allow grenade launchers, bayonets, and other stuff onto it. They’re unnecessary for defense, which is what you’re purporting to use it for, so leave it. That goes for the flash supressors, and other items in the AWB. They are perfectly legitimate things to ban
Hopefully they’ll ban those too. I never said or implied that the AWB is the final word on the gun ban. Definitely ban all those weapons you say are more dangerous that currently have loopholes in the law currently.
Which part of the article are you having a problem with now?
I suppose you’re right in that regard. But I happen to agree with their desire to infringe on what you call a right. Like the whole fire in the crowded theater thing, I agree with banned assault weapons, so I’m not going to go out of my way to attack it
I think you’re too paranoid. The government makes plenty of decisions on its own. We elect representatives who appoint people who make regulations. Do you have a problem with the CDC telling you which viruses are bad? They are the experts after all. Your problem is that you want guns to be seen as some kind of special industry all to its own, like how the Republicans tried to (dunno if it passed) pass that law that makes all gun manufacturers not liable for their products. I mean, who thinks that blanket protections for an industry is a good idea?? Would you give the automakers that power? Hell no! So dont pretend your guns are any different.
I’m fine with the Attorney General determining whats a gun and what needs to be banned. Got a problem with it? Wait until the next election cycle. Its call democracy, get used to it. Guns are not special
So your problem is…what? Some kind of dictatorial coup by the military? Yeah right, be serious
So because I can use a broom to hit a baseball, its suddenly a bat? I dont see the problem with the above designation. “Sporting” guns are essentially the same thing as regular guns, except used to generally shoot deer and moose instead of people. Theres no problem with how they are defining it
I think making sure that swimming pools have fences around them, and beaches have lifeguards, is a good enough compromise. Its a way to give people some of what they want in exchange for safety. You know, the same thing they are doing with guns by banning the most dangerous ones and forcing safety locks and things like that on others. Maybe you should learn to compromise
Hilarious example 
First of all, I dont think I would vote for a guy named Retard, so he must be someone from another district. Second, you’re essentially saying that my analogy is not detrimental enough to my argument so I should replace it with yours. And third, even taking your analogy to heart, we can still agree that illegal street racing is a problem and find ways to solve it, unlike your next step of allowing everyone to have fast cars and getting rid of the speed limits so that slow people will automatically drive faster in order to be safe; if they dont, tough luck.
You have a problem that I’m arguing from my perspective? I guess I made a faux pas, I should have been arguing as if I wanted guns to be legal in the first place, right? Guess that would make your life easier :dubious:
Oh, we’re playing the nitpicking game now are we? Theres no rights to own handguns and assault weapons either. The Constitution referred to “arms”, which in those days meant “muskets”. Perhaps its a stretch to say that high capacity explosives are essentially the same thing as arms, but its equally a stretch to say that they are not when you people think that machine guns are. If you want to be able to own automatic weapons because the 2nd Amendment says “arms”, then you should feel the same way about C4 and TNT and pipe bombs
Thats not what you and the other gun advocates said. You guys said that if guns were illegal, only criminals would have them. You did not make an attempt to bolster that line of reasoning with anything else, preferring to let that be the final word on why we cannot ban guns because of criminals. Sorry if I used your tactic against you!
Maybe in the future, you wont make that argument? If we ban all guns, then so what if they have it? They shouldnt be having it anyways, just like they shouldnt be murdering people. They still do, but because they’re criminals. We have cops for that. And please, dont come back with the horrendous “but the cops around here suck!”. Yeah, so? Just because you cant get supercops doesnt mean you can suddenly kill people. Thats like saying its not illegal unless you get caught. Get it through your head, its not a valid argument to say that criminals will have guns if guns are banned. Its simply an argument for better law enforcement
I read the wiki, what else do you want? Stop hassling me 
You’ll have to describe that video if you want me to answer it right now, I cant view youtube here
As far as your other question, its easy. For the same reason why we dont allow guns on airplanes, or next to the president, we cant trust everyone not to go shooting off at somebody at any time. Its better to just ban it to ensure total safety.
I dont know if you’re a Republican or Democrat, generally liberal or conservative, but one hypocrisy I’ve found lies in every gun rights administration. When the Secret Service canvasses a location and checks every person coming in to meet the pro-gun president, doesnt that debunk the whole gun and trust argument? If, as they so eloquently put it, more guns will lead to everyone fearful of each other and not daring to commit a crime with it, then shouldnt the SS hand out guns to stadiums awaiting a presidential speech? Wouldnt more guns make things more safe? After all, its unconstitutional to assume everyone’s a criminal right? Isnt that your argument??
