Assault weapons ban

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Yo dun B like dat cuz I bust a cap in yo azz upside yo head son cuz I gotz axes to gunz yo! Mah dad ownz dem M-Grenader 1900 1700 gage double gun thingz I B borroin fo mah Engrish clazz so mah teacha dun mezz wit da bezt.

So instead of at least attempting to present some sort of logical argument you are just going to spout off nonsensical crap?

He knows he's owned.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Yo, jus cuz I B talkin like dis, you be disrespectin me, U know dat ain't right! Mah bro Ray Ray will light U UP kid.

 

[qaa541]

If it even remotely looks scary, California wants to ban it. I hate California in that aspect.

As far as I'm concerned, if criminals have it, I want the good, law abiding citizens to be able to have it, or at least something reasonably close to it. While fully auto might be out of the question, I think semi-auto with full sized magazines (eg. military size, 30rnd) should be allowed (as it once was).

I think an AR-15 should be legal in ALL states; if anything, it helps train the public on the nation's service rifle, the M-16.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: qaa541
I think an AR-15 should be legal in ALL states; if anything, it helps train the public on the nation's service rifle, the M-16.

I believe they're in the midst of a switch to the M4. It's not going quite as smoothly as they'd hoped, according to a few of my coworkers who are in the military.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: qaa541
I think an AR-15 should be legal in ALL states; if anything, it helps train the public on the nation's service rifle, the M-16.

I believe they're in the midst of a switch to the M4. It's not going quite as smoothly as they'd hoped, according to a few of my coworkers who are in the military.

Well, let us look at the ballistics. A 5.56mm NATO bullet only has one thing going for it, in terms of it's terminal ballistics. Fragmentation. The military cannot use bullets designed to expand (due to the G.C.), so we put a cannelure on them, make sure they go real fast, and say "oops" when they fragment while the bullet is revolving 180 degrees around it's CG. At least, that is what we used to be doing. Now they are moving from a rifle barrel to a carbine barrel, and due to that the muzzle velocity drops some. They also have moved to a different cartridge, firing a heavier bullet. However, the basic terminal performance of the 5.56mm FMJ hasnt changed: to produce reliable, useful fragmentation, the bullet needs to be going ~2600fps. The M193 coming out of the 20" barrel of an M16 is spec'ed for 3250+ fps. The M855 fired out of the 16" barrel on an M4 produces a little under 3000fps. Less than 400fps is not comforting. Hell, 650fps wasnt much, but taking away over a third of that isnt helpful.

 

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: booger711

Originally posted by: jyates
I don't think anyone should have a gun..........


Except for me

that's right. after we get rid of all guns but one, we'll shove that one up your ass and pull the trigger
:evil:

Bring it on bubba and if you need directions just let me know

Guns, testosterone, a bad attitude and ignorant people obviously don't mix...

 

[NeoV]

I don't generally like to post in gun threads, but every time I see crap like the following, I feel an obligation to chime in

"Just one step in an agenda to outlaw all guns to the public by using the guise that guns should be only for sporting purposes. Naturally, that is BS. The reasons that guns are legal in the US under the 2nd Amendment is to (1) empower the free citizenry in order to keep the government in check, and (2) the framers of the Constitution understood that a citizen-soldier army, fighting for its own land and freedom, is the potentially the most powerful of all (being necessary to the security of a free state)."

Stop readinig your NRA talking points emails and get your head out of your 4ss. Consider this:

No law will ever be passed in this country banning all guns, period.

Yes, events like the robbery in LA and the Columbine shootings typically get a big reaction from anti-gun people, and yes, their reactions are typically over dramatic and not entirely practical.

If you really think your right to own a gun has anything to do with 'keeping the government in check", good luck with that. While we are at it, most Iraqi people own guns, and look at how much of a fight they put up. The 2nd amendment is an ancient, no longer applicable document that needs to be re-written - note that I am not saying anything about banning guns, but I'm pretty sure the word militia doesn't really apply anymore.

Finally, and again please note that I am not calling for a ban on gun ownership, if you really think that as well is well here in the US, that the current rate of crimes committed with guns is acceptable, then your head is in the sand. People do have a right in this country to own guns - but should they be able to buy guns or ammo that could penetrate any type of body armor? Do you need a gun that could drop an elephant to hunt ducks? How many children need to accidently shoot themselves, or their friends, or their siblings, before a better, more child-proof firing mechanism is the standard? If you want to complain about the AWB, by all means do so - but instead of calling all the people attached to it a bunch of idiots, how about suggesting a more effective law? Contribue something more than this 2nd amendment spew.

 

[Pliablemoose]

How many children need to accidently shoot themselves, or their friends, or their siblings, before a better, more child-proof firing mechanism is the standard?

I want 5 gallon buckets half filled with water banned too goddamn it....:|


The stupid AWB is going away, it won't make a bit of difference in crime stats, it was a poorly concieved & executed law, the Democrats lost their collective ass in passing the law, 9-11 happened & liberals bought guns (or sent their servants or relatives to buy guns for them....)

IMHO, every real assault weapon was banned well before the AWB was passed.

Blah blah blah....

