PDA

View Full Version : Great article-really funny



Qtec
06-30-2004, 10:44 AM
I,m sure you will get his point. HaHa



An Uzi Up Your Liberal Nose
Who cares if the assault-weapons ban is about to expire? The gun lobby can't wait to blow stuff away
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Machine guns. Aren't they just the cutest things?

And isn't it just so sweet and fall-down uproarious how the NRA and all its knuckle-draggin' right-wing pals in the U.S. Senate are all cheering right this minute, as the much-loathed 10-year-old ban on assault weapons, the one outlawing Uzis and TEC-9 semiautomatics and AK-47s and all other way-cool manly guns that have no other purpose in this world than to annihilate crap at 200 rounds per minute, is about to expire?

Because, get this: The ban will not be renewed. It's true. Even if that commie liberal Feinstein somehow gets it passed in the Senate, the NRA lobby has promised to keep it from ever coming up for a vote in the House, and the law will just expire and they will all cheer and slather each other in gun-barrel polish and go off and shoot stuff, because that's the only thing that seems to give life any meaning.

Isn't that great? To hell with logic and to hell with your kids' safety and to hell with even trying to prevent moron gangbangers and terrorist wanna-bes and imbecilic white supremacists from easily getting their hands on a nice AK-47 that can mow down a schoolyard full of tots in 10 seconds flat. Instead: Down with liberal scum who would take away our God-given right to bear nasty ultraviolent weaponry that no one anywhere can justify the existence of. Go, NRA!

What, too sarcastic? Well, hold onto your sides, because it gets even funnier. Even little gun-lovin' Bushie himself declared during the 2000 campaign that he actually supported an extension of the ban (pretty hard, even for Shrub, to defend Uzis in the wake of Columbine and 101 California, et al.), a law that outlaws 19 types of insidiously lethal weaponry, the very guns most highly prized by jittery meth-lab owners and killing-spree advocates and homophobic militia members deep in the Montana woods. Oh, and also by upstanding, white-bread NRA members. Oh my yes. They need assault weapons. Must have them. Or so they claim.

But Bush, he is just so happy. He won't have to see that bill at all. He won't have to sign a thing before the election and risk annoying the Bible-quotin' gun lovers of America. The NRA lobby will kill it before he even has to try to pronounce the phrase "high school gun rampage." Oh man is he ever relieved.

Because to the NRA, the rule is absolute: No gun law is a good gun law, and any ban of any kind is a slippery slope (always, always a slippery slope) until the government stomps in and takes away all your rights to do anything fun at all, and so screw the painfully obvious, skull-crushingly sad fact that allowing assault weapons back into the culture is the equivalent of allowing, say, convicted rapists loose in a sorority house.

What, too extreme? Bull. Even "normal," responsible gun owners -- and, yes, they do exist, in huge numbers -- know there is zero justification for allowing Uzis and AK-47s and their ilk back onto the market, just as there is no validation for suddenly legalizing, say, bazookas and flamethrowers and a swell grenade launcher for the Hummer. Dude! Wouldn't that be so cool! Imagine a flame-throwing grenade-launching badass H2 with roof-mounted machine guns, barreling down I-5 and shooting up those goddamn wimpy Priuses and Mini Coopers! Ha! High five! Goddamn liberals!

Whoops, sorry. Getting carried away again. Hard not to, really. Because you simply have to love that NRA logic. It is pure genius, their insidious small-minded one-note hunk of reasoning that says banning assault weapons is just one step away from the government breaking down the door and taking away their shotguns and their Cheez Puffs and their Guns & Ammo subscription and their secret stash of gay porn.

This is the thinking. And it applies to all aspects of the frightening NRA mind-set. What, damn libs make me wear a seat belt in the car? Won't let me breed African killer bees in my backyard? Make homemade bombs out of weed killer and turpentine? Buy cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart? What's next, invading my home and making my kids read feminist lit and stealing my kidneys while I sleep? I knew it! Damn liberals! <font color="blue">LOL </font color>

It gets better. It gets funnier. It gets sadder. Let us note how the current, about-to-expire legislation is already full of loopholes and flaws of sufficient breadth that gun manufacturers can mostly skirt the ban by making simple cosmetic changes to their guns and then selling them as something else, completely legal, even though the gun is essentially the same, ha ha suckers.

And if you are at all sentient and aware and feel even the slightest twinge of humanitarian concern for the spiritual progress of the human animal, a bitter, uncontrolled, fall-down fit of pained hilarity would seem to be the only real reaction you can possibly have.

