Assult weapons ban expired? [Archive]

Murf

09-09-2004, 12:38 PM

I love it when people want to ban types of weapons...the Idea behind it is to keep criminals from using and purchasing them. People don't want to see stuff like the LA shoot out and what not...well I hate to tell the firearm banning people that banning them DOES NOT WORK. people that are going to use these types of weapons don't car about the law. The only people that gun bans bother are LEGAL firearm owners. The ban also made it a big no-no to modify a rifle, or sell it with High cap mags. You can still get them. I made it so there was no more being imported or sold with firearms..but what was already out is legal. Why do I want said weapon..easy because I can have it. The gun ban was just something to make people fell like something is being done to stop criminals from having these weapons...well It didn't work and will never work. People that are going to commit crimes with weapons (like the LA bank) will get what they want from the black market in mexico. where the hell do you think they go those full auto Ak's and H&K's from? Not the local gun store. The black market. The guns are still out there and are still in this country..law abiding citizens still have them... People that think banning types of firearms are making a diffrence are just fooling themselves.

okpanic

09-09-2004, 12:38 PM

You all scare me. What the hell do you do with an assault rifle? Hunt?

Actually I am in the marine reserve and I got an m-16 before the ban so I could keep my target skills up when I'm not on duty.

ryball

09-09-2004, 12:42 PM

Yes the federal ban is lifted as of monday, Unfortunately most cities and the state of california have there own laws banning assualt weapons. But without the federal ban they can only barr the sale of these specific weapons and not the ownership.

So what does that mean exactly? Can we buy them in CA? Can we buy them outside of CA and bring them in? Not like it matters for me, I can't afford anything anyway. Just looking for clarification. Guess I should be posting this on an NRA board.

Paul@dbtuned

09-09-2004, 01:44 PM

Go to the shooting range...

here's a little video of me and my friends:

http://www.minircdude.com/videos/Storm.mpeg

"Flock of Seagulls" with Guns!

ryball

09-09-2004, 02:02 PM

And I ra-a-an I ran so far awa-a-ay...

bassplayrr

09-09-2004, 02:04 PM

I don't know, I find them to be more Slim Jim esque than Flock of Seagulls.

-Chris

ldivinag

09-09-2004, 02:22 PM

So what does that mean exactly? Can we buy them in CA? Can we buy them outside of CA and bring them in? Not like it matters for me, I can't afford anything anyway. Just looking for clarification. Guess I should be posting this on an NRA board.

no. kalifornia has its own set of rules.

NO ar, ak, or anything that looks evil.

remember, the criminals has to follow these rules too. so we should all feel safer about that.

seriously though, we kalifornians are F'd when it comes to owning guns. more and more laws are getting created and passed (look at the current SB50 - which will BAN all .50 cal rifles).

for more silliness:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html

ldivinag

09-09-2004, 02:34 PM

lemme just add, that those with ARs, AKs, etc, had to "register" them 2 years ago to be "legal" in the state.

otherwise, if you still own one of those evil guns, and HAVENT registered them with the gov, you are a felon, IIRC.

btw, you CANNOT register anymore "assault" rifles anymore. the time has come and gone.

thank your local liberal anti-gun politicos. getting rid of gray davis was just the first step...

next up is DON "i have my CCW but you as a normal joe schmoe cant... " PERATA...

Group B

09-09-2004, 03:38 PM

DON "i have my CCW but you as a normal joe schmoe cant... " PERATA...

I ****ing hate that corrupt hypocrate...now he's head of state senate

Murf

09-10-2004, 10:58 AM

from the way I usnderstand it california will still be dorked when it comes to guns because of state regulations on weapons, which sucks for california gun owners. I'm pretty sure that New Yorkers and a few other states are still dorked too from state regs.
Now if the ban does go away it will allow the import of so called assult weapons again and the import of high cap magazines for sale. That of corse is in states with no regulations aginst them that is.

Paul@dbtuned

09-10-2004, 01:28 PM

Since gun control laws are steep in racist motives, those that support such laws are racists.
Therefore, Senators Feinswine & Blockster are racists.

Racist Roots (www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html)

Racist Roots 2 (bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=790)

Racist Roots 3 (www.lizmichael.com/tahmasse.htm)

Racist Roots 4 (www.interocitor.com/archives/000288.html)

Racist Roots 5 (www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/klan.html )

psoper

09-10-2004, 03:39 PM

platypus

09-11-2004, 11:17 AM

dang, i had no idea I was such a racist!

Oh well, guess I better get to work oppressing some minorities.

bassplayrr

09-11-2004, 03:08 PM

By natural extension of this inspired Oaf reasoning,

Since the United States was founded on racist principles (legal ownership of slaves, genocide against native populations) anyone who supports the United States is racist.
Therefore all of the flag waving republicans who support the US are racists too.

I guess you just can't win.

^^^^ Hahahaha! Gun laws = racism. Right, Oaf. :rolleyes: I'm against many types of gun control (i.e. considering any rifle with a pistol grip an assult rifle :confused: ) as well, but to consider gun control racism is absurd.

-Chris

deyes

09-13-2004, 12:25 PM

I don't know, it seems to me that gun control laws in many localities are aimed at taking away minorities right to own firearms. I believe that it is illegal in Chicago (may be somewhere else) to own a pistol. Minority neighborhoods in this city are plagued by violence. Politicians in order to "protect" their minority constituants propose banning hand guns to reduce the violence. Well we all know that the criminals causing the violence don't obey laws, so what did the law really do. Disarm the only people that obey the laws!
So in essence we minorities keep voting our right to protect ourselves away, and our sympathetic politicians are more than happy to take them away and convince us that we better off because of it? How is that going to make these neighborhoods safer? The criminals know that only they and the cops are armed so the cops are all they have to worry about, aside from other criminals. So nothing in these neighborhoods change because gun control laws do not affect criminals.