Goodby AWB, maybe now it won't be such a pain in the ass to buy parts for my Calico.

 

[everman]

Well I'm sure a ban on certain weapons deters most criminals from using them...oh

um well but all of those crimes can "only" be committed by using these specific weapons....oh

Well I'm sure we all feel a lot safer anyways right? It's not like some criminal could possibly circumvent the law or something crazy like that.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: NeoV
If you really think your right to own a gun has anything to do with 'keeping the government in check", good luck with that. While we are at it, most Iraqi people own guns, and look at how much of a fight they put up. The 2nd amendment is an ancient, no longer applicable document that needs to be re-written - note that I am not saying anything about banning guns, but I'm pretty sure the word militia doesn't really apply anymore.

What's the first thing dicators typically do when they come to power? They take way the peoples' two most powerful weapons: The pen and the sword. An armed populace using unconventional warfare against conventional forces have a good historical track record. The fighting in Iraq continues in relatively isolated hot spots. If the country as a whole was rising up against US forces it would be a whole different situation over there.

Finally, and again please note that I am not calling for a ban on gun ownership, if you really think that as well is well here in the US, that the current rate of crimes committed with guns is acceptable, then your head is in the sand. People do have a right in this country to own guns - but should they be able to buy guns or ammo that could penetrate any type of body armor? Do you need a gun that could drop an elephant to hunt ducks? How many children need to accidently shoot themselves, or their friends, or their siblings, before a better, more child-proof firing mechanism is the standard? If you want to complain about the AWB, by all means do so - but instead of calling all the people attached to it a bunch of idiots, how about suggesting a more effective law? Contribue something more than this 2nd amendment spew.

A child is more likely to burn his/her house down than accidentally get shot. Accidental death of a kid (someone 15 and younger) by a gunshot is a statistical rariety.

If you want to retard gun crime (and violent crime in general) you have to look far beyond the tools used to commit those crimes. The "why" is exceedingly more important than the "how." Why is gun crime on the rise in the UK even though gun laws have never been tougher? Why are you more likely to have a crime commited against your person or your house broken into in the UK, Whales, or Australia (all places w/very struck gun laws) than you are in the US? Why does Switzerland, a country w/a long history of gun culture and where almost every home has a firearm, have such a low crime rate and almost no gun crime at all?

You want to reduce gun crime? Address the socio-economic issues that, by and large, cause it.

The problem w/attempting to curb gun crime by hampering legal ownership is that the vast majority of people who legally buy/own their firearms aren't the ones commiting crimes. It's like attempting to lower the rate of car jacking/car theft by making it harder to get a driver's license.



Lethal

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I don't generally like to post in gun threads, but every time I see crap like the following, I feel an obligation to chime in

"Just one step in an agenda to outlaw all guns to the public by using the guise that guns should be only for sporting purposes. Naturally, that is BS. The reasons that guns are legal in the US under the 2nd Amendment is to (1) empower the free citizenry in order to keep the government in check, and (2) the framers of the Constitution understood that a citizen-soldier army, fighting for its own land and freedom, is the potentially the most powerful of all (being necessary to the security of a free state)."

Stop readinig your NRA talking points emails and get your head out of your 4ss. Consider this:

No law will ever be passed in this country banning all guns, period.

Yes, events like the robbery in LA and the Columbine shootings typically get a big reaction from anti-gun people, and yes, their reactions are typically over dramatic and not entirely practical.

If you really think your right to own a gun has anything to do with 'keeping the government in check", good luck with that. While we are at it, most Iraqi people own guns, and look at how much of a fight they put up. The 2nd amendment is an ancient, no longer applicable document that needs to be re-written - note that I am not saying anything about banning guns, but I'm pretty sure the word militia doesn't really apply anymore.

Finally, and again please note that I am not calling for a ban on gun ownership, if you really think that as well is well here in the US, that the current rate of crimes committed with guns is acceptable, then your head is in the sand. People do have a right in this country to own guns - but should they be able to buy guns or ammo that could penetrate any type of body armor? Do you need a gun that could drop an elephant to hunt ducks? How many children need to accidently shoot themselves, or their friends, or their siblings, before a better, more child-proof firing mechanism is the standard? If you want to complain about the AWB, by all means do so - but instead of calling all the people attached to it a bunch of idiots, how about suggesting a more effective law? Contribue something more than this 2nd amendment spew.

I think your freedom of speech shouldn't apply anymore as it's outdated if you can only come up with arguments as weak as that.

 

[Rightwinger]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: qaa541
I think an AR-15 should be legal in ALL states; if anything, it helps train the public on the nation's service rifle, the M-16.

I believe they're in the midst of a switch to the M4. It's not going quite as smoothly as they'd hoped, according to a few of my coworkers who are in the military.

