Dems that are Pro Gun

[Lalakai]

Why are so few democrats pro gun?? I've only found a few that will admit to it. Who knows the dems that are publicly on record that support a pro gun stance?? After a long debate with NRA CSR I'll continue my membership but won't give additional contribution, nor will i support any republican candidate this year. Hopefully some of the democrats will wake up and realize that many people are pro gun and democratic.

So start listing the dems that are pro gun.

edit=spelling (hey, it's early morning yet and still on my first coke)

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Pro Gun? What the hell is that? Who the hell is "Pro Gun"? Pro 2nd Amendment you mean?
I support anyone who can beat a Republican for any political office and the 2nd Amendment, though I despise gun nuts for their extremism and their bastardization of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Measures such as waiting periods and not selling guns to convicted criminals are necessary controls and I would support stiffening them.

 

[ayabe]

What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

 

[wazzledoozle]

We need bullet control, not gun control

I consider myself a democrat and oppose gun controls.

 

[Lalakai]

by "Pro-Gun" I support that you should be able to own and carry firearms. The rules shouldn't change state to state. If convicted of felony crimes or have used a firearm during a crime, then severe restrictions and penalties should be mandatory.

Yes I do know of some democratic politicians and candidates who support this stance also though they are local to the state and not high level.

It's just very surprising that the issue is so "black and white", with very few politicians crossing the lines. Just wish we had some that had the political backbone to be middle of the road instead of pandering to the extremes.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Lalakai
by "Pro-Gun" I support that you should be able to own and carry firearms. The rules shouldn't change state to state. If convicted of felony crimes or have used a firearm during a crime, then severe restrictions and penalties should be mandatory.

Yes I do know of some democratic politicians and candidates who support this stance also though they are local to the state and not high level.

There really are quite a few Democrats in more conservative states who take a position similar to what you are talking about. Mark Warner is a prominent Democrat who is currently expect to make a run for the 2008 Democratic Presidental nomination, who is known as a pro-gun candidate.

 

[Gibsons]

Howard Dean

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

Does the name Dianne Feinstein ring a bell? There are a number of Democrats who would outlaw guns completely if given half a chance. They are just laying low currently since every new gun regulation tabled just about anywhere in the US has gone down in flames lately and several states have recently passed CCW laws. It is just a big loser of an issue right now for them.

Your post shows how completely many people have accepted the propaganda of the gun grabber lobby.

The AWB did exactly jack sh!t to prevent crime, all it did was ban 'evil' looking guns and was completely ineffective at even that as the legislation was so full of holes. Zero effect on crime, completely a feel good measure to make the politicians look good. Since the ban susnet there has been no explosion in gun crime from these weapons as its supportes claimed would happen.

Waiting periods are manditory for licensed dealers, though there are exceptions. As an example, I have a FFL03 license from the ATF (for which I certainly underwent a more exaustive check than simply running the NICS) that allows me to cash and carry when I present my license.

Handgun registration? Good luck, the pool of unregisted handguns is so huge (millions upon millions) that you will never be able to tag a meaningful percentage of them anyway and spend a fortune trying (more would just enter illegally over the borders anyway).

.50 BMG firearms have been used in very (about 3-5 depending on your standards) actual crimes in the last 90+ years since the round's invention. More people have been killed with sporks than there are crimes that involve a .50

 

[zendari]

Few Democrats are "pro gun on demand" the way the want "pro abortion on demand". Funny, as the former is in the constitution.

It's more like they tolerate guns because they don't have the votes.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

You are not "pro gun"... "pro gun" people are vigilant.. that's why we still have the 2nd amendment. People like you, who is willing to acept this or that "ban"... well, there's a saying: "give someone an inch, and they will take a mile"... Democracts want to slowly take away americans right to bear arms.... Take for instance smoking, agree or disagree with it.. but the democracts first outlawed smoking in certain bars.. then it became restaurants.. then (in some states) public areas.. Heck, pretty soon smoking will be outlawed all together... yep, give them an inch.. they will take a mile.

Gun nuts are not unreasonable... they know that when you give the democracts an inch, they will take a mile... They, the "pro gun" folks are protecting your second amendment rights.. You on the other hand, is just playing into the democracts hands... almost like sheep

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

Does the name Dianne Feinstein ring a bell? There are a number of Democrats who would outlaw guns completely if given half a chance. They are just laying low currently since every new gun regulation tabled just about anywhere in the US has gone down in flames lately and several states have recently passed CCW laws. It is just a big loser of an issue right now for them.