Paul@dbtuned

09-13-2004, 01:35 PM

^^^^ Hahahaha! Gun laws = racism. Right, Oaf. :rolleyes: I'm against many types of gun control (i.e. considering any rifle with a pistol grip an assult rifle :confused: ) as well, but to consider gun control racism is absurd.

-Chris

California, up until the late 1960's, was an "open carry" state; people could openly carry a loaded firearm.
Then those "upity" Black Panthers "invaded" the State Capitol building, resulting in the State Legislature quickly replacing "open carry" with "concelled carry".
Open carry is/was only allowed in the unincorporated areas of a few counties, and in all other counties, one has to prove that they need concelled carry permit.

The reasult is that virtually all concelled carry permit holders are white & minority applicants are disproportionately rejected.

But this isn't racism.

bassplayrr

09-13-2004, 01:55 PM

But this isn't racism.

Then we're in agreement. ;) I'm about as white as can be, and living in California I have no more of a chance of owning one of the banned wepons than does anyone else. Period.

-Chris

MVWRX

09-13-2004, 03:54 PM

Assault weapons don't need to be illegal. What we should do is make carrying bullets out side of a shooting range or hunting area illegal. You have an M-16? No problem. You store it loaded or next to a box of rounds? Locked up for 30+ years. Then you NRA guys would say 'then how do I use it to protect myself?' Well, sorry to tell you, but pulling a gun on an intuder has never been proven to be safer than just calling the cops and waiting. And pulling out an assualt rifle at someone who is clearly in a more desperate situation than you can only wind up with you getting shot or the guy (or his family) sueing your a** for using excessive force. Yes, it does happen...one guy got sued because someone was breaking into his house and he fell through a skylight...so the homowner got f***ed just for having a skylight...imagine what would happen if you filled someone with rounds from an assault rifle...

deyes

09-13-2004, 04:40 PM

I don't know about you, but if someone breaks into my house I can assume that they are not there with good intent. I do not think that hiding in a closet with a phone for 8mins for the cops to show while my kids are sleeping in their beds is any sort of way to protect them. And yes it has been proven to be safer to protect yourself rather than waiting for your shining knight in a crown vic to show up. I have read of several documented cases where people have been on the phone with the police only to be killed by thier assailant.
Furthermore why should we need to depend on someone else to protect us when most people are perfectly capable of doing so themselves? Getting sued? Who cares as long as my family and I are safe. I can make more money but I can't replace my wife or kids, or my life for that matter. Do you really think that more laws are going to help us? Many have said it before and I will say it again, criminals do not care about laws, that is what makes them criminals.

"And pulling out an assualt rifle at someone who is clearly in a more desperate situation than you can only wind up with you getting shot or the guy (or his family) sueing your a** for using excessive force."

What situation is more desperate than fearing for the lives of your family and yourselff!!!!!!! It can also wind up with me shooting him and saving the lives of my family and I. Your position seems to be that we should not protect ourselves and that people attempting to protect themselves should be sent to prison for 30+ years!? Do you care about right and wrong or do you just not like gun owners?

Paul@dbtuned

09-13-2004, 04:45 PM

MVWRX

09-13-2004, 05:00 PM

Paul@dbtuned

09-13-2004, 05:35 PM

C'mon, M, give me more than that.
WHy do you consider Lott's work "crap"?
Is it because it goes against your beliefs?

Have you read any of the Federalist Papers?
Or any writings by any of the Founding Fathers pertaining to why the 2nd Ammendment is in the Bill of Rights?

The 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with hunting or defense of home & family.
It's there to ensure that if/when the the time comes, you, MVWRX, can stand up against the Gov't.

But, anyway, back to your pent up frustrations.
What is the root of your irrational fear of "assault weapons"?
It's just an inaminate object, with no will of it's own.
A gun can only do what the operator makes it do.

psoper

09-13-2004, 05:45 PM

It's there to ensure that if/when the the time comes, you, MVWRX, can stand up against the Gov't.

Yeah, as if anything we can get our hands on would be any kind of deterrent to OUR government, who has all of "our" weaponry and military tactics at their disposal.

It was a nice idea back in the day, but the notion that "we the people" would stand any kind of chance taking arms against our government is simply not in touch with reality, we already live in a police state and thats only going to get worse, no matter what party is in charge.

Sorry, but I think that reading of the 2nd amendment lost all relevence about the time of the first world war.

Not saying I support gun control either mind you, just that some of the utterly silly arguments that some gun fetishists seem to come up with are getting to be downright hilarious.

MVWRX

09-13-2004, 05:55 PM

deyes

09-13-2004, 06:48 PM

I've read Lott's piece of crap...look at England, guns are illegal there and the capitol crime rate is WAY lower than ours...and no, no matter how hard I tried I could never take Helladumbs place, he's in a class of his own...I DO think that Americans are gun-crazy in general though...the whole constitutional thing as an excuss is hilarious...are YOU in a militia? I'm not...don't need a war gun...maybe a pistol, I could see that argument...get yourself a Glock model 21 or something like that, not an assault rifle...that's my point really...

