Firepower
I’ve been quite busy today deciding which 100-round clip I should buy with my TEC-9 purchase tomorrow...I’m just exercising my supposed right as described in:
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.Now, everyone should mosey on over to the National Rifle Association and thank them for allowing deadly military-style assault weapons and large ammunition clips back on the street. Although the NRA claims today is “the end of a sad era,” I fear and expect a new and even sadder era beginning.
The NRA claims the assault weapons which will be legal at midnight tonight will be used for "target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting, collecting, and most importantly self-defense."
Let me just explain one last thing to everyone...no one uses or needs a 1700 rounds per minute UZI submachine gun for self-defense!
Finally, an America I can feel comfortable and safe in...
33 Comments:
Your ignorance astounds me.
1) Uzi's have been perfectly legal all along and they are regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act. If you want to legally buy an Uzi, you have to live in one the states that allows Class 3 weapons (which includes full-auto) pay a $200 tax stamp, go through a background check and have the county sherrif approve you for the purchase. BTW, these weapons cost $5,000 and up.
2) The "ban" did nothing to bar the sale of semi-automatic military-style firearms like the AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles. They too have been perfectly legal to buy, as well as high-capacity magazines. I own several myself.
All this ban did was prevent certain features on these weapons: flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc.
"Finally, an America I can feel comfortable and safe in..."
You know, the safest I feel is when I'm out shooting with my friends and fellow gun-owners.
Pete Nelson - www.LifeLibertyEtc.com
you are a bumfuck.
Nothing like someone exposing their ignorance for entertainment.
If you're ever in Tucson, come on over and I'll take you to the range where you can fire my post-ban AR-15 (no flash-hider, no bayonet lug, no collapsable stock) using my seven pre-ban 30 round magazines that work perfectly in it.
The law was useless and accomplished nothing.
And as the earlier poster noted, the AWB had absolutely nothing to do with full-auto weapons, which are regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act.
You've swallowed the liberal media kool-aid, and it's affected your ability to think, obviously.
Sorry to see you're a believer of what you hear on TV.
So far my neighborhood hasn't had a bunch of folks with Uzi's on street corners. Has yours maybe? Or did you just suddenly get the feeling that you're now in the middle of a free fire zone since a silly law went away?
If you actually sit down and review what effects this law had (next to none) you'll find it wasn't well written, the main thrust in its passing was political , and its backers were well aware of this.
Far too many people don't consider the practical effects of legislation passing or getting repealed and will take hysterical stances like yours without seriously researching the issue. I do hope you'll actually take some time and find out what this law really did, and didn't do.
Tec-9's suck anyways. They only appeal to photo-op hungry politicians and dumb teenagers.
Like most who support the "assault weapons ban," you believe the lies that the anti-gun folks have told you. The ban had NOTHING to do with machine guns, everything to do with cosmetics. But lying to you was ok, because in their utopia, there will be no need to defend yourself. You can count on the government to protect you, and feed you, and shelter you, and teach you, and heal you.........
As much as you apparently don't support our Second Amendment rights, you sure have no qualms about abusing your First Amendment right and acting like the grossly misinformed dumb ass that you are.
The expiration of the 1994 AWB did NOT allow any unavailable types of firearms to re-enter the market, as it never banned them to begin with. Also, as Pete stated, machineguns have been governed since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed into law, and even further restricted when the 1968 Gun Control Act was ammended via the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.
Furthermore, cyclic rate of a firearm is of very little consequence when referring to a so-called "assault weapon" as outlined in the AWB. These firearms are semi-automatic ONLY. Which means, you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. That's right, just one bullet. You can hold that trigger down until your finger falls off, and only one bullet will come out until you release the trigger and pull it again.
So much for the lies you've been told about bullet spraying, eh?
Ignorance is bliss, you must be blissful.
As the founding fathers said, a people that fears the government is tyranny, a government that fears the people is freedom. Your ignorance of weapons notwithstanding, you also need to research what the 2nd Amendment is for. It is a check an balance, designed to allow the people a credible threat/defense against crime, foreign invasion, and THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. This is not for revolutionary purposes, it is designed to ensure that the government does not attempt to oppress the people for fear of revolution.