Your post shows how completely many people have accepted the propaganda of the gun grabber lobby.

The AWB did exactly jack sh!t to prevent crime, all it did was ban 'evil' looking guns and was completely ineffective at even that as the legislation was so full of holes. Zero effect on crime, completely a feel good measure to make the politicians look good. Since the ban susnet there has been no explosion in gun crime from these weapons as its supportes claimed would happen.

Waiting periods are manditory for licensed dealers, though there are exceptions. As an example, I have a FFL03 license from the ATF (for which I certainly underwent a more exaustive check than simply running the NICS) that allows me to cash and carry when I present my license.

Handgun registration? Good luck, the pool of unregisted handguns is so huge (millions upon millions) that you will never be able to tag a meaningful percentage of them anyway and spend a fortune trying (more would just enter illegally over the borders anyway).

.50 BMG firearms have been used in very (about 3-5 depending on your standards) actual crimes in the last 90+ years since the round's invention. More people have been killed with sporks than there are crimes that involve a .50

There is no gun grabber lobby, that's your paranoid self talking. The NRA has more power than any "gun grabber" non-existant movement ever will/would have.

How do assault weapons apply under the 2nd amendment? The power available to one person with a modern assault weapon(full auto or not) is exponentially greater than a guy with a flint lock musket. There is no legitimate purpose for owning such a weapon and the same goes for .50 cals.

Your rationale against handgun registration is also pretty thin, you are saying that basically it's too big a task so we shouldn't try. There's just way too many crimes committed with handguns to ignore the problem completely.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

You are not "pro gun"... "pro gun" people are vigilant.. that's why we still have the 2nd amendment. People like you, who is willing to acept this or that "ban"... well, there's a saying: "give someone an inch, and they will take a mile"... Democracts want to slowly take away americans right to bear arms.... Take for instance smoking, agree or disagree with it.. but the democracts first outlawed smoking in certain bars.. then it became restaurants.. then (in some states) public areas.. Heck, pretty soon smoking will be outlawed all together... yep, give them an inch.. they will take a mile.

Gun nuts are not unreasonable... they know that when you give the democracts an inch, they will take a mile... They, the "pro gun" folks are protecting your second amendment rights.. You on the other hand, is just playing into the democracts hands... almost like sheep

Talk about paranoid, try forming some of your own opinions instead of being force-fed your talk radio talking points.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

Does the name Dianne Feinstein ring a bell? There are a number of Democrats who would outlaw guns completely if given half a chance. They are just laying low currently since every new gun regulation tabled just about anywhere in the US has gone down in flames lately and several states have recently passed CCW laws. It is just a big loser of an issue right now for them.

Your post shows how completely many people have accepted the propaganda of the gun grabber lobby.

The AWB did exactly jack sh!t to prevent crime, all it did was ban 'evil' looking guns and was completely ineffective at even that as the legislation was so full of holes. Zero effect on crime, completely a feel good measure to make the politicians look good. Since the ban susnet there has been no explosion in gun crime from these weapons as its supportes claimed would happen.

Waiting periods are manditory for licensed dealers, though there are exceptions. As an example, I have a FFL03 license from the ATF (for which I certainly underwent a more exaustive check than simply running the NICS) that allows me to cash and carry when I present my license.

Handgun registration? Good luck, the pool of unregisted handguns is so huge (millions upon millions) that you will never be able to tag a meaningful percentage of them anyway and spend a fortune trying (more would just enter illegally over the borders anyway).

.50 BMG firearms have been used in very (about 3-5 depending on your standards) actual crimes in the last 90+ years since the round's invention. More people have been killed with sporks than there are crimes that involve a .50

There is no gun grabber lobby, that's your paranoid self talking. The NRA has more power than any "gun grabber" non-existant movement ever will/would have.

How do assault weapons apply under the 2nd amendment? The power available to one person with a modern assault weapon(full auto or not) is exponentially greater than a guy with a flint lock musket. There is no legitimate purpose for owning such a weapon and the same goes for .50 cals.