Lets look at England, they have banned guns and thier crime rate is lower than ours. What you don't hear is that their crime rate has skyrocketed after the ban and that people are put in prison for defending themselves against violent criminals. What a great example! As far as handguns vs assualt rifles whatever gun you wish to use to protect yourself is your prerogative I can't make that desicion for you, you decide what is best for you just like buying a car. If you want to buy a car with a body kit or modify your car with a body kit thats your decision, its not going to make your car more powerful or handle better, it just looks more menacing. But you don't see me screaming to ban cars with body kits because they look like cars used in street racing or because I saw a movie with street racers in cars with body kits. What the government classifies as assult weapons is ridiculous, pistol grip? Beyonette lug? Threaded barrel? Give me a break, purely cosmetics and ergonomics. None of these guns fire rounds faster or more powerful than other rifles and pistols not considered assault weapons. I hear a lot about full auto guns when I read articles about the ban, when the fact of the matter is that full auto guns are class III weapons and the assult weapons ban has nothing to do with them, it simply bans semi auto guns that LOOK more menacing than guns with the same caliber and high capacity magazines among others things. Millitias are thought of as being organized when the reality is, is that any group of citizens can form a millitia at a moments notice. A very powerful deterent for invading armies. When was the last time we were invaded? 1812?

<End rant>

deyes

09-13-2004, 07:24 PM

It's not that I'm affraid of assault weapons...I just don't trust a lot of people who, if they had assault weapons, would scare the s*** out of me.

The people that you should be affraid of owning assault weapons do not care about assault weapons bans, and are not likely to use them in a crime anyways. I believe the number is less than 2%.

It's not an irrational fear...on the contrary, the idea that every person has the right to whatever weapons they want is irrational. Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line at small arms aka firearms aka non exploding projectile firing handheld weapons, the bigger of which you regulate ala class III. We're already doing this!?

Assault rifles are made to efficiently kill many people. So are bombs. Do you think every American should have the right to own some land mines and a couple ICBMs?

Guns are designed to efficiently and accurately put a bullet where the user wants it to go period. In this respect all guns are similar. None of the features on so called "assault weapons" makes them more indescriminate. How many people get killed with any gun is solely up to the person firing the weapon. Our millitary m16 is not full auto it is select fire one and three round bursts. Why? Because your more likely to hit what your shooting at, the result all shooters both criminal and otherwise want. Explosive devices like bombs and mines are illegal, banned outright, other than demilled inert examples. Why they are so often brought up in gun control arguments is beyond me as are ICBM's but in reality we collectively weild these weapons.

It just doesn't make sense...assault rifles are overkill for hunting, .

If you've ever hunted then you would know that a misplaced shot means a lot of suffering for an animal and can often result in the hunter being injured by an angry animal as well. Quick follow up shots are not only necessary for humane reasons but also for hunter saftey. Semi auto rifles like those classified as assualt rifles are designed with quick follow ups in mind. In that respect they are ideal for hunting.

..and way overkill for self protection (unless you suddenly have 15-20 people that rush into your home hell-bent on killing you.)

[cough] Waco [cough] Ruby Ridge [cough]

As for defense against the US Gov't? Give me a f***ing break...they'd shoot a self-sharpening-depleated-uranium shell from an Abrams tank cannon at my house and I'd be f***ing vapor if they were coming after me like that.

Then they wouldn't be able to imprison you afterwards or make you pay taxes anymore.

In my mind, it's difficult to justify the need to own an assault rifle. So give me a few reasons or situations where you need an assault rifle instead of another, more reasonable, firearm and maybe I'll see your point. But until then, I'll consider myself the rational one.

Have you ever heard of CMP? Civilian Marksmanship Program. Designed to make citizens better shots so that in time of war we have more accurate riflemen. If you were a member then you would want to shoot something like what the millitary is fielding no? To some people its just a hobby, like cars. Hobbyists are hardly a threat to anyone other than someone who would wish to do harm to them. So why be affraid of them? Why do some people want so badly to keep honest law abiding Americans, that are no threat to them from buying what they want for their personal protection? What is rational about that? We know best what is best for us, we know best how to spend our money and protect our families and we should be free to do so.

deyes

09-13-2004, 07:37 PM

Just an after thought, but when the founding fathers drafted the second ammendment the most advanced weapons being fielded were muzzle loading. That was state of the art back then, what is state of the art right now? Semi auto rifles and pistols. The point of the second ammendment was to ensure the right of Americans to own the sort of weapons (small arms) that are fielded by todays modern millitary. Otherwise a millitia would be much less effective against an invading army. There were no ICBM's or guided bombs or the like. Its obvious what our forefathers intentions were when they wrote it. That we can use these weapons to protect ourselves from criminals in our own country is not any kind of reason to be anti second ammendment. Its a good thing.

Paul@dbtuned

09-13-2004, 09:08 PM

It's not that I'm affraid of assault weapons...I just don't trust a lot of people who, if they had assault weapons, would scare the s*** out of me. It's not an irrational fear...on the contrary, the idea that every person has the right to whatever weapons they want is irrational. [QUOTE=MVWRX]

OK. I agree with you; there are some people that shouldn't own firearms. And if all the pre '89 gun control laws had been strictly enforced, the Stockton, San Francisco, Columbine shootings may not have happened.

I can by whatever car I want, so why not any firearm? Am I more likely to kill some one with a Yugo or an STi?