Because if you don't laugh it off, right now, at the bloody cosmic circus of it all, you will tear out your hair and start popping Vicodin like candy and pound a large nail into your own skull to deflect the pain, and then move to Canada, where they look down at America's bizarre right-wing macho inbred obsession with guns and just go, oh my freaking God what the hell is wrong with you people.

And the kicker? The cutest aspect of all? There is no effort to hide it. The NRA is making not the slightest stab at concealing how their snide little lobby controls the right-wing side of the senate, nor are those same senators denying how they happily and with full enthusiastic intent suck at the bitter macho metallic tit of the gun lobby.

Simply put, they just do not care whether you know. Why? Because the Right, they still have majority control. They still make the rules, and, no matter how many Dems or progressives or commonsense Americans still think the assault-weapons ban is a good idea overall, they just don't give a crap. The NRA is in charge. The sheer force of the gun lobby will make Uzis available again, just because they can. Don't like it? Suck my shotgun barrel, commie liberal tree hugger. <font color="blue"> HaHaHaHaHa </font color> God bless America.


And, finally, here is NRA prez and noted ball of rancid cottage cheese Wayne LaPierre, talking up the sheer orgiastic joy of watching the ban expire: "I'm here to promise you that's the end of [the ban]. It's over. On Sept. 14, the sun will rise and it will never see the light of day again as long as we stay strong." Yes, he's actually comparing buying Uzis and AK-47s to a sunrise. And lo, the Earth shuddered, children everywhere felt suddenly soiled and defiled and lightning, sadly, did not strike LaPierre dead on the spot.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to type this column. I am now laughing so hard at the warped hypocritical savagery of it all, at so many Republicans wailing about, you know, the necessity of war on terror and war on drugs and war on gays and war on women's rights and war on just about everything they don't understand, and then how they turn right around and fall prostrate in front of Mr. NRA Lobbyist and say yes yes, what this country really needs goddammit is to get those Uzis back into the hands of angry Americans.

Laughing. Laughing so very hard. Oh you poor, sad senators, lobbyists, NRA chiefs, stroking your Uzis and cheering your right to own multiple TEC-9s and not caring a whit for how anyone thinks. Or feels. Or intuits. Or loves.

Do you really not see? Do you really not understand the sad dose of malevolence your agenda pumps into the cultural bloodstream? Do you not, finally, when you go to bed at night, get hit with a white-hot realization of what comical, bleak little clowns you are? No, I suppose you don't.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
06-30-2004, 11:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I,m sure you will get his point. HaHa <hr /></blockquote> Did you have a point you would like to make or does the author speak for you?

eg8r

SpiderMan
06-30-2004, 12:27 PM
I wonder if the writer was really that uninformed, or just pretending to be an idiot in order to excuse his deception? The "assault weapons ban" about to expire has no impact at all on the legality of AK-47s or any other type of "machine gun". That would be a totally different law from almost a decade earlier, with no sunset provision.

SpiderMan

Cueless Joey
06-30-2004, 01:05 PM
Q, you don't get it and you never will.
You can ban any gun you want.
The criminals will still be criminals.
That's WHY they are criminals. They do not abide by the law.
Here in California, they've banned just about every gun.
"Assault-rifle", 15 round magazines, semi-autos that look mean, butterfly knives, nunchuks etc.
Crime rate never went down until the 3-strike law became in effect. The NRA has been lobbying for 3-strike law for DECADES. It had to take the death of Polly Klaas before the liberals joined the bandwagon. Then suddenly, it was their idea.
The problem we have here is the Trial Lawyers of America. They like to keep the scums on the streets. Politicians who sponsor "community rehabilitation" b/c they have vested interest in it.
The NRA does not support the "assault weapons" ban, of course. Let's say all "assault rifles" are banned. Somehow, miraculously, the criminals switched to using revolvers. Now what? Ban revolvers? Ok, we're down to over and under pistols. Wait, the criminals have switched to over and under pistols. Ban them. Now we're down to single loaders? What next? Black powder.
Kinda funny though. Don't you euros have MACHINE GUNS in your homes? Wait, in Switzerland, home owners are required to have machine guns, aren't they?

Wally_in_Cincy
06-30-2004, 01:14 PM
Q,

The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.

Machine guns have been strictly controlled since the 20's.

Please show me the last NRA member that went on a shooting spree.