Gun laws do not positively impact crime. Most gun crime is committed by juveniles (<21 years old) with HANDGUNS. By law, the posession of handguns by these individuals is a crime. Criminals do not obey laws, and therefore making a gun illegal is like making murder illegal; it does not stop it, it makes it just makes it illegal. However, areas in this nation that have laws allowing citizens to go armed and defend themselves have less crime, because the criminals are deterred by the thought of being shot.
Last point I have time for. Even if banning so-called "Assault Weapons" would cut crime, the past AWB only banned cosmetic features of weapons, therefore could not have had any impact on crime as there was no shortage of weapons being sold with the exact same characteristics as "Assault Weapons." So any claim by liberals that the AWB helped deter crime, and now their will be an increase in crime is bogus.
Rifleman2000! yeah baby
why don't you get an education on this issue instead of listening to people like Rosie O'Donnell
Another poor misguided youth who, as someone else put it, drank the Kool-Aid. How does it make you feel to have been so misled on what the AWB did? I just had a great discussion with a law partner who is a big Dem and a former speaker of the house in the LA legislature. He went on his rant about machine guns, and then I politely asked, "So you think this was about machine guns?" Never saw a man's face turn red as fast as when I showed him the light. Absolutely incredible how successful the disinformation effort by the Dems, the media, and gun grabbers has been. But we gun nuts have learned much from this. Never again, my friend...
Let's see what happens the next time anyone pitches a gun control measure under the guise of "common sense gun safety".
Ignorance of the facts seems to have created a vacuum in your discourse which you have filled with inaccuracy and nonsense.
Even a spokeman for the Brady Campaign said that the death of the AWB would have negligable effect.
I am very glad we had the AWB. The pay-off was high:
1. According to Bill Clinton, the AWB cost Dems at least 20 House seats and thus control of the USHOR in '94.
2. The AWB forced pro-constitutional rights organization to become much more sophisticated and skilled in debunking the arguments of the left.
3. The "forbidden fruit" aspect of the AWB resulted in unimagined sales increases after the ban. Ten years after the ban, there are not only more gun-owning, law-abiding citizens, but also more guns in their hands...in particular semi-auto weapons.
4. The AWB, along with the '89 Import Ban and the '92 Amendment to the '89 Ban helped create an indigenous industry for the manufacture of foreign-made semi-auto weapons.
One unforeseen influence was the growth of the web and conservative media. The goofiness of the AWB could not withstand the bright lights of accuracy. Even the anti-gun Center for Disease Control concluded in a study published in 2004 that there was no evidence that any of dozens of gun control laws on the books had reduced crime in any way.
Sorry, kid, but the AWB was a pyhric victory for the Dems and the Left. To put it in other words....you guys won the war, but the peace kicked your ass.
Regards,
Saint Gabriel
"Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
-Sigmund Freud ,"An Intoduction to Psychoanalysis"
Your hysterics are misguided and foolish. If you had taken the time to research this for youself rather than parroting the liberal media's sensationalism, you might have gotten a respectful listening of your views.
I would first like to say that you 2nd amendment rights are not "supposed" any more than your first, or any other, amendment rights are. I don't NEED a magazine(that's what there called not CLIP. Stop watching so much T.V.)that holds 30 rounds any more that someone needs a Hummer or Lexis or a $400 pair of shoes. The Constitution says I have the RIGHT to own one if I want. You don't have to like it. If you don't want one don't buy one. Simple as that.
Second, as has already been pointed out "deadly military-style assault weapons and large ammunition clips" were availible all through the period of the ban. The ban was on purely cosmetic features, pistol grips, bayonet lug(name the last time someone was held up at bayonet point)etc.
We have many laws on the books already making it illegal to rob, kill, and rape but these happen every day. People should try enforcing these laws instead of making new one hand over fist. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY. Meaning people will do what they want. Make them take responsiblity for their actions instead of blaming something else.