[QUOTE=MVWRX]Where do you draw the line? Assault rifles are made to efficiently kill many people. So are bombs. Do you think every American should have the right to own some land mines and a couple ICBMs?

The 2nd Ammendment is quite clear in that it only addresses personal weapons, not "crew served", hence these weapons are not protected by the 2nd, nor should they be.

It just doesn't make sense...assault rifles are overkill for hunting, and way overkill for self protection (unless you suddenly have 15-20 people that rush into your home hell-bent on killing you.) As for defense against the US Gov't? Give me a f***ing break...they'd shoot a self-sharpening-depleated-uranium shell from an Abrams tank cannon at my house and I'd be f***ing vapor if they were coming after me like that.

They wouldn't waste that expesive a round on you, or me, for that matter.
Remember how Janet Reno "solved" the Waco problem; set a building on fire.

In my mind, it's difficult to justify the need to own an assault rifle. So give me a few reasons or situations where you need an assault rifle instead of another, more reasonable, firearm and maybe I'll see your point. But until then, I'll consider myself the rational one.

I want one.
Nothing irrational about that, right?
What is irrational, is a government that does not want me to have one.
Let me expand a bit.

My, our, government had absolutely no problem issuing me a brand new M16A2 assault rifle complete with bayonet lug, and flash suppessor & train me in it's proper usage to defend our country. They even gave me a bayonet and provided the necessary training so I could stick it into the body of some bastard trying to kill me.

Now this same government that gave me a machine gun & knife to defend said government with says I can't be trusted with a semi automatic rifle (that happens to look like a machine gun) to defend myself.

That's irrational.

I live in El Dorado county, far from others. I don't even know off the top of my head where the nearest Sherriff's office is, but can guess that response time would be longer than a few minutes.
Which is longer than I care to wait while worrying if the yutz that just B & E'd into my house is planning on taking my life or just valuables.
Could I defend myself with a pistol?
Yes.
But, I am proficiently trained on using an AR 15.

Don't get my wrong.
I don't answer the door with a pistol in hand.
Nor do I post videos on i-club of me and my friends shooting up the forest a la Brucelee.
I don't sit up at night, surrounded with firearms, waiting to smoke some bad guy.
To the contrary, I sleep very well, partly because I know I can protect my family.

dr3d1zzl3

09-14-2004, 12:22 AM

anyone know anything on maryland firearm laws?

FUNKED1

09-14-2004, 12:40 AM

I like assault weapons. Here's to the 2nd Amendment.

Paul@dbtuned

09-14-2004, 09:10 AM

anyone know anything on maryland firearm laws?

Maryland Gun Laws (www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=MD)

Salty

09-14-2004, 09:44 AM

Enough with the racism argument because it's going too far and everyone knows it...

All it did was ban cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Manufacturers found loopholes around these cosmetic bans and voila! They still produced "assault style weapons" but with closed stocks and attached magazines. These very same weapons were capable of killing everyday individual as effective as the .22 short pistol of the assault ban era.

It didn't save any lives nor did it stop a crime seeing how Joe Snuffy could have easily bought any SKS, black market assault rifle -or- Saturday night special to shoot the very same store clerk.

Seeing how weapons are abundant on the black & legal markets courtesy of law biding citizens under the 2nd amendment and criminals, implementing bans on weapons is like making marijuana illegal... people will still have access to both and abuse them accordingly.

It's too late in the game to deny citizens their constitutional rights just as it's too late in the game to seize all activity in the 60's for drug smugglers and their Cessna’s.

View Askew

09-14-2004, 12:49 PM

Well, the ban expired today. Who's gonna go buy some guns?

http://www.ktva.com/Stories/0,1413,163~29969~2400094,00.html

MonkeyAB

09-14-2004, 11:25 PM

What happens if some criminal or bad guy B & E's into your house and steals your AR-15?

There are some good arguments both ways on this one. I'm kind of on the fence here. It seems like the definition of an assault rifle as far as the gov't is concerned is quite silly. It also seems silly to defend yourself in your home with a rifle instead of a handgun. Wouldn't a rifle be much more difficult to use in close quarters? And wouldn't it also be more likely to pass through walls and end up hitting a bystander? Not sure about this, I'm ballistically uninformed. I used to think that the whole 'populace defending itself from it's gov't' was ridiculous, but the way things are going now, it doesn't seem so crazy anymore...

http://www.johntitor.com/

Salty

09-14-2004, 11:39 PM

What happens if some criminal or bad guy B & E's into your house and steals your AR-15?

They'd have to breach my huge safe to access the weapons in the first place. I use a pistol for personal protection in my home. ;)

It still isn't a very valid argument... what if a burglar stole your car and ran someone over with it? You'd report the weapon in the unlikely event it was stolen to the DOJ just as you would any stolen car with the VIN.

For that matter... what if they stole your faberware knife set from the kitchen counter etc?

There are some good arguments both ways on this one. I'm kind of on the fence here. It seems like the definition of an assault rifle as far as the gov't is concerned is quite silly. It also seems silly to defend yourself in your home with a rifle instead of a handgun. Wouldn't a rifle be much more difficult to use in close quarters? And wouldn't it also be more likely to pass through walls and end up hitting a bystander? Not sure about this, I'm ballistically uninformed. I used to think that the whole 'populace defending itself from it's gov't' was ridiculous, but the way things are going now, it doesn't seem so crazy anymore...

http://www.johntitor.com/

To answer your question a pistol is the most logical choice for home protection based on telegraphing and close quarter control where the bad guy can grab the muzzle. As for bullet velocity and ft lbs in close quarters what you sacrifice in bullet weight for the rifle cartridge = more velocity and the exact opposite respect for pistol rounds. Basically, both tend to travel down walls and can be lethal in other respects. Just make sure you're aware of your surroundings and DON'T miss.