So seriously, no, we shouldnt trust people to do good with their guns. It only takes a few people, or rather thousands every year, to spoil something which should only be used for self defense. If I dont trust my neighbor not to shoot me, then I want all guns banned. Of course, the danger of a gun is in addition to the unnecessity, as I’ve said, and everything else about them. I would NEVER say that nobody should be untrusted with everything because they might be abused. That would mean silly things like pencils and rocks would be banned, and I’m so not for that. Those things have other uses, other SAFE uses. Not so with a gun, whose only purpose is to drive a hot lead through something
Someone else has already brought it up and I responded to it, so please read above. But my second reason for bringing it up is that I highly doubt you people see guns so safely as you sometimes make it out to be. You guys seem paranoid, and want to get the deadliest weapon possible to arm yourselves with in preparation for the day you apparently become a target of the mafia
Here’s something I hope you will answer. If its just about safety, then why wouldnt a few handguns do?
And has anybody here even considered a taser?
How slow does it have to go to make it not effective? Other scenario: keeping the same speed, how much does the bullet have to weigh for it to be not effective? Also, how much drag would such a bullet produce if it wasnt shaped with a tip at the end, but completely flat? In that case, would a change in speed and weight make the same amount of difference? Please draw a graph to illustrate
Here’s a hint then. Next time you come into a debate, learn what you’re talking about before you adopt a controversial position. And when people point out that you have no clue what you’re talking about, remedy that by learning and not by talking about how you just trust politicians and it’s totally unreasonable to know what’s in a bill before you decide to support it.
For instance, you’re now continuing on with willful (and quite impolite) militant ignorance.
You are deliberately ignoring all the facts.
The actual DoJ stats are based on real numbers.
It’s already been pointed out to you that some of the politicians who drafted the legislation are hopelessly clueless/dishonest. You could, for instance, learn about the difference between flash suppressors and muzzle brakes. Or “the shoulder thing that goes up”, or any of that. You could check out the actual DoJ statistics which show that “assault weapons” are the vast, vast minority of weapons used in crimes in any case, and that means that the vast, vast majority of “assault weapons” are held by perfectly legal gun owners.
So, yeah. You can’t disagree with facts but we can disagree with politicians who are wrong or lying. It’s almost like we’re dedicated to fighting ignorance here.
Again, your argument wouldn’t be so glaringly absurd if you had a clue what you were talking about. To begin with, any machine which propels a piece of hot lead at massive velocity at a specific target will be “dangerous”. But as you still refuse to define what exactly makes something an “assault weapon” other than that politicians say so (and you still can’t identify why their definitions makes a lick of sense in any case), your argument fails.
Not to mention that, again, your ignorance is showing.
The vast majority of crimes are, in fact, committed with handguns. Not “assault weapons”. So you don’t really care about crime or danger, you’ve just decided you want to take people’s guns away and you’re rationalizing your way to that pre-determined conclusion.
This is totally nonsensical, and I’d wager you’ll perform your usual dodge of adding in other qualifiers after the fact. We’ve already identified the fact that your “necessity” claim is bullshit. Which is exactly why you’re not wearing a burlap sack and eating bread, water, vitamins, protein pills and raw fat. Or, for that matter, trying to communicate with us via smoke signals rather than the internet.
Stop this absurdity. “Necessity” is not a valid metric, and the fact that you continually back away from when challenged it is revealing. That you normally back away from it to bombastic bluster about “rhinos” or whatever, and then back away from that as “sarcasm”, still never identifying what makes a gun “bannable” or “more dangerous”, again, shows what your argument is made of.
It goes something like this.
- “Assault weapons” are not a necessity.
- Well, okay, what I really meant to say was that they’re too dangerous and they’re not a necessity.
- There are no good uses for them, they’re way too dangerous for normal people to have and all they’re good for is hunting large game.
- Ha ha, I was kidding. You’re silly for taking me seriously. But they’re still too dangerous for citizens to own.
- No, I won’t tell you why they’re dangerous, it’s strange that you’d even ask me to support my claims. You can’t have those guns because they’re dangerous though.
- What do you mean that the facts show I’m wrong? Politicians agree with me.
- What do you mean the facts show that they’re wrong too? I bet you expect people to know the contents of a bill before they have an opinion on it, eh, eh? How unreasonable!
- But seriously, “assault weapons” are not a necessity.
Who’s playing a game of let’s pretend, exactly?
When is the last time that someone was able to sue Ford if some idiot drove his Ford while intoxicated?
And guns require background checks and/or safety training.
What, you didn’t think anybody would notice the difference between “regulate swimming areas” and “ban the fuck out of all assault swimming pools!”
Maybe you should learn what you’re talking about. You have yet to define “dangerous” let alone “more dangerous” and have ignored that the facts show that “non-assault weapons” are used in vastly more crimes than “assault weapons”. Not to mention that “safety locks” are neither safe, nor effective locks.
Yes, but banning certain cars based on arbitrary cosmetic features that do not, ultimately, affect the amount of potential harm that may come from misuse of such cars is not the right way to go about solving the problem.