You really need to get your facts straight before you post something you know nothing about.............remember, put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion. You are a sheeple. Someone who follows the crowd without really knowing why...........
Hey Slinger --
First of all I wanted to congratulate you on finally inciting some great discussion, albeit it's from a bunch of right-wing nut jobs who are citing fucking freud and shit.
Why someone would ever cite someone who subcutaneously coked himself out as a source is beyond me, but hey if you've got nothing you've got nothing.
One thing I want to point out to those fine gun-toting fellas is that it was a bipartisan piece of legislation that was pretty greatly accepted.
And republicans pushed it there in the first place -- thank you Regan Administration!
Secondly - I do think that the ban was somewhat pointless. The guns they banned could often be pretty expensive (however if they're stolen off a truck and sole on the streets you probably could get them for quite a bit cheaper), and some of the limitations were scant at providing security at best.
Really, the thing was symbolic to recognize the efforts of Brady for basically taking one of the bullets aimed at our president.
Being from Idaho, as you are Slinger, I enjoy shooting guns -- and hey, if these people want their uzis and other automatic weapons -- I say let them have them.
Whatever happens now is easily blamed on them as compared to those who support simple hunting firearms and sport arms.
Personally I don't think I need an uzi to have fun on a shooting range. Automatic weapons are for people who are poor target shooters and have small penises, in my humble opinion.
"Hey John, you have a small wang."
"Yeah but look at the spray on the this target from my uzi!...OK, yeah I do have a small wang."
I also loved the racism from those fellas in your post. DAMN THOSE GANG BANGERS!
My Dear misguided sam,
Why is it that when confronted with the facts about what the AWB did or did not do, You guys always have to resort to the "Small Penis" rant, instead of trying to make your point with a counter argument?
I also see that you enjoy shooting your "Scoped Sniper Rifles" at targets. What's that??? You say "These are hunting rifles, NOT Sniper rifles!". Do you honestly think VPC, Brady and the rest really will just stop if they get Our Semi-Autos banned? How about that Street-sweeper Shotgun of yours? They don't care that your a bird hunter or just shoot clays with it, it's an "evil killing machine, so deadly that it doesn't even need to be aimed!". 99.999% of gun owners are law abiding people. The people that break laws are,by definition criminals. Criminals are not going to follow ANY laws ANYONE makes....That's why they are criminals!
Let Me put it this way.....
Drug laws are stopping drugs throughout the world Huh!? Wow! We should make it " Super-Double-illegal! That would stop them!
Tall Shadow
Hey SAM, the AWB was not about automatic weapons, and did not effect automatic weapons which were regulated in 1934. You sound like a real smart guy and I would love to talk, but I have to go clean my FULLY AUTOMATIC BULLET HOZE UZI MACHINE GUN WITH A MILLION ROUND CLIP I BOUGHT FROM THE ICE CREAM MAN TODAY!
Bye
Wow, you are amazingly ignorant when it comes to the facts...oh wait, 22 years old, that explains it. You'll feel differently when you're a man.
"...he that has no sword,let him sell his robe and buy one." Luke 22:36
That wasnt Frued, that was Jesus The Christ(not that it would matter to you) and it was a comandment to the diciples, He then told them to teach to all to commandments that He taught them. The sword was just as powerful of a "military" weapon as held by those on Ceaser's SWAT teams. It matters not what the constitution says, We have a Higher Authority. Those with limp wrists like you probably couldnt swing a sword anyway. Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!
--Swordslinger
You seriously have no clue. The ban only affected SEMI-auto weapons. Full autos cost a fortune and are rare and paperwork/time intese to buy and DID NOT have anything to do with the AWB passed in 94. Also, they are called magazines, not clips. Clips are a different style of amunition holding device.
Your ignorance, accidental or purpouseful, is astounding. Do your homework so you dont look like such an idiot.
"...no one uses or needs a 1700 rounds per minute UZI submachine gun for self-defense!"
Tell that to the Israelis.....They use them everyday for that, regular citizens at that.
