You were asked to define what you meant by “teeth”, and you seem to have editorialized on how bad these “assault weapons” are, then said the above, which really says you want the ban “stronger”. The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from your post is you favor a complete and total ban on semi-automatic weapons, which is going to have to include all pistols (except single-action revolvers), as well as shotguns. Since all of these can rapidly fire rounds until their magazine/cylinder is emptied, and most of them can be “modified” by “conversion kits”. If this isn’t the case, you’ll have to be more specific.
I wouldn’t exclude the single action revolvers. On most of them you can hold the trigger down and then rake your fingers across the hammer for some serious rapid fire shooting. Oh, and better get the lever action rifles too. Remember Chuck Connors and his lever action?
You are correct, **Una Persson, ** I did not state exactly what would make the “ban” better and I am willing to admit that I am not sure I know…at least one that would make sense and stand any chance of getting passed. I would favor a complete ban on semi-automtic weapons, knowing that, unfortunately, that has no chance of ever happening. I stand by my remarks that the current one, in my opinion, has produced skewed stats.
It would be interesting to see what would happen in our country if we did really have a total ban on guns. I realize that is an extremely hypothetical thought but it is there, and I put it out for anyone to do what they will with it.
catsix I (1) have no idea of the differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14 and (2) don’t really care to and I am not embarrassed to say either --sorry to disappoint.
and **Brutus ** reasonable people would limit their use of high-nitrate fertilizer and god knows we need to limit our dependency on diesel fuel, but do either of these really kill as many people in this country as guns? Who knew?
Which indicates that you do not have sufficient data to make a coherent argument.
FWI, an AR-15 (which was on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .233 caliber with a 20" barrel. The Mini-14 on the other hand (which was not on the banned list) is a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle of .233 caliber with an 18½" barrel.
So you know absolutely nothing about firearms except that you want to ban nearly all of them.
Looks like the Brady Bunch has been pretty damn successful at furthering ignorance. And what’s really sad is that you are on a web forum devoted to fighthing ignorance and you choose not to eliminate yours.
Pity.
Cool, can I get an M-60?, or a Howitzer; just for hunting honest! :rolleyes:
I really don´t understand that, if the idea is to equalize the civilian/goverment fire power colour me baffled, unless you advocate that the private property of Cruise missiles, jet fighters, nukes and carriers be allowed you won´t make a dent on the balance of power.
“If guns are evil and randomly kill people then all of my guns are defective”
(paraphrased from my bad memory)
One of my favorite quotes on the subject:
“Armed people are citizens, unarmed people are subjects”
Unclviny
Haha! Points to you; I love that movie.
Yeah, Osama bin Laden, Iraqi resitstance, Chechen rebels, etc., none of them have nuclear subs and they’ve been a cinch to take care of!
Sure you can. Just be prepared for the paperwork and the $200 tax. Not that $200 is going to make a lot of difference on that one.
Interesting that I can legally buy a machine gun, but not a 12 round magazine for my Ruger .22LR. Also that I can buy an AR-15 with a sound supressor (silencer, in Hollywood terms), but not a flash hider or a bayonet lug.
Note: I’m normally sympathetic to gun control, even to registration and licensing. BUT even I thought this was a pointless statute. A Colt Sporter has indistinguishable range, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity from an AR15, and all you need to make it have the dreaded “more firepower than anyone really needs” is to swap the recent OEM mag for a 20 or 30 round pre-ban mag. The bayo lug, flash suppressor, bipod, folding stock make no diff. So what was the deal?
Well, IMO (I’m gonna quote myself from another thread on the issue):
Well, whether or not the situation as perceived was real, was kinda beside the question at the time, because quite a few people were kinda beside themselves. In the mind of Jane Q. Soccermom circa 1992, “assault weapon” meant…
…and it would be in the hands of the gang of marauders that would show up at the schoolyard any day now.
The AWB was a “don’t just sit there, DO SOMETHING” piece of legislation. Really cutting back on the availability of any weapon that could do the kind of damage a semi-version AK/AR can, would involve so many different weapons that the political and economic cost would be too much (and besides, it would be locking the barn door after the horses left). So the attention gets focused on firearms that were either obviously derivative from a military assault rifle/SMG (AKs, ARs) or that for fashion-statement purposes were made to resemble legit military/police weapons (e.g. the MAC-10s imitating an Ingram, the TECs imitating the Czech Skorpion). Yet if Joe Whitetoast were shown a stock Mini-14 he would not have ID’d it as an “assault weapon” even though it is a derivative from the Garand, because it doesn’t look badass, though it can lay down just as much hurting as a Colt Carbine.