I'm sure this guy's "humor" goes over well in San Francisco where the mere sight of a gun can make the average citizen wet his/her/its pants.

pooltchr
06-30-2004, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> The problem we have here is the Trial Lawyers of America. <hr /></blockquote>

That says it all! TAP TAP TAP!!!!

mred477
06-30-2004, 01:20 PM
The statistics are pretty clear. Increased gun ownership freedom for legal owners decreases violent crime. Someday someone will actually look at statistics and make decisions based upon them. By the way, the Constitution does not say I have the right to bear arms as long as they're not assault rifles. I don't own a gun and never will, but if a criminal coming to rob me doesn't because I might, then I want gun freedom.

Will

dg-in-centralpa
06-30-2004, 03:29 PM
Unless I'm wrong, and I may be, I don't remember anyone mowing down a schoolyard full of tots with an AK-47. I don't own a gun(by choice), but I've shot them already and would use one to protect my home and family if need. The author missed the point.

DG

JPB
06-30-2004, 07:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Q,

Machine guns have been strictly controlled since the 20's.



<hr /></blockquote>


The author of the article would really hate me because I think that the machine gun restrictions, both the tax stamop and post '86 ban, are unconstitutional. I think every citizen has the right to buy a machine gun under the second amendment. but they passed too many laws against it. The author (and original poster) might crap their pants to know that it is legal in many states to have a machine gun and even the rancid federal law allows it with restrictions. I really want an old full auto tommy gun, but 12000 to be a jackass is too much money. And doing the vile ATF registration and tax paperwork...

If the ban actually gets lifted I doubt I'll get a bunch of rifles, but I will be buying regular capacity glock mags like there's no tomorrow.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

SPetty
06-30-2004, 07:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.<hr /></blockquote>Years and years and years ago, I remember a small town in, I think, Florida? that passed a law that all citizens shall own guns.

Does anyone remember that? What were the crime rate results?

JPB
06-30-2004, 08:03 PM
Years and years and years ago, I remember a small town in, I think, Florida? that passed a law that all citizens shall own guns.

Does anyone remember that? What were the crime rate results?


It was a town outside of Atlanta I think, and I am forgetting the name of the town now. I can't believe I can't remember. Getting old I guess. Kennesaw maybe?? They went quite a while without a break in. But they weren't really a crime plauged city and the law was more symbolic. I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from it. I doubt anny statistically valid ones at least.

Cueless Joey
06-30-2004, 10:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.<hr /></blockquote>Years and years and years ago, I remember a small town in, I think, Florida? that passed a law that all citizens shall own guns.

Does anyone remember that? What were the crime rate results? <hr /></blockquote>
I bet it went down.
The first day that law was enacted, a cab driver shot and killed a would be robber.
The robber, a career-criminal, was also a cop killer.

highsea
07-01-2004, 01:27 AM
Reprinted without permission from The Georgia Libertarian, a monthly publication of the Libertarian Party of Georgia (1874 Piedmont Road Suite 590-E, Atlanta, GA 30324, 404/888-9468, 1-800-257-2493, Fax:404/874-8339):

In mid-November, the [Atlanta, Georgia's] Fulton County government began requiring all gun dealers to stick a government-issued warning label on their firearms. The labels attribute all sorts of dire dangers and consequences to the purchase and ownership of guns.

If gun-owning is so dangerous and such a cause of social ills, then surely the most dangerous place in America - if not the entire planet - must be Kennesaw, Georgia [a suburb of Atlanta], where since 1982 a law has required every household to have a firearm and ammunition. (Conscientious objectors are excluded.)

Right? Wrong.

There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children involving guns since the law was passed.

Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There hasn't been a single murder since 1986. All this despite the fact that the population in Kennesaw doubled in that time.

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/laws/us/ga/kennesaw.html

-CM

EDIT: I don't know when the above was written, but here is another article on Kennesaw with some statistics:

GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA
Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?

"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm

Qtec
07-01-2004, 04:00 AM
This isnt about Kennesaw and it isnt about the right to bear arms.This isnt about suburbia or good neighbourhoods. Its about places like East L.A.
Its about criminals getting ahold of extemely dangerous weapons. If they do they will use them and the bullets that dont hit their target dont stop. They go thru walls and whole houses.
I think the point is that more innocent people are likely to die as a direct result of having assault weapons on the street. The people who are most at risk are the police and people who live in high crime areas. Not Kennesaw residents!

Just wondering, how many people here live in high crime neighbourhoods?

Q

Qtec
07-01-2004, 04:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.
<hr /></blockquote>

OR,
The cities with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun control laws.[ Dosnt that make more sense!!]