BTW, FA UZIs fire at about 700 rounds per minute not 1700!
Perhaps you don't do quality research or homework because you are afraid it may change your opinion, if you truely are an open minded person, but I doubt that.
Bryan S.
ARFCOM - S.O.
Olean NY
You know the old saying, "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns". This may be cliche, but it is the truth. As it has been said, 99.9999% of gun owners are tax paying, law abiding citizens. They have guns because they hunt with them, target shoot with them, or use to defend their homes and families. They also have guns because the 2nd Amendment guarantees them that right. How dare you question our rights, when we support the (obvious) expression of your rights? We support ALL the amendments, not just the ones convenient to us, or the ones we like. We support them because our Founding Fathers knew the proper way to guide a country. It is no coincidence the 2nd Amendment concerns guns. The Founding Fathers knew how important an armed people was, and the same holds true today.
I'm glad so many responded to the original BS of this thread. Banning guns will never stop crime. It will only weaken the people's ability to defend themselves against those who would take advantage or harm you. The AWB was a useless piece of legislation, and was cosmetic at best. Its almost like suggesting that banning spoons will cause fat people to lose weight.
For those misinformed, the ban simply prohibited the further production of certain features on rifles made after Sept '94 and limited the capacity of all magazines (not CLIPS) manufactured after Sept '94 to 10 rounds. It was just as easy after the ban to buy 30rd magazines, AR15's, and AK's as it was before the ban. The only change was, they became more expensive.
As it was said above, the key issue isn't crime, or even gun crime for that matter. Its morality. Bad people are going to do bad things, whether it's raping the neighbor, stealing your credit card, or driving drunk. Until we actually get tough on crime, you are never going to solve the problem. Liberals are all about passing new laws, but never interested in actually enforcing the ones on the book.
Oh, that's me above. Jason280, ARF.commers!!
Remember that blind faith in bad media is just ignorance.. Believing what they tell you, and not learning for yourself will make you just as stupid as the dumb blonde they have reading the news.
It is too bad that most people take more time to pick out their boxers in the morning then they do researching facts on important issues. Blindly following the lead of media more often then not will lead to misinformation. I really hope that the posts above at least motivate you to seek out the facts on topics you bring up in the future.
Cape_Hunter
ARFCOM NW
Someone said something up there about if guns were outlawed then only outlaws would have guns.
I completely agree with that.
However, someone else also went to the conspiracy theorist route and freaked about my shotgun being taken away even though it's for bird hunting.
To that I call bullshit. That would never happen, I can guarantee that. Mainly because firearms makers have great lobbyists, and two because no politician of sound mind would ever allow something like that, nor would a judge.
I do fail to see the point in a 100-round magazine, however.
Some fanatics just never learn.
You fail to see the point of a 100 round magazine? For one, 100 round mags are rare and expensive, max for a rifle is usually 30 rounds.
As for YOU failing to see the point, what has that to do with law abiding citizens owning them? Maybe we should outlaw fast cars, too. Nobody needs them, and car wrecks kill more than guns. Hell, doctor malpractice kills more than gun accidents. Maybe we should ban guns.
YOU don't see the point. Who cares? This is a free country.
I have been trying to keep up with all the posts, but it's kinda hard because damn there are a lot of you guys. Anyway, I am good friends with Slingshizzle and Sam, and I completly agree with them. However, I just have one simple question for you, why do you NEED these guns all of you have been arguing about??? I have no problem with hunting, but these guns aren't made for that. A M16 was made for one purpose, to kill as many people as possible, so why in the world would you need it??? Now, I know many of you guys are just going to cite the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, but I am looking for a actual argument as to why you need them, not why you can have them. So, when one, (hopefully not all) of you have a logical answer, I'll be waiting.
Liberally Yours,
Doc
dockrey.blogspot.com
Dear Doc,
Need is an irrelevant argument, a red herring. There is no need. Humans need air, water and food to survive. Everything else is window dressing.
Ignorance is bliss...at least for the ignorant. Try getting your facts from someone other than Dan Rather.
