38 replies [Last post]
SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1774
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
cowgal wrote:
Good grief SoCo - its not about YOUR hunting! Its about 2nd amendment rights... you just don't get it.

Good grief cowgal, I get your point, I just don't agree with it. My reference to hunting stems from the 1,000,000,000 comments I've heard rightwingers say about your hunting rifles are next.

Offline
Joined: 07/31/2007
Posts: 635
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
expatriate wrote:
The 2nd Amendment isn't about "gun fun." It isn't about hunting. It's about self defense. The current administration does not believe you have the right to defend yourself. If these things had nothing to do with self-defense, then perhaps we should restrict military arms to 10 rounds, too.

It's not up to the government to decide what you "need." People should be allowed to make their own decisions.

I absolutely know where you are coming from. Our rights are not about gun fun. There is a big difference though between suppressive fire though and self defense. Defense is not offense.

Nobody wants to be told what they need. I know what I need and don't need, without the dems thoughts on the issue. When @#$# hits the fan, I know I won't need an AR-15 though.

By comparing military regs to civilian regs, (then perhaps we should restrict military arms to 10 rounds, too.), you are refering the two groups as one in the same. A militia can legally be disarmed. I for one will not regard myself as such.

Offline
Location: Montana
Joined: 10/24/2006
Posts: 448
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Gun control is not about firearms, its about control

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

SoCokhunter,

Quote:
The bottom line is we see regulation of weapons designed for the military and war and wanted by sportmens in a different light.

Sorry SoCo but that won't wash. Let me give you a few examples.
Flintlock_______Military design
Caplock________Military design
Self contained cartridge__________Military design
Lever action__________Military design
Breechloader__________Military design
Bolt action___________Military design
Semi auto_________Military design
Revolver__________Military
Auto pistol_______Military
Find me one that isn't! there's a challenge for you. Find me a gun that somewhere down the line doesnt take something from a military design. Most were in fact designed from the ground up with that in mind. Some just were never adopted, but that was their intention.

My point is that those bolt guns in your gun cabinet? Your single shot? Your revolvers? All have their origins with the military first. We can't allow the Government to use that argument. I know you think the Government doesn't want your hunting guns but I believe you are dead wrong on that one. Historicaly it has never been about common sense laws but about incrementaly abolishing our second amendment rights. They will not and have not in the past shown any inclination to stop at just ugly guns. In addition life members of the NRA like me pay the way for those of you who take your rights for granted. The NRA isn't just about protecting my AR-15. They protect the principals of freedom. Yours included.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
SoCoKHntr wrote:
"AWB advocates and opponents alike stated that the AWB allowed firearms manufacturers to make minor changes to make their affected firearms legal, and they both described the features affected by the ban as "cosmetic".[5][6]

If they are purely cosmetic then why ban them. The functionality is still there.

SoCoKHntr wrote:
Some manufacturers complied with the law by removing certain banned features. For example, the AB-10 was a legal version of the TEC-9, with barrel threading and barrel shroud removed; the XM-15 was a legal AR-15 without barrel threading or a bayonet mounting lug; post-ban semi-automatic AK-47s were also sold without folding stocks or bayonet lugs, and with standard or "thumbhole" stocks instead of pistol grips. .

See above. Same function as "banned" Firearm. Nobody has ever been killed by simply looking at a firearm.

SoCoKHntr wrote:
How is limiting high capacity clips and grenade launchers and bayonet's going to hinder your gun fun. I've stated before and I'll state it again the greater majority of people in our country don't have the maturity and or responsibility to possess weapons of this type and I personally feel safer when any tom, dick, or harry, can't stroll down to the store and get one..

How is limiting High capacity clips, grenade launchers and bayonets going to make me safer? As long as I have a 30 round mag and the bad guy has a 30 round mag then it just comes down to accuracy or luck. No chance at all if I have a 10 round mag and they have 30. I better get the first shot and make it count huh?

SoCoKHntr wrote:
Seriously, where do you think the line should be drawn? Are LAW rockets and Stinger missiles the next 'fun' military weapon we can use for recreation?

The line is already drawn. Not just anybody can buy, or own a fully automatic firearm. Explosives are already tightly regulated also. If the items constituting a banned firearm are cosmetic then there is no need to have them banned. That's just a starting point. A Remington 742 is a Semi Automatic Firearm and shoots no different than my AK 47 semi automatic firearm so why ban one and not the other? How is threading the barrel on the 742 going to make you unsafe? Make the 742 deadlier?
The basis of the "AWB" was the televised shoot out between Bank Of America Robbers and LA Police officers. The Robbers had fully automatic weapons while the police only had 9mm and shotguns, both of which would have been effective in ending the shoot out except for the fact that the Robbers had full Body Armour. Yeah the police were out gunned but it would not have mattered as long as the bad guys had the Body Armour on. Another important note, ONLY the bad guys were killed. 1000's of rounds fired from fully automatic weapons in a crowded city and nobody was killed or bayoneted.
I would think that there are a great number of Iraqis, afghanis, and Somalis who would disagree with you about Humvee not being deadly !!.
As a rational person you simply can not see the logic in this nonsense of banning firearms based on "cosmetics".
However, those "converted semi automatic carbines" should be wiped from the face of the Earth !!

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
civetcat wrote:
Here's a link to ABC
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1

Gotta run, have to buy a bunch of gunz.

If thats the best you can do then stay out of this discussion. It is best left to the Grown ups.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

The thing about the '94 AWB is that it didn't DO anything except restrict the law abiding. There's no evidence whatsoever showing any reduction in crime associated with it. As a matter of fact, in states that didn't have state assault weapons bans, the crime rate DROPPED when the federal ban was lifted.

The Mexican argument is just smoke and mirrors to try to avoid dealing with those facts. But there are still enormous holes in the Mexican argument. First of all, if the AWB did absolutely nothing to reduce crime in the US, I have a REALLY hard time believing it'll affect crime in another country. Second, the full autos, grenades, and rocket launchers are already illegal here (or in the case of full autos highly regulated). And finally, how are we to believe that we can keep guns out of the hands of cartels when they can't keep drugs away from them?

Furthermore, Mexico already has strict gun laws that include provisions like owner licensing, registration with the State, restrictions on type and caliber, etc. Obama would no doubt be very happy if our gun laws looked like Mexico's. And yet the cartels are building up arsenals -- that's a problem caused by corruption and failure of Mexican enforcement, not American gun owners.

And by the way, where do the Colombian cartels get their guns? What about Hamas? Bad guys get guns around the world, and it's not our fault.

We should not restrict the Constitutional rights of law abiding Americans in a vain attempt to compensate for Mexico's utter failure to enforce its own gun laws. Americans shouldn't pay the price in lost freedoms for another nation's failure to police itself.

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Expat wrote,

Quote:
Americans shouldn't pay the price in lost freedoms for another nation's failure to police itself.

That really is the bottom line in this argument. The corruption and incompetence in Mexico's government, MIlitary and law enforcement community are not our fault.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
New calls for assault-gun bancowgal2403/18/2009 00:07 am
More Obama liesbuffybr205/10/2008 02:52 am
Assault weapons ban down for the countbitmasher409/17/2004 21:40 pm
Outdoor Life Interview with ObamaCVC3810/13/2008 19:42 pm
update on HR1022rogie112/06/2008 00:27 am