MonkeyAB

09-15-2004, 12:05 AM

I was just throwing that what if out there for fun. I figured most people don't use their rifles for home defense. So the argument for home defense is out, but the armed populace argument is still intact. That one makes more sense to me anyway.

bassplayrr

09-15-2004, 12:07 AM

Just make sure you're aware of your surroundings and DON'T miss.

Just use a shogun for home protection.

-Chris

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 04:38 AM

Salty

09-15-2004, 07:56 AM

Just use a shogun for home protection.

-Chris

Actually a shotgun can be even worse. I'm not saying this to be an ass, Chris... i'm saying this to make sure you guys use the proper weapon going around a corner at 0dark30.

Imagine waking up from bed to the sound of an intruder in the middle of the night when you're disoriented from sleep. You get out of bed, grab your extremely long mossberg and attempt to clear the first corner. You slowly pie the corner too close with the long barrel and voila! The bad guy came out of the shadows, grabbed the long barrel and used your own shotgun against you.

If you're going to use a shotgun it would have to be sawed off very close to the chamber with maybe a pistol style grip. I know they're illegal but if that's all you have for home protection you need to improvise to stay safe.

Salty

09-15-2004, 08:15 AM

MonkeyAB

09-15-2004, 10:23 AM

I'd like to add another thought on this. Say some average guy snaps and decides to commit some terrorist act, a la Timothy McVeigh. Now your average Joe isn't gonna know who to contact to purchase illegal arms from Mexico, but he sure can go to Wal-Mart and pick up a modern day assualt rifle and enough ammo to kill everyone at the post office.

Just throwing this idea around too...

Salty

09-15-2004, 10:35 AM

It's just another hypothetical that can be beaten to death like anything else.

What if this same person bought ammonium nitrate from a hardware store to build a powerful explosive, made a pipe bomb out of matchsticks heads or out of propane (something i'm surprised hasn't happened due to it's explosive potential) purchased from a local Arco station?

The sky's the limit for anything if you put your mind to it and are dedicated enough to your cause.

MonkeyAB

09-15-2004, 10:43 AM

deyes

09-15-2004, 11:13 AM

...EXACTLY, thank you Salty...a PISTOL is the answer for home protection...so for assault rifles, my idea (only have ammo legal at the shooting range) makes PERFECT sense...
but to fuel more fire...why do all you 'Americans' feel so impassioned by the right to own crazy guns?!?!...could it be a Napoleonic issue...

It does not make perfect sense because once again you are only restricting law abiding citizens! Why!? You can buy frangible ammunition for nearly all calibers and they WILL be stopped by a wall or door and are much safer in close quater situations for "non combatants". That is what many swat teams use in those situations, why not us?
Not to douse your flame but calling them "crazy guns" is a silly as calling them "assualt rifles" and I think underlines most of the anti gun attitude. That a gun can be bad, when in reality they are inanimate objects. It is people that abuse their rights that are the problem, and you can't stop a free man from doing what he wants, unless you take away his freedom which is the real issue here.
If I think for my home a semi auto rifle is best for defense purposes then so be it. Why stop me? Am I, a law abiding gun owner a threat to YOU? If the gun I shoot at the range the most and am most comfortable using is a semi auto rifle then when push comes to shove I'm going to reach for what I know, and people nearby will be safer because of it.

deyes

09-15-2004, 11:18 AM

guess you're right on that, but I think they are putting restrictions on ammonium nitrate, and the fertilizer industry supports it. Every little bit counts. But you are correct, it's just an open ended hypothetical. But if we are trying to make this nation as safe as it can be, there should be restrictions on weapons and hazardous materials.

There ARE restrictions on weapons, and not just firearms. The problem is that we cannot predict who will "snap", and its wrong to take away rights because someone may snap. Its kind of like innocent until proven guilty. You can own a weapon, but if you abuse that right then it is stripped from you. That is the best, most fair thing we can do as a society.

Salty

09-15-2004, 11:21 AM

Not to douse your flame but calling them "crazy guns" is a silly as calling them "assualt rifles" and I think underlines most of the anti gun attitude. That a gun can be bad, when in reality they are inanimate objects. It is people that abuse their rights that are the problem, and you can't stop a free man from doing what he wants, unless you take away his freedom which is the real issue here.

Deyes, you need to come here more often to speak your mind. That quote is the best thing i've read in some time here.

Thanks! :)

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 12:14 PM

Freedom is not the real issue...we aren't as 'free' a country as many others in most respects, but we have access to fairly high powered, very accurate, combat style weapons (notice I refrained from calling them crazy guns or assault rifles...)

"Most of the people that study comparative freedom in terms of civil rights and political freedom rank all of these countries higher than the USA:

ANDORRA
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
CANADA
DENMARK
FINLAND
ICELAND
LIECHTENSTEIN
LUXEMBOURG
MARSHALL
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NORWAY
PORTUGAL
SAN MARINO
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND

The US is generally listed in the second tier, along with

AUSTRALIA
BARBADOS
BELIZE
COSTA RICA
CZECH REP
ESTONIA
FRANCE
GERMANY
GREECE
HUNGARY
IRELAND
ITALY
JAPAN
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
MALTA
MONACO
PALAU
POLAND
SAINT
SLOVENIA
SPAIN
TUVALU
UNITED KINGDOM

Now those account for the top 40 when considering the 63 or so "free countries" there are 130+ that aren't considered "Free", so we're doing pretty good, but there's room for improvement here, and our ranking has dropped by most accounts over the last 4 years." -psoper from another thread

bassplayrr

09-15-2004, 12:20 PM

Actually a shotgun can be even worse. I'm not saying this to be an ass, Chris... i'm saying this to make sure you guys use the proper weapon going around a corner at 0dark30.

