yaGUNt: extension on assault-gun-ban?

[andylawcc]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tics_guns_040908192513


I believe there's a handful of gunowners here, what ya think? does the ban really save lives, or it just some mumbo jumbo?


edit:
from my non-gun owner point of view,
"there will be Uzis and AK on the streets!"

you don't need those guns for defense right?

 

[ElFenix]

"This is truly a dark day in the Senate's history, as we let this ban, which has worked so well and saved lives, simply fade away," Feinstein said on the Senate floor.

i wonder if she can substantiate that claim?

In a poll this week, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68 percent of Americans -- about two out of three respondents -- want an extension of ban.

i wonder what a poll asking americans what an 'assault weapon' is would come up with.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Mumbo jumbo.

 

[jtusa]

Most definitely mumbo jumbo. Feinstein is also so completely offbase in all her arguments against it that I can't listen to her or I get super-pissed. She is quite literally clueless on the subject.

 

[andylawcc]

but, I mean, from my non-gun owner point of view,

"there will be Uzis and AK on the streets!"


you don't need those guns for defense right?

 

[The Stigenator]

actually she is right!

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads...four_presidents_lg.gif

http://www2.stopthenra.com

I support the extension of the ban on assualt rifles...

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

In a poll this week, the National Annenberg Election Survey found that 68 percent of Americans -- about two out of three respondents -- want an extension of ban.

i wonder what a poll asking americans what an 'assault weapon' is would come up with.

Flak Cannon if you ask a UT2004 chat room.

 

[Vic]

What a bunch of bullsh!t. :frown:

Saying that a gun with a black stock has a more "rapid rate of fire" than the same gun with a wood stock is like saying that a Civic gains 20hp by adding NOS stickers.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
but, I mean, from my non-gun owner point of view,

"there will be Uzis and AK on the streets!"


you don't need those guns for defense right?

Defense against a thug on the street, or defense against an out of control tyranical government?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

"This is truly a dark day in the Senate's history, as we let this ban, which has worked so well and saved lives, simply fade away," Feinstein said on the Senate floor.

She's talking out her ass and she knows it. I'd be surprised if the ban has saved a single life.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
actually she is right!

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads...four_presidents_lg.gif

http://www2.stopthenra.com

I support the extension of the ban on assualt rifles...

Are you actually so stupid that you think that a simple law will stop criminals who already break the law everyday? All this law does is disarm law-abiding citizens.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns."

Only a government that fears its citizens would want to disarm its citizens.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
but, I mean, from my non-gun owner point of view,

"there will be Uzis and AK on the streets!"


you don't need those guns for defense right?

The AWB does not ban Uzis or AKs. They(true full-auto Uzis, and true full-auto AKs) have been banned along with all other full-auto weapons since 1934. They are heavily controlled guns. AK clones that are semi-auto are still available. The AWB has nothing to do with full-auto, which is what most people think. All the AWB does is ban certain features on weapons that supposedly make them more deadly. Collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, hi-cap mags being some of these features. Hi-cap mags aren't even banned perse, they just can't be manufactured for civilian sale, but you can still get magazines manufactured before the ban took effect and they are perfecly legal.

And as far as me "needing" one or not, it doesn't matter, it's my right to own one, period.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: lirion

Defense against a thug on the street, or defense against an out of control tyranical government?

against a thug on a street: no
coz you are not likely gonna carry a AR-15 while walking down the street, would you?

against a thug that's intruding: no
i believe a handgun would be sufficient; otherwise thugs are just gonna "upgrade" their firepower to combat yours. It is just an endless vicious cycle.

against the government: no
i don't think a M14 would be enough to stop even the boarder patrol, let's alone the Army.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
actually she is right!

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads...four_presidents_lg.gif

http://www2.stopthenra.com

I support the extension of the ban on assualt rifles...

Real good sources of information you got there.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: jtusa4


And as far as me "needing" one or not, it doesn't matter, it's my right to own one, period.

i believe that's the backbone for all you pro-gun people right?
if so, I understood and am satisfied.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
actually she is right!

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads...four_presidents_lg.gif

http://www2.stopthenra.com

I support the extension of the ban on assualt rifles...

You probably think socialism is a good idea too, right?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
against the government: no
i don't think a M14 would be enough to stop even the boarder patrol, let's alone the Army.

You're thinking wrong. Of course, a single armed individual has no hope against a tyrannical government. But try 200+ million armed law-abiding American citizens and the Army wouldn't stand a chance, and the government could not possibly oppress the people. Or have you not noticed what's been going on in Iraq?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
but, I mean, from my non-gun owner point of view,

"there will be Uzis and AK on the streets!"


you don't need those guns for defense right?