Well, let us look at the ballistics. A 5.56mm NATO bullet only has one thing going for it, in terms of it's terminal ballistics. Fragmentation. The military cannot use bullets designed to expand (due to the G.C.), so we put a cannelure on them, make sure they go real fast, and say "oops" when they fragment while the bullet is revolving 180 degrees around it's CG. At least, that is what we used to be doing. Now they are moving from a rifle barrel to a carbine barrel, and due to that the muzzle velocity drops some. They also have moved to a different cartridge, firing a heavier bullet. However, the basic terminal performance of the 5.56mm FMJ hasnt changed: to produce reliable, useful fragmentation, the bullet needs to be going ~2600fps. The M193 coming out of the 20" barrel of an M16 is spec'ed for 3250+ fps. The M855 fired out of the 16" barrel on an M4 produces a little under 3000fps. Less than 400fps is not comforting. Hell, 650fps wasnt much, but taking away over a third of that isnt helpful.

The Geneva Convention regulates the treatment of Prisoners of War.

I refer you to Hague IV Article 23e

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: NeoV
I don't generally like to post in gun threads, but every time I see crap like the following, I feel an obligation to chime in

"Just one step in an agenda to outlaw all guns to the public by using the guise that guns should be only for sporting purposes. Naturally, that is BS. The reasons that guns are legal in the US under the 2nd Amendment is to (1) empower the free citizenry in order to keep the government in check, and (2) the framers of the Constitution understood that a citizen-soldier army, fighting for its own land and freedom, is the potentially the most powerful of all (being necessary to the security of a free state)."

Stop readinig your NRA talking points emails and get your head out of your 4ss. Consider this:

No law will ever be passed in this country banning all guns, period.

No, but they can become so restrictive as to make ownership moot.

Yes, events like the robbery in LA and the Columbine shootings typically get a big reaction from anti-gun people, and yes, their reactions are typically over dramatic and not entirely practical.

If you really think your right to own a gun has anything to do with 'keeping the government in check", good luck with that. While we are at it, most Iraqi people own guns, and look at how much of a fight they put up. The 2nd amendment is an ancient, no longer applicable document that needs to be re-written - note that I am not saying anything about banning guns, but I'm pretty sure the word militia doesn't really apply anymore.

Reworded why? Should we say the other Amendments are outdated too and do away with them? Hell, lets start with the first, since in this country everything is so "politically correct" anyways we might as WELL start there.

Finally, and again please note that I am not calling for a ban on gun ownership, if you really think that as well is well here in the US, that the current rate of crimes committed with guns is acceptable, then your head is in the sand. People do have a right in this country to own guns - but should they be able to buy guns or ammo that could penetrate any type of body armor?

Quite simply, you cant. Possession or manufacture of "armor piercing" rounds is illegal and will land your ass in jail.

Do you need a gun that could drop an elephant to hunt ducks?

You cant use rifles for fowl. It would be like saying you cant own a car that goes faster then 60 miles an hour cause the speed limit is 60. Some people actually hunt elephants!! I assure you, you dont want to be undergunned when going for large dangerous game....

How many children need to accidently shoot themselves, or their friends, or their siblings, before a better, more child-proof firing mechanism is the standard?

That has NOTHING to do with the gun, and EVERYTHING to do with the parents control of the weapon. If a kid takes a fork out of the drawer and stabs his eye out running down the hall, should we plan the home builder for not making locking drawers? Or how about making the floor hes running on? Or how about the fork maker?

If you want to complain about the AWB, by all means do so - but instead of calling all the people attached to it a bunch of idiots, how about suggesting a more effective law? Contribue something more than this 2nd amendment spew.

Because we should have to recommend a goddamned thing. THis sint about GETTING Rights, its about KEEPING Rights. You dont want to give us MORE Rights, you want to take away our Rights!! Why do we need to justify anything when we're not asking for anything more, we just want to keep what we have!! (Minus that damnedable AWB of course)

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Attorney General Bill Lockyer planned to be on hand for a news conference this morning to support renewal of the federal law. Also expected to attend were Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, Los Angeles police Chief William Bratton and Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca.

The news conference was planned outside the Bank of America in North Hollywood -- the scene of a 1997 robbery that culminated in a shootout between two heavily armed gunmen and LAPD officers.

Police conceded they were outgunned by the robbers, who wore body armor and were armed with machine guns. Ultimately, both were killed.

The federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semiautomatic assault weapons, including the AK-47, Uzi and TEC-9. It will expire on Sept. 13, unless renewed by Congress

I've been hearing this on the news the past few days and it is just irritating the hell out of me. These windbags are actually using that shootout as a reason to renew the AWB from 1994 which is about to sunset out on Sept. 13. The fact of the matter is that the guns used in that crime in 1997 were fully automatic weapons which are heavily restricted in a few states in the US and illegal in most, including California. The AWB has nothing to do with the guns used in that crime.

The truth is that the federal Assault Weapons Act bans the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic rifles based solely on looks.

Fvcking morons.

Isn't it also a felony to wear body armor while committing a crime? Wow, that law sure did a lot of good...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Dat B da problem kno wut I B sayin foo. Ifz gunz be in da handz ov dem crimnalz, we all B gud az dead. Das Y I B sayin, ban dem mofos cuz den we dun wtfbbq son. U B impossible 4 intelligent conversationz kid iiight. Piece to da urth yo!

I like how you revert to your native retard-speak when presented with arguments that you cannot counter logically. It's cute, like when a toddler kicks over the Chutes and Ladders board because his ass just slid back to the bottom.