Q

Qtec
07-01-2004, 04:15 AM
Another thing. What about the terrorist threat?

8 Arabs armed with uzi,s and AK-47s could easily break into a nuclear power station and do a lot of damage. They could even walk into a Dept store and do a lot of killing. The metro, bus station etc etc.

Is that a risk you are prepered to take?

Q

Singlemalt
07-01-2004, 05:18 AM
You know it went down for sure.

Now, let's not forget Colorado! They have the "MAKE MY DAY" law.

The law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-01-2004, 06:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Another thing. What about the terrorist threat?

8 Arabs armed with uzi,s and AK-47s could easily break into a nuclear power station and do a lot of damage. They could even walk into a Dept store and do a lot of killing. The metro, bus station etc etc.

Is that a risk you are prepered to take?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah Q you have a point there. There is no way Arab terrorists will be able to get uzi's with this law in place LMAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

RPG's and anti-aircraft guns maybe, but definitely no uzi's LOL

catscradle
07-01-2004, 06:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> The cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime rates.<hr /></blockquote>Years and years and years ago, I remember a small town in, I think, Florida? that passed a law that all citizens shall own guns.

Does anyone remember that? What were the crime rate results? <hr /></blockquote>

I've got to think that is patently unconstitutional. I don't believe guns should be outlawed, but if I lived in a town requiring me to own a gun, I'd be the first one testing that in court. Even if I owned a gun when it was passed I'd get rid of it just to test such a foolish law.

As to the article it was just dumb, too long, and boring.

eg8r
07-01-2004, 06:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that more innocent people are likely to die as a direct result of having assault weapons on the street. The people who are most at risk are the police and people who live in high crime areas. Not Kennesaw residents!
<hr /></blockquote> There is absolutely zero logic in this quote. Good job, and keep up the fight. It is funny that you have chosen the side of the argument in which you have ZERO historical evidence to back you up. Maybe you are just looking for a challenge. Is that it? Probably not, you have given zero effort to even make a logical point.

eg8r

Qtec
07-01-2004, 06:38 AM
Whats your point Wally?

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-01-2004, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Whats your point Wally?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

the point is that the assault weapon ban will not stop terrorists from getting assault weapons.

Qtec
07-01-2004, 07:27 AM
Here is just one short extract from one of many articles on the net.

[ QUOTE ]
A Surge in Killings of Children
Access to Guns Linked to Rising Toll of Violence in District

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 5, 2004; Page B01


When a bullet crashed through a window in the Deanwood neighborhood of far Northeast Washington on Monday night, 8-year-old Chelsea Cromartie became the 13th youngster to die at the hands of someone else this year in the District.

Already the number of homicide victims younger than 18 in the District has surpassed last year's total, even as crime in general and the homicide rate in particular have continued to fall.

What lies behind the rise in young people being killed is a question with no sure answers, police and prosecutors say. But what they are certain of is that the more people turn to guns to settle scores on the street the more likely it is that children will end up dead -- unintended victims of violence that is often unsparing.

Chelsea was struck by an errant shot as she watched television in her aunt's home. Even in the toughest neighborhoods, home is normally a haven from violence. But in a city where police seize, on average, five guns a day, such safety can be elusive.

"We live in a city, not the countryside," said U.S. Attorney Roscoe C. Howard Jr., the District's top prosecutor. "The shots go through doors, and they go through windows."

Most of the 13 victims died of gunshots, but not all. One was stabbed to death. A 1-year-old girl was beaten to death, allegedly by a caretaker. And a 10-month-old girl was poisoned, allegedly by her mother.

<hr /></blockquote>


Now just imagine they have some really heavy artillary. I,m pretty sure there will be coming guns on the market that can shot thru just about anything.


IMO humble opinion, I think they should apply the 'Catch 22'test.

ie,
Anybody who thinks they need an AK-47 is too crazy to have one!!!

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-01-2004, 08:16 AM
Yep, looks like those Wash. D.C. gun control laws are working like a charm. Let's just ban all guns, then we'll all be safer /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
07-01-2004, 08:27 AM
Wally, you have no arguement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Only flippant replies!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
07-01-2004, 08:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Wally, you have no arguement. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Only flippant replies!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Q <hr /></blockquote>

There's no point in arguing with you. You can't think logically.

Qtec
07-01-2004, 09:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let's just ban all guns, then we'll all be safer
<hr /></blockquote>

To quote one of your own idols, "There you go again".

Nobody is talking about "all the guns'.
If you had read the article you would know that was one of the major points raised!!!