Imagine waking up from bed to the sound of an intruder in the middle of the night when you're disoriented from sleep. You get out of bed, grab your extremely long mossberg and attempt to clear the first corner. You slowly pie the corner too close with the long barrel and voila! The bad guy came out of the shadows, grabbed the long barrel and used your own shotgun against you.

If you're going to use a shotgun it would have to be sawed off very close to the chamber with maybe a pistol style grip. I know they're illegal but if that's all you have for home protection you need to improvise to stay safe.

Hmmm... my brother was training as a SWAT officer when he was a San Jose cop (before his wifey made him quit :rolleyes: ) and they learned that if no submachine guns are available (or whatever those little auto-9mm thingies they carrie are classified as) i.e. in your own home, that a shotgun is ALWAYS the best option. I'm not trying to be an ass either, but the SJ SWAT team surely knows what they are talking about, and are trained many times by ex-special forces. :confused:

-Chris

maybe its better with proper training only, but they distincly pointed out its pros.

Salty

09-15-2004, 12:38 PM

but we have access to fairly high powered, very accurate, combat style weapons (notice I refrained from calling them crazy guns or assault rifles...)

I fail to see your point seeing how we also have legal access to fast moving cars, 25mph school zones and whiskey.

When you lay an assault weapon on the counter next to a set of keys of a corvette BOTH are inanimate objects as deyes suggests. The potential of anything lies in the beholder so you're point is invalid.

Salty

09-15-2004, 12:51 PM

Hmmm... my brother was training as a SWAT officer when he was a San Jose cop (before his wifey made him quit :rolleyes: ) and they learned that if no submachine guns are available (or whatever those little auto-9mm thingies they carrie are classified as) i.e. in your own home, that a shotgun is ALWAYS the best option. I'm not trying to be an ass either, but the SJ SWAT team surely knows what they are talking about, and are trained many times by ex-special forces. :confused:

-Chris

maybe its better with proper training only, but they distincly pointed out its pros.

It's arguable... i've had this similar debates with my SWAT brother (who agrees with me on this subject) and other members of the SOF community. SOP is different everywhere you go! Sometimes I hated the SOP's given to us from higher (3 guns in the fatal funnel for example) and soemtimes i've praised it.

Trust me when I tell you I know what i'm talking about... having experience in the field I've actually schooled my brother on tatical SOP. I can get him on the phone today and he’ll openly admit I have a better understand of the subject… not to mention, subaruguru (another advid gun guru) can vouche for me too.

It's safe to say that a shotgun is an effective choice if you're hiding behind your bed calling the cops without a shred of firearms experience and are a lousy shot. On the other hand, what I’ve suggested above still stands...

If you and I were in the same room i'd have you hold a shotgun and exit your room in a low lighted area. I'd come out of nowhere, grab the weapon from your hand with the "violence of action" and determination to steal your 15k dimond necklace, rape your wife and kill you... you'd be convinced of a pistol instantly... i guarantee it...

bassplayrr

09-15-2004, 12:57 PM

It's arguable... i've had this similar debates with my SWAT brother (who agrees with me on this subject) and other members of the SOF community. SOP is different everywhere you go! Sometimes I hated the SOP's given to us from higher (3 guns in the fatal funnel for example) and soemtimes i've praised it.

Trust me when I tell you I know what i'm talking about... having experience in the field I've actually schooled my brother on tatical SOP. I can get him on the phone today and he’ll openly admit I have a better understand of the subject… not to mention, subaruguru (another advid gun guru) can vouche for me too.

It's safe to say that a shotgun is an effective choice if you're hiding behind your bed calling the cops without a shred of firearms experience and are a lousy shot. On the other hand, what I’ve suggested above still stands...

If you and I were in the same room i'd have you hold a shotgun and exit your room in a low lighted area. I'd come out of nowhere, grab the weapon from your hand like I have a pari of balls (violence of action) and you'd be convinced of a pistol instantly... i guarantee it...

Fair enough. My brother and his buddies will swear all day long it's the other way around. Sounds like another chevy/ford or subaru/mitsu debate to me, no convincing the other side. ;)

-Chris

and it's a debate I'm gonna stay out of as I have NO training. :D

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 01:11 PM

Paul@dbtuned

09-15-2004, 01:24 PM

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 01:28 PM

Salty

09-15-2004, 01:39 PM

I have given my reason previously, but here...I DON'T TRUST PEOPLE very easily, if at all, and so I don't want them to have things (weather inanimate or not) that are MADE FOR KILLING. Yes, cars kill, but they're not designed to. These weapons are designed to kill.

It still doesn't matter if they were designed for killing or not! The car and assault rifle are merely hunks of metal until abused.

You can act like Brucelee (Daniel) and shoot an old water heater in the middle of BFE with an AK47 and not kill anything! So once again, your point is flawed and invalid.

If you really didn't trust people then you'd never cross the street in fear of the crazed driver in said Corvette. This is a prime example of nearsighted thinking and nothing more!