We are talking about semi-automatic rifles here. Not fully automatic weapons which are strictly controlled or illegal in most states. A semi-automatic Uzi or AK-47 fires one shot every time you pull the trigger. Just like any other semi-auto hunting rifle or shotgun out there. The only difference is the AK and the Uzi accept a detachable magazine and have a plastic stock with a pistol grip. These guns are used in so few crimes anyway and those that are generally are stolen or illegally obtained-fat load of good a ban does in that situation.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: jtusa4

The AWB does not ban Uzis or AKs. They(true full-auto Uzis, and true full-auto AKs) have been banned along with all other full-auto weapons since 1934. They are heavily controlled guns. AK clones that are semi-auto are still available. The AWB has nothing to do with full-auto, which is what most people think. All the AWB does is ban certain features on weapons that supposedly make them more deadly. Collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, hi-cap mags being some of these features. Hi-cap mags aren't even banned perse, they just can't be manufactured for civilian sale, but you can still get magazines manufactured before the ban took effect and they are perfecly legal.

so you are saying AWB is okay for you since it only bans guns that has the features you listed?

again, you don't need those "feature," but you have the right to own one that has?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: jtusa4
And as far as me "needing" one or not, it doesn't matter, it's my right to own one, period.

i believe that's the backbone for all you pro-gun people right?
if so, I understood and am satisfied.

This is the "backbone" for "pro-gun" people: The United States Constitution, the highest law of our land.

If you don't like it, it contains easy provisions as to how it can be amended. Feel free. Otherwise, unconstitutional laws are illegal, and Senators that do not keep their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution are little different than a street thug.

In particular: Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: jtusa4
And as far as me "needing" one or not, it doesn't matter, it's my right to own one, period.

i believe that's the backbone for all you pro-gun people right?
if so, I understood and am satisfied.

This is the "backbone" for "pro-gun" people: The United States Constitution, the highest law of our land.

If you don't like it, it contains easy provisions as to how it can be amended. Feel free. Otherwise, unconstitutional laws are illegal, and Senators that do not keep their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution are little different than a street thug.

In particular: Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you very much Vic.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: jtusa4

The AWB does not ban Uzis or AKs. They(true full-auto Uzis, and true full-auto AKs) have been banned along with all other full-auto weapons since 1934. They are heavily controlled guns. AK clones that are semi-auto are still available. The AWB has nothing to do with full-auto, which is what most people think. All the AWB does is ban certain features on weapons that supposedly make them more deadly. Collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, hi-cap mags being some of these features. Hi-cap mags aren't even banned perse, they just can't be manufactured for civilian sale, but you can still get magazines manufactured before the ban took effect and they are perfecly legal.

so you are saying AWB is okay for you since it only bans guns that has the features you listed?

again, you don't need those "feature," but you have the right to own one that has?

You don't need a car that can go 150mph either. You also don't need to drink an alcoholic beverage after work to help you unwind or to smoke cigarettes or eat a Big Mac when the mood strikes you.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: andylawcc
You're thinking wrong. Of course, a single armed individual has no hope against a tyrannical government. But try 200+ million armed law-abiding American citizens and the Army wouldn't stand a chance, and the government could not possibly oppress the people. Or have you not noticed what's been going on in Iraq?

well, I know where this is going, but if 200 million citizen of a country all united against the goverment, there is something fundamentally very wrong the country itself, that an armed civilian would have do nothing better. You think those gun-yielding citizen could "govern" the country any better than those filthy politican? and why would you think America would be a tyranical monarchy in the first place? that's like saying I want a full refund for the car I just purchased because it will break down eventually.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
actually she is right!

http://www2.stopthenra.com/ads...four_presidents_lg.gif

http://www2.stopthenra.com

I support the extension of the ban on assualt rifles...

LOL

The FUD spouted in those two "ADs" is laughable.

Even with the AWB in place, I knew several places I could find illegal weapons with serial numbers ground off. Yes, I know the rifiling will ID a weapon...do you really think it's that hard to destroy a gun barrel?

Ridiculous laws like the AWB do NOTHING except keep those weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

 

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: jtusa4

The AWB does not ban Uzis or AKs. They(true full-auto Uzis, and true full-auto AKs) have been banned along with all other full-auto weapons since 1934. They are heavily controlled guns. AK clones that are semi-auto are still available. The AWB has nothing to do with full-auto, which is what most people think. All the AWB does is ban certain features on weapons that supposedly make them more deadly. Collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, hi-cap mags being some of these features. Hi-cap mags aren't even banned perse, they just can't be manufactured for civilian sale, but you can still get magazines manufactured before the ban took effect and they are perfectly legal.

so you are saying AWB is okay for you since it only bans guns that has the features you listed?

again, you don't need those "feature," but you have the right to own one that has?

No, the AWB is not okay because it is an attempt(although a weak one) to further strip away my rights as a gun owner.

My previous statement is basically to clear up what the AWB truly is, since most people are clueless about it but think it's a good idea.