Read it again. This time with your mind open.

Q

highsea
07-01-2004, 11:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> This isnt about Kennesaw and it isnt about the right to bear arms.This isnt about suburbia or good neighbourhoods. Its about places like East L.A.
Its about criminals getting ahold of extemely dangerous weapons. If they do they will use them and the bullets that dont hit their target dont stop. They go thru walls and whole houses.
I think the point is that more innocent people are likely to die as a direct result of having assault weapons on the street. The people who are most at risk are the police and people who live in high crime areas. Not Kennesaw residents!

Just wondering, how many people here live in high crime neighbourhoods?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Of course it's about the right to bear arms. Your OP was by a SF Gate columnist who was ranting about the AW ban going away. Liberals seem to believe that they have the right to choose which arms I have the right to bear. They would limit citizen ownership to single shot .22 rifles and birdshot if they thought they could.

And it is not about east L.A. The ban is a Federal ban, not one limited to urban high crime areas. When this ban is in effect, semi-autos are more restricted at the Federal level than full-autos.

And it is not about criminals getting guns. It is about preventing law-abiding citizens from doing so. Kennesaw is just an example of how citizen ownership reduces crime. Their overall crime rate is 1/4 the rate of their neighboring towns, and gun crimes, assaults and rapes are practically non-existent.

The fact is that this ban did absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Criminals who use these weapons don't give a $hit about the law anyway, and crimes with these weapons did not decrease one bit because the weapons were barred from the law abiding citizen. All you need to do is look at Washington D.C. The most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and one of the most violent cities too.

And, BTW, I do live in a high crime neighborhood, and I have defended my home with a gun. No one was hurt.

-CM

nAz
07-01-2004, 12:03 PM
Question how do Hand guns assault rifles and such get in the hands of these so called criminals in the first place? it can't be that they stole all of them. seems to me that its either that or some good citizens sells it to them to make a profit.

I believe in the right to bare arms rile and hand gun but i do not see the necessary of owning a assault rifle or a street sweeper for protection or hunting todays modern super animals.

highsea
07-01-2004, 12:43 PM
nAz, I don't know if there has ever been a comprehensive survey of where the bad guys get their weapons. For the most part, I would say they are not buying them in the gun shop. Mostly, I think they get them by trading amongst each other, and by stealing them. The black market is pretty widespread, and anyone that wants a gun can get one for a couple hundred bucks in any city in America.

Someone who buys a gun in a gun store cannot really sell it for a profit on the street. All the ban really did was triple the price of these weapons, when legally purchased. A pre-ban AK sold new for about $400.00. After the ban, it was $1100.00. Same with AR's, Uzi's, Sig 550's, AUG's, etc.

It was also the first time in our nation's history that a citizen could not own the US standard issue service rifle. I know people who collect military firearms. Why should a collector be prohibited from buying a gun because the stock is a different shape than the hunting rifle with the same capability? (eg. AK vs. SKS, or AR15 vs. Remington 742)

Anyway, the AW ban, whether it stands or falls, will not have any effect in California, New York, or D.C., as these places already have local laws that prevent the sale of these guns.

I used to shoot PITA (trap and skeet). After the Stockton shooting, California banned all semi-auto guns statewide. Our Grand National Championship that year was to be held in Stockton. Many trap shooters use Remington 1100's, because of the low recoil. They could not attend, because their guns were illegal. Needless to say, the Grand was a flop, and has not been back to California since.

Many guns were included in the ban that have legimitate uses, such as the Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle. This happens to be a pretty good coyote gun, and a rancher in Wyoming should not be told he can't have one.

Qtec's OP was just more of the same old BS we hear all the time from the anti-gun lobby. The author painted the NRA as a bunch of crazy machine-gun toting neo-nazis. Yeah sure, heard that one before...doesn't impress me.

-CM

Ross
07-01-2004, 01:23 PM
If people would think rationally about this issue they would realize that what is being argued about is not whether we have "a right to bear arms" but rather where do you draw the line, and why. There is a continuum of "arms" in terms of usefulness and lethality. Some probably should be legal, others definitely not. On one end are weapons that have a lot of legitimate uses and are inefficient for causing a lot of death and destruction (knives and stun-guns for example). And almost everyone agrees these should be legal. On the other end are arms that have few legitimate non-violent uses and are highly efficient at killing a large number of people quickly (grenades and machine guns for example). The question about "assault weapons" is where do they fall in this continuum. Do the costs outweigh the benefits, or not?