Here's the thread: http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62872&highlight=water+heater nobody died either :rolleyes:

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 01:45 PM

deyes

09-15-2004, 01:47 PM

Deyes, you need to come here more often to speak your mind. That quote is the best thing i've read in some time here.

Thanks! :)

Thank you for giving me my first compliment on i-club. I work in the firearm industry so the topic is of great interest to me. I'm fairly well versed and make it a point to know the oppositions arguments.

deyes

09-15-2004, 01:53 PM

so you're saying, Salty, that our freedom is directly proportional to how many inanimate objects we can own? my point is that this thread makes it sound like gun ownership=freedom (or is part or being free), but many countries where guns are not as legal as they are here have MORE true freedoms (politically and socially) than we do...the ability to own a gun has very little to do with actual freedom

Freedom is many things, but to me its being able to do what is best for me and my family, in all aspects of our lives. I seriously question the validity of any survey, study, or otherwise that ranks the US lower than any other country in the world in terms of freedoms, this coming from a first generation American. What exactly is the criteria? What is the measure of absolute freedom that we are ranked on? Anarchy? There are bad people in this world that wish to do harm to people just like you and me, some of them have guns some of them do not. This does not make them any less of a threat. I personally would like to be on even ground when it comes to weapons that criminals commonly use.

Salty

09-15-2004, 02:02 PM

I suppose you're all for legalizing larger capacity magazines, too, because everyone needs to be able to unload 15 bullets straight into a target at a range and 10 just won't do...

Exactly! After all, it's just a metal box with a spring in the middle of it, right?!

If your argument was valid then you could legitimately walk into a butcher shop and tell the butcher to use a pocket knife instead of a cleaver. There's really no need for a larger blade to cut meat when both are capable of cutting a fillet, right? It's just too flashy, intimidating and dangerous after all!

and BTW, way to ask me why I have an aversion to something and then say my answer is invalid...WTF man...nearsighted my ass...what, you getting ready for 'return to LA'!?!? Hahahahaha

Attention to detail, MVWRX...

You seem to have the aversion confused with Oaf, not myself...

But back to my earlier question: Why are you anti-assault rifle?
You have made several statements indicating as such, but haven't given a reason.

deyes

09-15-2004, 02:04 PM

...this is hopeless...no matter what, apparently thinking things that are designed to kill are bad because the sole reason that they're designed to kill is 'flawed and invalid'...I suppose you're all for legalizing larger capacity magazines, too, because everyone needs to be able to unload 15 bullets straight into a target at a range and 10 just won't do...

I hear this so many times, "designed to kill". The fact of the matter is that these guns are designed to be rugged reliable accurate and ergonomic with the highest standards in mind, who does not want those features in something that can potentialy help save their life?
Why do police need higher than 10 round magazines, why do they field assault style weapons? We seek parity with those whom we employ to protect us. Why? Because who better to protect us then US?

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 02:05 PM

Man, I've tried to eat a fillet with a pocket knife...that doesn't work, unless you bought the ultra expensive ultra tender fillets...now your point is invalid

Salty

09-15-2004, 02:11 PM

Now your point is invalid

Care to explain my point for me then?

deyes

09-15-2004, 02:23 PM

He's grasping at straws. It happens when anti gunner find that there is no logic, to their reasoning.

OneManArmy

09-15-2004, 02:41 PM

woah....ever try to type when you hand is asleep...crazy..haa.

anyways...I love Salty.

I happen to be against the extremity of our gun laws. Friend of mine had and SR-15. registered it as a long rifle...that's what it was set up for. He never got papers to reregister it as an assault rifle. I mean the thing had a fat scope, long barrel. He took it in to get a bipod set up for it. The guy refused to work on it because it wasn't papered as an assault rifle. The gun is gone now.

Illegal...because of paperwork.

every point I could make has been made..so I'll leave it like this...criminals are people that do not obey the law. Whether it be breaking and entering or having an assault rifle. Why disarm the law abiding community?

oh and salty...the shot gun...pistol theory...it revolves around a couple of things...most people that break into homes don't have swat or military training...so they aren't gonna close enough to me to snag my shotgun. Another part is the willingness to fire. More people are willing to fire a smaller round at someone than a large one. You hit someone with a .45 they might live. you hit someone with a shotgun shell for 12 feet...they are not going to live.

just a couple thoughts..in most cases I agree with you. Pistol is better. But in my...well my former case..I'd take my shotgun..haa. pistol grip. short barrel of fun. haa. she is gone.

MVWRX

09-15-2004, 02:44 PM

...or when I get ganged up on by everyone and their brother...it's not like everyone who is pro-gun is a genious and everyone who is anti-gun is retarded, we have our fair share of smart and dumb people on both sides...so don't try to make it sound like all my points and arguments are completely irrational, it just seems to be a matter of opinion...and at this point it appears that we have reached an impass...

deyes

09-16-2004, 12:20 PM

Facts and elementary logic carry more wieght with me then opinions, and indeed shape my opinions. If a law touted to have an impact on crime does not then why have it?