Your rationale against handgun registration is also pretty thin, you are saying that basically it's too big a task so we shouldn't try. There's just way too many crimes committed with handguns to ignore the problem completely.

What's the difference between an assault rifle and small semi-automatic deer rifle?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

Does the name Dianne Feinstein ring a bell? There are a number of Democrats who would outlaw guns completely if given half a chance. They are just laying low currently since every new gun regulation tabled just about anywhere in the US has gone down in flames lately and several states have recently passed CCW laws. It is just a big loser of an issue right now for them.

Your post shows how completely many people have accepted the propaganda of the gun grabber lobby.

The AWB did exactly jack sh!t to prevent crime, all it did was ban 'evil' looking guns and was completely ineffective at even that as the legislation was so full of holes. Zero effect on crime, completely a feel good measure to make the politicians look good. Since the ban susnet there has been no explosion in gun crime from these weapons as its supportes claimed would happen.

Waiting periods are manditory for licensed dealers, though there are exceptions. As an example, I have a FFL03 license from the ATF (for which I certainly underwent a more exaustive check than simply running the NICS) that allows me to cash and carry when I present my license.

Handgun registration? Good luck, the pool of unregisted handguns is so huge (millions upon millions) that you will never be able to tag a meaningful percentage of them anyway and spend a fortune trying (more would just enter illegally over the borders anyway).

.50 BMG firearms have been used in very (about 3-5 depending on your standards) actual crimes in the last 90+ years since the round's invention. More people have been killed with sporks than there are crimes that involve a .50

There is no gun grabber lobby, that's your paranoid self talking. The NRA has more power than any "gun grabber" non-existant movement ever will/would have.

How do assault weapons apply under the 2nd amendment? The power available to one person with a modern assault weapon(full auto or not) is exponentially greater than a guy with a flint lock musket. There is no legitimate purpose for owning such a weapon and the same goes for .50 cals.

Your rationale against handgun registration is also pretty thin, you are saying that basically it's too big a task so we shouldn't try. There's just way too many crimes committed with handguns to ignore the problem completely.

Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

 

[ayabe]

My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
What's your definition of "Pro Gun"?

I know of exactly ZERO dems who are actually anti gun, by that definition I mean that they want to outlaw guns completely.

I consider myself "pro gun" but I support the assault weapons ban, mandatory waiting periods, and handgun registration. I also think it should be illegal for civilians to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle.

Does the name Dianne Feinstein ring a bell? There are a number of Democrats who would outlaw guns completely if given half a chance. They are just laying low currently since every new gun regulation tabled just about anywhere in the US has gone down in flames lately and several states have recently passed CCW laws. It is just a big loser of an issue right now for them.

Your post shows how completely many people have accepted the propaganda of the gun grabber lobby.

The AWB did exactly jack sh!t to prevent crime, all it did was ban 'evil' looking guns and was completely ineffective at even that as the legislation was so full of holes. Zero effect on crime, completely a feel good measure to make the politicians look good. Since the ban susnet there has been no explosion in gun crime from these weapons as its supportes claimed would happen.

Waiting periods are manditory for licensed dealers, though there are exceptions. As an example, I have a FFL03 license from the ATF (for which I certainly underwent a more exaustive check than simply running the NICS) that allows me to cash and carry when I present my license.

Handgun registration? Good luck, the pool of unregisted handguns is so huge (millions upon millions) that you will never be able to tag a meaningful percentage of them anyway and spend a fortune trying (more would just enter illegally over the borders anyway).

.50 BMG firearms have been used in very (about 3-5 depending on your standards) actual crimes in the last 90+ years since the round's invention. More people have been killed with sporks than there are crimes that involve a .50

There is no gun grabber lobby, that's your paranoid self talking. The NRA has more power than any "gun grabber" non-existant movement ever will/would have.

How do assault weapons apply under the 2nd amendment? The power available to one person with a modern assault weapon(full auto or not) is exponentially greater than a guy with a flint lock musket. There is no legitimate purpose for owning such a weapon and the same goes for .50 cals.

Your rationale against handgun registration is also pretty thin, you are saying that basically it's too big a task so we shouldn't try. There's just way too many crimes committed with handguns to ignore the problem completely.

It does and I've already provided an example. Once they decided an outright attack on gun ownership would have proved too difficult they've been going at it piecemeal.