If a weapon is legalized the costs include potential increases in maiming and death by people who:
commit crimes for gain (robberies, burgleries, etc.)
are fighting turf wars (gangs, drug dealers)
are fighting law enforcement (cop killers)
commit violence when mentally ill
kill or maim themselves and/or their families when depressed
are violent ideological extremists (white supremicists, etc.)
in a dispute and angry and/or drunk (most pool players most of the time /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif )
engage in domestic violence
have accidents with their weapons


And of course legalizing a particular weapon has potential benefits as well -
self-protection
deterrent effect on crime
an increase in individual freedom
personal psychological security
enjoyment of hobbies like hunting and gun collecting

But just like handguns, weapons such as machine guns and grenade launchers can also be used for self-defense and are "arms" that may or may not be protected by the constitution depending on your interpretation. But most rational people realize that having these weapons for sale at Wal-Mart would ultimately lead to more harm than good, and agree with these being illegal. If you think about it, arguments like "criminals kill people, not weapon X", "if you ban weapon X, they will soon take away weapon Y", or "if you make weapon X illegal, only criminals will have weapon X" apply just as well to machine guns and grenades (or even anthrax) as they do to assault weapons and handguns. So unless you are in favor of legalizing all of these weapons, making these arguments in some cases but not others makes little sense.

A more useful discussion would be to fairly weigh the costs and benefits of legalizing so-called "assault weapons" specifically and leaving the NRA sloganeering out of it.

Personally, I think the costs of legalizing so-called assault weapons outweighs the benefits. They don't really have many legitimate uses, they aren't really needed for self-protection (unless you are in survivalist mode), hobbyists can live without having a working model, and they are too efficient at causing mayhem and death in the hands of nuts, kooks, and criminals. They should go the way of machine-guns - we just don't need them.

eg8r
07-01-2004, 02:00 PM
While I understand what you are saying, I think you are trying to add more to the Constitution than what is there. This is not about where do you draw the line. I do like Q's statement. [ QUOTE ]
Anybody who thinks they need an AK-47 is too crazy to have one!!! <hr /></blockquote> There is probably a lot of truth in that quote, but I still don't think that is enough to ban them from law abiding citizens.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think the costs of legalizing so-called assault weapons outweighs the benefits. They don't really have many legitimate uses, <font color="green"> Who gets to decide just how many legitimate uses there need to be to legalize something? </font color> they aren't really needed for self-protection (unless you are in survivalist mode), hobbyists can live without having a working model, <font color="green"> Why should they have to? </font color> and they are too efficient at causing mayhem and death in the hands of nuts, kooks, and criminals. <font color="green"> This is some good liberal sloganeering. Maybe the next time you mention a criminal getting his hands on this type of weapon, you think to yourself, "Just when was the last time a criminal obeyed the law". </font color> They should go the way of machine-guns - we just don't need them. <hr /></blockquote>

I personally don't think I would ever have a need for one of these weapons, however, I don't see the NEED for government intervention either. Criminals are still going to have them, so just how much government dollars do you think are being spent on keeping them out of the hands of the law abiding citizens, the ones you don't have to worry about?

eg8r

eg8r
07-01-2004, 02:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Question how do Hand guns assault rifles and such get in the hands of these so called criminals in the first place? it can't be that they stole all of them. seems to me that its either that or some good citizens sells it to them to make a profit. <hr /></blockquote> Wouldn't your "good" citizen be considered a CRIMINAL if they sold the weapon?

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the right to bare arms rile and hand gun but i do not see the necessary of owning a assault rifle or a street sweeper for protection or hunting todays modern super animals. <hr /></blockquote> It appears from the second half of your sentence that you only partly believe in the right to bear arms. Maybe more correctly, you believe in the Right to Bear arms, kinda. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Cueless Joey
07-01-2004, 02:12 PM
It's called the black market.
Some of them are even NAFTA protected I believe.
Even the police resell guns that they confiscate.
Semi-auto guns can be easily converted to auto.

highsea
07-01-2004, 02:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>If you think about it, arguments like "criminals kill people, not weapon X", "if you ban weapon X, they will soon take away weapon Y", or "if you make weapon X illegal, only criminals will have weapon X" apply just as well to machine guns and grenades (or even anthrax) as they do to assault weapons and handguns. So unless you are in favor of legalizing all of these weapons, making these arguments in some cases but not others makes little sense.