MVWRX

09-16-2004, 02:13 PM

I pride myself on my logical abilities as well; that's why I am involved in a field of work where logic is all that counts. On this issue, however, a choice is made before any facts are seen and then 'logic' is used to support said choice. Let me ask this...were any of you ever pro gun control? I doubt it...so from the beginning, your opinion was that gun laws are too strict. If I, as a logical person, use this assumption as my starting point I can come up with a good argument (as you all have) for why the AWB was injust. However, if I choose (as I have) to think that they are unnecesary to living a happy and complete life, I can come up with an even better line of logic for why the AWB was fair legislation. I understand we all have different view points on things, and that's why I come to this forum to debate and discuss things. But don't make the false assumption that because someone disagrees with your opinion (however much logic you use to generate your opinion) that that person is neccesarilly being illogical. Refusal to comprehend your oponent's point of view is a true sign of mis-guided logic.

Salty

09-16-2004, 03:21 PM

On this issue, however, a choice is made before any facts are seen and then 'logic' is used to support said choice.

Care to show me the facts that support your opinion of the AWB?

Let me ask this...were any of you ever pro gun control? I doubt it...so from the beginning, your opinion was that gun laws are too strict. If I, as a logical person, use this assumption as my starting point I can come up with a good argument (as you all have) for why the AWB was injust. However, if I choose (as I have) to think that they are unnecesary to living a happy and complete life, I can come up with an even better line of logic for why the AWB was fair legislation.

From the beginning my opinion was that gun laws were too strict because I was taught that a weapon's potential, just like anything else, lies in the beholder. Just as a kitchen knife, two ton vehicle and bottle of Tylenol could be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. It wasn't too hard for me to figure out that an object at rest tends to stay at rest... the same thing holds true for the cold steel of any Kalashnikov rifle.

With your logic you make it seem like those that are raised from pro-gun ideals are done so based on family default. As if my Grand pappy gave me a shotgun without -any- education and said, "this is the right way because the founding fathers and I said so...". Do you see what I'm getting at here?

If I was raised on opinions rather than physical and undeniable facts then my Grand pappy could tell me that racism is okay and the world is flat. Basically my point is that opinion(s) almost always leads to ignorance when the facts are stacked against you... this leads me back to my original question: Care to show me the facts that support your opinion of the AWB?

MVWRX

09-16-2004, 03:41 PM

subaruguru

09-16-2004, 04:38 PM

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Basically it says in the short term (~6-12mnths) the ban appeared to do little to limit the number of the weapons in the US but helped a little to get them out of criminal's hands. It also has a lot of parts that are inconclusive. Really, it looks like they weren't allowed to do a real study of the issue. Why?...prolly the NRA had something to do with it, as did anti-gun lobbyists. Either way, it's hard to get factual info on this topic because everyone puts a spin on it. I wasn't trying to say a person inherits their opinion on the subject, just that it's easy to justify either side with quasi-facts and emotionally charged arguments. I agree about the inanimate object thing...I know it's up to the person who picks up the object to mess up or not...but our government does intervine to a certain extent to limit things that they think are dangerous...our opinions differ on where they should set that limit.

All policy questions aside...the assault weapons ban did not, I repeat, did not ban any of those weapons. It banned using certain names on new production ones, and it banned some cosmetic features (like bayonet lugs and flash suppressors.) Virtually every gun on the list continued to be sold in the US under a different name and with a few cosmetic changes. The function of those guns is exactly the same as before the ban; same ammunition, same magazines, same method of operation.

So, any study on the assault weapons ban by necessity is going to come up with conclusions that are totally unrelated to the types of weapons involved. The ban only banned names and cool-looking parts on guns; it did not ban guns by function or caliber or any other substantive measure.

MVWRX

09-16-2004, 04:49 PM

deyes

09-16-2004, 04:54 PM

The fact of the matter is that the "Assualt Weapons" ban did nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands period. Nor did it do anything to prevent crime or measurably lower the crime rate. Please explain to me why in the states with the MOST relaxed gun laws they have the lowest incidences of crime in the nation? Why in nations that has severly restricted gun ownership have their crime rates risen, Australia, UK? Why in light of these facts do you support gun bans? Gun bans do not work because they do nothing to effect the cause of crime, which are ultimately a problem with the people commiting the crimes and not the means by which they are commited.

subaruguru

09-16-2004, 04:59 PM

Any of what weapons? The ones in the link? Then what is that whole report about? Nothing?...I know there are weapons discussed in the report that were not banned...they talk about that...but the report is obviously about the ban and it's effects...especially about how it effected the gun market which in turn effected criminals ability to get certain guns...I know it's not revolutionary findings or anything, but it is on-topic...

The weapons in the study are weapons with the cosmetic features. They are, however, functionally exactly identical to the weapons without the cosmetic features named in the ban. The ban has only two types of criteria for banning a weapon: Name of the weapon, and cosmetic features (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, etc.) Change the name, and change one or two features (all of which are easily changed), and you can legally manufacture and sell the weapon again. You don't even need new machinery to do it. That's exactly what happened after the ban.

So yes, you're right on with "Nothing". The study is bunk.

Salty

09-16-2004, 05:14 PM

The weapons in the study are weapons with the cosmetic features. They are, however, functionally exactly identical to the weapons without the cosmetic features named in the ban. The ban has only two types of criteria for banning a weapon: Name of the weapon, and cosmetic features (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, etc.) Change the name, and change one or two features (all of which are easily changed), and you can legally manufacture and sell the weapon again. You don't even need new machinery to do it. That's exactly what happened after the ban.

So yes, you're right on with "Nothing". The study is bunk.

Woah, whoa let me get this straight, Dave...

So if all they did was change the basic cosmetics of the weapons then they're essentialy the same weapons during the ban, right?

Why is this concept so hard to grasp?! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/Emoticons/79.gif