Your definition of a "legitimate purpose" crosses into the want-need debate and I don't think you really desire to go there. There are lots of thing we want but don't need so why should any of the "wants" be legal if they carry any risk whatsoever (I'm sure you can see where this leads)? The fact is that very few guns that could be classified as "assault weapons" are actually used in crimes. Handguns are almost always the preferred weapon in gun crime. As I already pointed out, .50BMG firearms are extremely rarely used in crimes. There is a better chance of me being crushed on my walk to work by a baby grand piano with a chimpanzee playing Schubert on it falling out of a cargo plane headed to Antarctica than of ever being in danger from a .50BMG weapon.

As for comprehensive handgun registration, the is a difference between really hard and futile. It would be futile. I would never, ever register my guns and neither would millions of Americans.

Instead of addressing only the symptoms of gun crime how about we spend more time trying to remove the major causes. For example, America's ruinous drug policy that only fuels crime and is responsible for much of the violence in this country

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

An M16 or AK47 probably isn't an assault rifle by this definition, as neither could be called a "high powered rifle," IMO. As rifle rounds go, they're wimpy.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

god forbid, someone attach a knife to their gun!.:roll:

 

[desy]

Canada has had handgun registration since 1930 and a second layer of testing to become a 'restricted' weapons owner.
75% of homicides in Canada are with handguns, 80% of those have never been registered.
What are the merits of a handgun registry again?

With the type of guns that are available 'even a muzzle loader' kills, to demonize one over the other is silly. Yes someone can do more damage with automatics I don't have a problem with that.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

I was asked for my definition and I gave it.

A few on here are arguing that it's a slippery slope, well I would pose the same argument as it pertains to illegal wiretapping. I'm willing to bet that those on here so vehemently opposed to any kind of gun regulation because of it's supposed violation of your Constitutional rights don't seem to have a problem with the wanton disregard of their right not to be surveilled without a warrant. Well violation of either of these rights is being justified by the "greater public good", so what's the difference?

I am a gun owner, I do not have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to purchase firearms, but those firearms must have a legitimate use for either sport of self defense. Military grade hardware doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Prior to 1934 there were no restrictions on the types of guns that the public could purchase which is why we had Bonnie and Clyde running around with a BAR. Certainly some of you must see the need for certain restrictions. There is no legitimate purpose for owning a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine, or threads for a silencer, etc.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

I was asked for my definition and I gave it.

A few on here are arguing that it's a slippery slope, well I would pose the same argument as it pertains to illegal wiretapping. I'm willing to bet that those on here so vehemently opposed to any kind of gun regulation because of it's supposed violation of your Constitutional rights don't seem to have a problem with the wanton disregard of their right not to be surveilled without a warrant. Well violation of either of these rights is being justified by the "greater public good", so what's the difference?

Absolutely not. There are many many man pro gun "nuts" that want LESS government intervention. That is the whole basis of their ideology. Your supposition is wrong.

I am a gun owner, I do not have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to purchase firearms, but those firearms must have a legitimate use for either sport of self defense. Military grade hardware doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Prior to 1934 there were no restrictions on the types of guns that the public could purchase which is why we had Bonnie and Clyde running around with a BAR. Certainly some of you must see the need for certain restrictions. There is no legitimate purpose for owning a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine, or threads for a silencer, etc.

The legitimate purpose is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around. Regardless of that fact, I don't see how a folding stock, bayonet, or flash suppressor are hurting anyone. They simply "look" scary.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

I was asked for my definition and I gave it.

A few on here are arguing that it's a slippery slope, well I would pose the same argument as it pertains to illegal wiretapping. I'm willing to bet that those on here so vehemently opposed to any kind of gun regulation because of it's supposed violation of your Constitutional rights don't seem to have a problem with the wanton disregard of their right not to be surveilled without a warrant. Well violation of either of these rights is being justified by the "greater public good", so what's the difference?

I am a gun owner, I do not have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to purchase firearms, but those firearms must have a legitimate use for either sport of self defense. Military grade hardware doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Prior to 1934 there were no restrictions on the types of guns that the public could purchase which is why we had Bonnie and Clyde running around with a BAR. Certainly some of you must see the need for certain restrictions. There is no legitimate purpose for owning a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine, or threads for a silencer, etc.

