Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[quade 4]

Quote

You are absolutely correct. So where is the outrage here? Where are the laws to ban these cars? They kill far more innocent people every year than Assault Rifles do.

I'm not disagreeing! However they are usually not being used as weapons when they kill. It's usually the intention of the operator to remain in control, which is distinctly different than a killer on a shooting spree.

However, concern about one threat to the safety of society does not negate the threat by another.

As for high performance canopies, for the most part, they kill their owners and can't be used for any sort of killing spree. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard where they've accidentally killed more than one person beside the operator. There, might be a case out there somewhere I'm unaware of.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them?

Why does there have to be a 'purpose' for buying a specific stock or magazine?

Quote

OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them.

That's the basic premise behind the AWB, yes - "ZOMG, scary rifle!!! Ban it before I wet my pants!!!"

Quote

And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead.

Maybe the people that are for the ban should get some urinary incontinence training, instead.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

I'm not disagreeing! However they are usually not being used as weapons when they kill. It's usually the intention of the operator to remain in control, which is distinctly different than a killer on a shooting spree.

And banning the Assault Rifles will not stop a killer from going on a killing spree either. The Hunting Rifle is just as capable of doing that. In fact the killer will now just have a weapon that has a little more range if he/she uses a hunting rifle instead. NOTHING else changes.

This law does absolutely NOTHING to make us safer but it does take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The only purpose this law has is to make ignorant people feel better because the “Scary” looking gun are no longer owned by law abiding people.

This law will not save a single life or make anyone any safer at all.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not disagreeing! However they are usually not being used as weapons when they kill. It's usually the intention of the operator to remain in control, which is distinctly different than a killer on a shooting spree.

And banning the Assault Rifles will not stop a killer from going on a killing spree either. The Hunting Rifle is just as capable of doing that. In fact the killer will now just have a weapon that has a little more range if he/she uses a hunting rifle instead. NOTHING else changes.

So now "regular" firearms are better again.

Why can't you guys make up your minds what your position is?

You (collectively) are coming over like a bunch of retards.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A close minded person isn't going to listen no matter what. To think that applies across the board to gun control advocates is a pretty big assumption on your part.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTL

Quote

All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

You (collectively) are coming over like a bunch of retards.

I'm beginning to conclude that you simply cannot see the point they're trying to make. Banning weapons due to vague definitions established by people who do not understand what they're talking about could very well lead to all guns being banned. That's their point.

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So now "regular" firearms are better again.

Wrong again - we are illustrating the point that the ban is based on COSMETIC APPEARANCES, not any enhanced lethality.

Quote

Why can't you guys make up your minds what your position is?

Our position is clear - your ability to understand it is evidently lacking.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

A close minded person isn't going to listen no matter what. To think that applies across the board to gun control advocates is a pretty big assumption on your part.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTL

Quote

All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

And that's one person out of millions.

I'm nearly certain that's not the representative view from the vast majority that just want stuff toned down a little. If it was, then it would have been a done deal back in '94 . . . which it wasn't.

It's not a binary question of no guns or all guns. There actually is room for some sort of middle ground.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I'm nearly certain that's not the representative view from the vast majority that just want stuff toned down a little.

We're already seeing the damage that someone like a Pelosi can do...

We are all engines of karma

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

So now "regular" firearms are better again.

Wrong again - we are illustrating the point that the ban is based on COSMETIC APPEARANCES, not any enhanced lethality.

Quote

Why can't you guys make up your minds what your position is?

Our position is clear - your ability to understand it is evidently lacking.

I understand that some of you claim the difference is merely cosmetic (in which case a ban won't hurt you unless you want to be "scary") while others claim greater functionality (in which case maybe the ban is justified).

You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic".

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

It's not a binary question of no guns or all guns. There actually is room for some sort of middle ground.

I agree.
Fully Auto = Illegal.
Semi-Auto = Legal.

Easy. Logical. Reasonable.

Trying to ban some guns because of aesthetics makes no sense at all and that is exactly what they are wanting to do.

It solves nothing and is completely pointless.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic".

because it is stupid and pointless. It does nothing to make anyone any safer.

We do not not need more pointless legislation that will not make any difference at all other than to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

It's not a binary question of no guns or all guns. There actually is room for some sort of middle ground.

I agree.
Fully Auto = Illegal.
Semi-Auto = Legal.

Easy. Logical. Reasonable.

How do you feel about semi-automatic weapons that can approach fully automatic rates of fire without any further modifications by "bump firing"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c

Again, this is part of my kinetic energy over time objection.

Quote

Trying to ban some guns because of aesthetics makes no sense at all and that is exactly what they are wanting to do.

It solves nothing and is completely pointless.

I'll agree to your aesthetics argument.
I'll disagree that it is all they are trying to do.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I understand that some of you claim the difference is merely cosmetic (in which case a ban won't hurt you unless you want to be "scary") while others claim greater functionality (in which case maybe the ban is justified).

You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic".

You just shot your own argument out of the water - since the ban is on cosmetic features, why the ban at all, since it is nothing but a 'feel-good' measure?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

How do you feel about semi-automatic weapons that can approach fully automatic rates of fire without any further modifications by "bump firing"?

You can do this with any Semi-Auto Rifle. I have a Hell-Fire attachment on one of mine and with a little practice, The rate of fire can be pretty close to full auto. Guess which Gun it works best with?

(Should these be illegal?? Probably. I would not really complain about that as they really are pointless and just waste ammo, But it can be a lot of fun at the range)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'll disagree that it is all they are trying to do.