Personally, I think the costs of legalizing so-called assault weapons outweighs the benefits. They don't really have many legitimate uses, they aren't really needed for self-protection (unless you are in survivalist mode), hobbyists can live without having a working model, and they are too efficient at causing mayhem and death in the hands of nuts, kooks, and criminals. They should go the way of machine-guns - we just don't need them. <hr /></blockquote>

Ross, as usual, you post with clarity.

In this case I have to disagree with a couple of your statements, however. Your first point about arguing for legalization of some weapons vs. others falls a little short for me, because the same logic can be applied in reverse. i.e., I can argue that a .22 caliber bullet can be just as lethal as a .223, so both should be banned. What you quoted were slogans more than legimitate arguments, and I agree with your point that they are not really effective arguments for either side.

As far as AW's go, I have a couple problems with the ban, which I stated earlier, but I will elaborate a little.

First of all, it doees not make sense to make semi-autos more illegal than full-autos. At the Federal level, a machine gun is not illegal to own. The permit to get one is a little onerous, and I guess that is rightly so. It is also quite expensive. At the state level, many states ban them outright. But some do not, like Oregon and Alaska. But class 3 permits do exist, and no legally owned machine gun has ever been involved in a crime in the US since the laws went into effect.

As far as collectors go, there is a big distinction between non-functioning versions and original guns. Kind of like cue collectors, is a copy of a Balabushka as desirable as the real thing? Collectors will pay a premium for an original Luger with Nazi stampings, a reproduction is pretty much worthless. The same goes for a functioning M-16 vs. one with the action welded shut.

Ultimitely, we trade some rights for others. When I applied for a concealed carry permit, I had to trade some privacy for the right to carry. I was fingerprinted, and my prints were entered into the NCIC database.

I would agree to have the same restrictions on AW's. Do a background check, and permit the owner like a CWP. Once a person has passed the permit process, no restrictions should be placed on the number or types he wants to buy. You can do like handguns, limit purchases to no more than 3 a month if you want.

-CM

Cueless Joey
07-01-2004, 03:51 PM
Why don't we just make this easier?
OK, anyone who uses a gun for crime goes to jail for a long time. None of this plea bargain crap.
You use a gun, you do hard time.
Oh wait, the Trial Lawyers would not want that.
They like repeat offenders.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-02-2004, 06:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> ...I believe in the right to bare arms rile and hand gun but i do not see the necessary of owning a assault rifle or a street sweeper for protection or hunting todays modern super animals. <hr /></blockquote>

At the risk of sounding like a knuckle-dragging gun nut I must remind you, the second amendment really has nothing to do with hunting. It was meant to give the citizens the option of ousting a tyrannical government by force.

I guess it's somewhat of a moot point these days, since we are not permitted to own RPG's or tanks, but even a good sniper rifle could come in handy in the event of an unforeseen calamity, whether from an invading enemy, or the enemy within.

ras314
07-02-2004, 04:54 PM
"Now just imagine they have some really heavy artillary. I,m pretty sure there will be coming guns on the market that can shot thru just about anything."

Compared to the 9 mm uzi or the 7.62 X 39 mm AK-47 round most any hunting rifle can shoot thru more.

What gave anyone the idea these were highpowered weapons?

eg8r
07-02-2004, 08:57 PM
Did you read my post and not understand, or did you chose to find an article that does not support your base for the heck of it. I said, you have no historical evidence of innocent murders when these banned weapons are sold. Go get some substantive proof solidifying your defense and quit wasting your time with this poor effort. To help you understand what was asked, you would need to come up with some sort of evidence that would show MORE people were being killed, innocently, with the weapons that are currently banned. This would probably have to include some statistics of prior years, and more than just 6 months of the current year.

Your argument of innocent killings is weak, as there are plenty of guns that are already legal that shoot through walls and kill innocent people. By the way, this statistic is probably very very low, and you have no statistical evidence to show the banned weapons would ever cause an increase in this number. This is just a dumb argument, in which you have zero historical evidence to build any sort of defense to prove an ouce of validity in what you show. By the way, do you think the author of your article purposely left out a few more statistics on purpose. What % of innocent victims have been shot (through windows, doors, etc) in the past year? How many shootings occur that are never reported/investigated? No one would know the last answer but it is definintely more than 0, so that unknown should certainly find its way into the little equation.