Now, the single area that I could see addressed in the AWB about Jane Soccermom and Joe Whitetoast’s fears, was making hi-capacity mags harder to get (BTW, a fine concern to have, it does help if the Bad Guy has to stop to reload; that’s why high-cap mags were authorized for military and some police applications). And still it was not that great a solution. Someone who wanted to invest the time and money, could eventually get one (though hey, if that’s one more day it takes 'til they are holding up my Credit Union…) and a good shooter can do a world of hurt with an old-fashioned 7-shot .45 anyway. But the pistols that were designed from the start to fully contain a >10-round mag (like the Beretta 92) were not really what were in Joe and Jane’s minds, they were just “collateral damage” for the sake of making the law be consistent.
Now… it is true, that most people don’t really “need” a full-featured AR-15, or to put 100-round drum mags on their plinking gun (really, dudes… even the freakin’ Army only goes to 30 for their rifles). BUT, then again, hardly anyone “needs” a fully loaded Hummer H2, or to put those stupid spinning-hub lo-profile chrome wheels on their SUV. If you want to take a product off the market because it’s harmful for the safety or health of the people, then you take it off the market in all forms that can cause that same harm. When they outlawed phenylpropanolamine they didn’t just take it out from the OTC stimulants sold to college students, they took it out of diet pills AND cold medication (I miss my original-recipe Contac, but I’d rather sneeze than risk a stroke!). I would not have minded a continuation of the 10-round mag limit, but the going-away of the “scary gun” blacklist is just fine with me.
To add to their similarity, Ram-Line made a magazine that was interchangeable between the two, so they could even share both ammunition and magazines…
It’s over.
Last time I checked Al Qaeda hasn´t invaded the USA, Iraq is still occupied and Chechen rebels haven´t defeated the Russians… pesky, murderous and annoying like hell, but those “militias” haven´t shown the capability of defeating a modern military.
I’ve tried to make points in the past that didn’t come out right. But…wow.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Right? So, assault weapons don’t pose a threat to society.
However, the people who feel they NEED an assault weapon, that they absolutely HAVE TO HAVE one … A stable society which seeks to reduce gun violence can do without that element.
Does anyone wish to start a pool on when we’ll have our first assault weapon freakout - a multiple slaying here in the USA? How about, Election day, over/under? (I’ll say, under.)
Anyone who feels that way has had ample opportunity to get one illegally for time immemorial. Therefore I think it’s reasonable to say that anyone who wants an “assault weapon” (aka Ugly Black Gun with no particular fuctional differences from any other gun) is not getting one because they need one but because they want one. Also, someone who buys a gun legally is generally not a threat to stable society because by definition people who follow the laws are law-abiding.
Besides, who are you to demand that I account for needs? Not everything is created out of necessity.
And people NEED plasma TV’s, and they NEED a Land Rover, and they NEED cable modems, and they NEED so many other things that most of the world lives without.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say. But I feel you’re wrong. My M1 rifle can kill someone just as well as an Uzi. Granted, it’s not fully auto (yet, 
) but I can pull the trigger pretty quickly with better than average accuracy.
Give a criminal a fully auto 30-clip mag, and I’ll have pretty good odds of stopping him with my .38 revolver based on being well trained in shooting. See, I respect guns and human life. I make damn sure I don’t do anything that would hurt another person unless it was intended.
[QUOTE=RTAHowever, the people who feel they NEED an assault weapon, that they absolutely HAVE TO HAVE one … A stable society which seeks to reduce gun violence can do without that element.
[/QUOTE]
I own an SLR-95 (AK-47 clone) and have had it for 7-8 yrs. I have a 40 round 30,and two5 round magazines for it. Do I need it? No.But I do happen to like it. So there. :sticks tongue out:
I recall that after the OKC bombing some people wanted to put chemical tag agents into the fertilizer. This would make it easy for the FBI to trace where any the fertilizer was bought. (after it was used in a bomb) The NRA opposed this action as an attack on the second admendment.