I don't happen to agree with that either so I see no conflict with my thinking.

Very little "military grade hardware" is available to civillians. All "assault weapons" sold are semi-auto (no burst or full auto modes). The only automatics available are the NFA weapons that are so restricted and expensive that none has ever (AFAIK) been used in a crime.

The previous AWB did nothing to prevent high capacity mags from being sold as it grandfathered in all hi-caps made prior to the ban. High-caps made before the ban could also be imported from other countries and sold on the US market. It merely raised the prices of high capacity mags. I like large mags so I don't have to reload as often when target shooting and for obvious self defense reasons in a pistol that you intend to defend yourself/family with.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

I was asked for my definition and I gave it.

A few on here are arguing that it's a slippery slope, well I would pose the same argument as it pertains to illegal wiretapping. I'm willing to bet that those on here so vehemently opposed to any kind of gun regulation because of it's supposed violation of your Constitutional rights don't seem to have a problem with the wanton disregard of their right not to be surveilled without a warrant. Well violation of either of these rights is being justified by the "greater public good", so what's the difference?

Absolutely not. There are many many man pro gun "nuts" that want LESS government intervention. That is the whole basis of their ideology. Your supposition is wrong.

I am a gun owner, I do not have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to purchase firearms, but those firearms must have a legitimate use for either sport of self defense. Military grade hardware doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Prior to 1934 there were no restrictions on the types of guns that the public could purchase which is why we had Bonnie and Clyde running around with a BAR. Certainly some of you must see the need for certain restrictions. There is no legitimate purpose for owning a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine, or threads for a silencer, etc.

The legitimate purpose is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around. Regardless of that fact, I don't see how a folding stock, bayonet, or flash suppressor are hurting anyone. They simply "look" scary.

These are charactaristics of most modern military assault weapons, hence they are useful in defining what constitutes an assault rifle. So are you going to give us a reason why you need a large capacity magazine?

I don't see the purpose of instilling fear in the government, ask the Branch Davidians how that turned out for them. There is little difference between them and the private militias running around in their camos, many of whom have in the very least some white supremecist leanings. These aren't the types of people I want possessing military hardware.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ayabe
My definition of an assault weapon, a high powered rifle with one or more of the following: a flash suppressor, folding stock, larger magazine, pistol-type grips, or an attachment point for a bayonet.

The flash suppressor is to keep you from going blind from the powder flash, not to hide your location.

We all know many people die in the US from bayonetings. It there has been once since the civil war I'd be stunned.

I was asked for my definition and I gave it.

A few on here are arguing that it's a slippery slope, well I would pose the same argument as it pertains to illegal wiretapping. I'm willing to bet that those on here so vehemently opposed to any kind of gun regulation because of it's supposed violation of your Constitutional rights don't seem to have a problem with the wanton disregard of their right not to be surveilled without a warrant. Well violation of either of these rights is being justified by the "greater public good", so what's the difference?

I am a gun owner, I do not have a problem with law abiding citizens being able to purchase firearms, but those firearms must have a legitimate use for either sport of self defense. Military grade hardware doesn't fit into either of those categories.

Prior to 1934 there were no restrictions on the types of guns that the public could purchase which is why we had Bonnie and Clyde running around with a BAR. Certainly some of you must see the need for certain restrictions. There is no legitimate purpose for owning a weapon with a 20 or 30 round magazine, or threads for a silencer, etc.

I don't happen to agree with that either so I see no conflict with my thinking.

Very little "military grade hardware" is available to civillians. All "assault weapons" sold are semi-auto (no burst or full auto modes). The only automatics available are the NFA weapons that are so restricted and expensive that none has ever (AFAIK) been used in a crime.

The previous AWB did nothing to prevent high capacity mags from being sold as it grandfathered in all hi-caps made prior to the ban. High-caps made before the ban could also be imported from other countries and sold on the US market. It merely raised the prices of high capacity mags. I like large mags so I don't have to reload as often when target shooting and for obvious self defense reasons in a pistol that you intend to defend yourself/family with.

I don't know the specifics of how these were obtained but you remember the two guys in LA who were running around with full auto AK's and body armor, there was almost nothing the LAPD could do to stop them.

It's certainly not the norm but these things do happen.