I would ask you to keep trying, but I don't think you have made the first attempt to try.

eg8r

nhp
07-03-2004, 04:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> Q, you don't get it and you never will.
You can ban any gun you want.
The criminals will still be criminals.
That's WHY they are criminals. They do not abide by the law.
Here in California, they've banned just about every gun.
"Assault-rifle", 15 round magazines, semi-autos that look mean, butterfly knives, nunchuks etc.
Crime rate never went down until the 3-strike law became in effect. The NRA has been lobbying for 3-strike law for DECADES. It had to take the death of Polly Klaas before the liberals joined the bandwagon. Then suddenly, it was their idea.
The problem we have here is the Trial Lawyers of America. They like to keep the scums on the streets. Politicians who sponsor "community rehabilitation" b/c they have vested interest in it.
The NRA does not support the "assault weapons" ban, of course. Let's say all "assault rifles" are banned. Somehow, miraculously, the criminals switched to using revolvers. Now what? Ban revolvers? Ok, we're down to over and under pistols. Wait, the criminals have switched to over and under pistols. Ban them. Now we're down to single loaders? What next? Black powder.
Kinda funny though. Don't you euros have MACHINE GUNS in your homes? Wait, in Switzerland, home owners are required to have machine guns, aren't they? <hr /></blockquote>

Joey actually the crime rate in California was already on a steady decline before the three strikes law took effect. The origional intention of the law was the lock up repeat violent offenders. Sadly, it's not limited to them only. There have been a few cases of someone's third strike stealing a few children videos, or a slice of pizza--25 years to life. Their two previous offenses were theft, and a few minor things like that. I've done alot of research on this law.

DMF
09-11-2004, 02:52 PM
OK, there is much heated debate about this topic, and much misinformation on both sides.

1st, the so called Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) had absolutely no affect on "machine guns" or more correctly fully-automatic (bullets fire as long as trigger is held) or select fire (can select a- one round per trigger pull, b- set number of rounds fire in a burst with one trigger pull, c- full auto, or some combo of a,b and c.) For the purposes of this discussion, and under federal law full auto and select fire weapons are the same thing. I will refer to full auto weapons as FA from here on out.

The AWB did two things that upset gun rights advocates. 1- restricted new manufacture of magazines for anyone other than law enforcement to only 10 rounds. 2- banned certain weapons based on various features, none of which had any affect on the lethality of the weapon.

Again, the AWB did not affect FA weapons. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) required that all FA weapons be registered and any transfer required a $200 tax. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) banned the purchase and transfer of any FA weapons manufactured after 1986. Only Law Enforcement (LE) agencies can purchase FA weapons built after 1986.

For the purpose of this discussion it is also important to note the other significant federal gun legislation, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The GCA prohibited convicted felons from possessing (not just owning - possessing) firearms and ammunition, it also changed how firearms could be bought, sold and transferred. One often neglected affect of the GCA that pro gun groups forget is the GCA fixed the loopholes in the NFA, which were exposed in court cases ruled on by the US Supreme Court. The GCA also made it illegal to have a short barrelled shotgun, or short-barrelled rifle (short barrelled commonly called "sawed off") unless it was registered and taxed.

The GCA did a lot of good things, especially with regard to prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The FOPA restriction on FA weapons made after 1986 had no real affect, as FA weapons have rarely been used in crimes after the NFA went into affect in 1934. It did have the affect of fixing the loopholes of the NFA which was significant because the NFA also required registration and tax on suppressors (aka "silencers"), which had been used frequently in crimes. With the NFA and FOPA the use of silencers in crimes has gone down dramatically, while still making them available to law abiding citizens who pay the tax and register them. The same is true of FA weapons made prior to 1986.

The AWB however was a feel good measure. The criteria for banning certain features were mostly based on looks, not functionality. An AK-47 that is semi-automatic (one trigger pull one round fired) is not much different with respect to lethality than any hunting rifle that fires the same ammunition. In fact one could make the argument that a high quality hunting rifle is more lethal, as they are more accurate and tend to be more reliable.

Also, the magazine capacity restrictions are ridiculous. While there have been high profile shootings that involved lots of rounds fired, those are the exception not the rule in crimes. In fact, in shootings involving LE officers the average number of rounds fired is three, and the average length of the engagement is 3 seconds. However, I don't see why someone who wants to own a Sig 299 shouldn't be allowed to have a magazine that holds 13 rounds versus 10.

In the end the NRA and Brady Campaign have wasted huge amounts of money, and the time of our Congressional representatives over this issue. Both sides are severely flawed in their approach to this issue, how since it's mostly a ridiculous law with little to no affect on crime, at huge cost the government (your tax dollars), I would have to say it's a good thing this law will sunset.

BTW, I say that as a law enforcement officer this law is alleged to protect. Rather than waste more resources on this dubious legislation, it's time to move on.