That is exactly what they are trying to do - ban more and more classes of weapons. First the scary-looking "Assault Weapons" (which is a crock of shit - the AR-15 and similar are NOT assault weapons, since they are not select fire), then the "High Powered Sniper Rifles" (your grandad's 30-06), then the 'Street Sweepers" (grandad's Perazzi), then the "Easily Concealed Cop Killer Guns" (grandad's .38 snubby that's been rusting in a sock drawer for the last 25 years).

Feinstein and her ilk (Boxer, Schumer, etc.) are strong proponents of the gun control crowd and have been for decades - your dismissal of her as "one among millions" is fatuous.

The fact that you cannot understand this means that you have either done no research into the issue, or that you agree with it.

Get some education.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[martlet 0]

Some people have obviously never read, or don't respect, the Constitution.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

I understand that some of you claim the difference is merely cosmetic (in which case a ban won't hurt you unless you want to be "scary") while others claim greater functionality (in which case maybe the ban is justified).

You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic".

You just shot your own argument out of the water - since the ban is on cosmetic features, why the ban at all, since it is nothing but a 'feel-good' measure?

Not at all. Animals won't be scared by the cosmetic features of a "scary" gun, so the only logical targets are people. I can see a very valid reason to ban "scary" guns whose specific design feature is to scare people.

You shot your argument out of the water (not that you had a good one to begin with, since you folks have come up with so many contradictions in this one thread).

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Some people have obviously never read, or don't respect, the Constitution.

You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic".

because it is stupid and pointless. It does nothing to make anyone any safer.

We do not not need more pointless legislation that will not make any difference at all other than to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

But, to quote your own words:

"The Hunting Rifle is just as capable of doing that. In fact the killer will now just have a weapon that has a little more range if he/she uses a hunting rifle instead. NOTHING else changes."

So by getting a hunting rifle you will have a BETTER weapon, and NOTHING ELSE CHANGES.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can't just SAY that what they're doing is silly and cosmetic. PROVE to them that the energy delivered is less than what is available specifically for hunting.

Uh........ actually the hunting weapons I use are far more powerfull than any of the typically "scary" looking assault weapons... PLUS... I could VERY easily reach out and touch someone with my better weapons easily past 500 yards.

ANYONE who is even slightly familiar with weapons... should know that.... People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.. and take a class or two.... to overcome their phobia's

Rather than regulating what kind of weapons we "BAN"... I would much rather make SEVERE penalties for those who USE a weapon in the commission of any crimes.....period.

"BAN" those who misuse the tools... instead of the tool.

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

And maybe people who need guns to feel adequate should seek help instead.

Do you get the point that SOME FAMILIES.. enjoy going out to the range and having what they call FUN.

You ever fire something full auto... Rock and ROLL is hella fun... oh.. maybe for YOU it would be all macho.. to jump out of airplanes?????

Its all about tastes.. and personal choices... if someone wants to own some commie guns for fun... why not....maybe some fo the commies want some of our toys... like maybe a PD canopy instead of some of the Russian gear

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

And maybe people who need guns to feel adequate should seek help instead.

Do you get the point that SOME FAMILIES.. enjoy going out to the range and having what they call FUN.

You ever fire something full auto... Rock and ROLL is hella fun... oh.. maybe for YOU it would be all macho.. to jump out of airplanes?????

Its all about tastes.. and personal choices... if someone wants to own some commie guns for fun... why not....maybe some fo the commies want some of our toys... like maybe a PD canopy instead of some of the Russian gear

Oh, I sure can, but this discussion is about COSMETICS according to mnealtx, not about full auto capability or commie guns for fun.

Someone on your side is lying.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Not at all. Animals won't be scared by the cosmetic features of a "scary" gun, so the only logical targets are people. I can see a very valid reason to ban "scary" guns whose specific design feature is to scare people.

The logical disconnect in your argument (not that you're using any, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) is that those feature are not there to "scare people".

Pistol grip or thumbhole stock - makes a more natural wrist angle while firing.

Collapsible stock - makes weapon easier to handle when not in use, allows adjustment for various sizes of soldiers as well as allowing use with soldier's body armor.

Detachable magazine - allows faster reloading - BUT: someone well-practiced can reload a fixed magazine with stripper clips almost as fast.

Flash hider / muzzle brake - reduces recoil and muzzle jump.

Bayonet lug - lemme know when drive-by bayonettings become a problem, m'kay?

Quote

You shot your argument out of the water (not that you had a good one to begin with, since you folks have come up with so many contradictions in this one thread).

With your inability to grasp the reasoning behind design concepts, and the fact that the physical appearance of a weapon does NOT affect lethality, I find myself surprisingly un-moved by your opinion of the efficacy of my postings.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Not at all. Animals won't be scared by the cosmetic features of a "scary" gun, so the only logical targets are people. I can see a very valid reason to ban "scary" guns whose specific design feature is to scare people.

The logical disconnect in your argument (not that you're using any, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) is that those feature are not there to "scare people".

It was someone on YOUR side*** who brought up scariness, not me.

Now if the design is "scary", who is it meant to scare if not people? Ducks? Deer? Rabbits?

Why don't you folks get together and decide what exactly your position is instead of contradicting each other? Then someone might take you seriously.

kbordson, dreweckhart and aggiedave, to name but three, specifically referred to the scary factor.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So now "regular" firearms are better again.

Why can't you guys make up your minds what your position is?

You (collectively) are coming over like a bunch of retards.


I guess a retard would use a ball peen hammer to screw a computer together..

Different tools for different jobs... no matter how small the tool or how retarded he is.

• Quote