TE Fowler
Doc, Please go back and read from the beginning...
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT M16's nor are we talking about MACHINE GUNS.
We are talking about semi-auto rifles that have plastic furniture instead of wood.
How many pairs of shoes do you have?
How many dvds do you have?
How many video games do you have?
Do you really NEED all of them?
Doc,
I'll skip the simple argument of "recreation". I'll also skip the analogies such as drag racers, "why does anyone need that much horsepower".. etc.
Your question is a valid one and deserves a valid lucid answer.
First:
You asked that we not just quote the Second Amendment. At the core of this debate is the Second Amendment. Many that have posted, including me, believe that the while the Second Amendment grants certain rights, that responsibilities are imparted with those rights.
"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." - Second Amendment
You will note that it says a "well-regulated militia". This is one of the responisbilities that I believe are core to the Second Amendment. While firearms ownership should be protected at all costs simply because it is a God given right to protect oneself, the responsibility to have the skills necessary to employ your weapons in the defense of your self, your family, your country and your freedom is paramount. This clause exists to remind people that freedoms must be protected at all costs. Threats may come from outside the government or inside. It is a catch-all phrase insuring that this nation remain "of the people, for the people and by the people". The Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons, and applies the responsibility of using them to combat threats to our freedoms both foreign and domestic.
Second:
These weapons are used in nationally recognized sporting events. International Practical Shooters Coalition (IPSC), International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and numerous local and national organizations promote the sporting aspect of shooting. Not only that, but they also practice skills at arms and tactics which help satisfy the Second Amendment responsibility I mentioned above. When competing in these events, generally they are scored based on time to complete a course or a set of actions. If you ever watch one of these competitions, you will immediatly recognize the immense benefit of having firearms that can fire rapidly, accurately and with as few magazine changes to waste time as possible. Here is a short video clip of a young man competing to illustrate my point.
http://www.krtraining.com/IPSC/Matches/2002/TxStateLimited/stages/stage5/NATHANSt5.AVI
Third:
And quite possibly most importantly, self defense. Military small arms (pistols, shotguns, assault rifles) are designed so that they may be employed by a wide variety of troops. They are specifically made to fit the average sized individual, or with minimal effort, be modified for use by larger or smaller than average individuals. They are made to be maintained relatively easily. They are made to be durable, reliable, cost effective to produce and effective. When not otherwise employed in sporting or hunting roles, military small arms are primarily used to protect something by applying deadly force to neutralize the threat to life, liberty and the LAWFUL pursuit of happiness.
Because military small arms are designed with these considerations, they are extremely effective in a self defense role. Because of their simple operating procedures, I can, with minimal instruction, feel confident that my wife (or other family member) can employ deadly force in self defense. I can be fairly assured that the application of deadly force with military small arms is going to be effective at neutralizing threats to my family. I cannot be so assured with other hunting or sporting specific firearms.
Conclusion:
You are correct in saying that assault weapons are "killing machines", just as I am correct in using the same term when refering to automobiles. To say that they serve no purpose in civilian hands is the cry of the uninformed. As law-abiding Second Ammendment proponants, it is our job to protect the rights, priviledges and fulfil the responsibilities I've outlined above. I really hope that at some point you might join that fight considering that it is the application of deadly force by military weaponry that guarantees your right to question thier legitimacy.
I hope this helps.
WolverineAtWork
To the gentlman who said that calling his hunting rifle a sniper rifle was silly and it would never be banned, ask your self this, how is my HUNTING rifle REALLY different than a sniper rifle? For 99% of them it may be the color of the rifle and MAYBE a bi-pod. That's it. Here is a remington 700 PSS sniper rifle...
http://conspiracyx0.tripod.com/weapons3/R700B.jpg
It and many others are just tuned hunting rifles with a synthetic stock instead of a pretty wood one. The anti gun groups have already started to "target" these dreadfull "sniper rifles" for elimination based on what they can do and how they look. More than likely you own a rifle that would be banned by their proposed "sensible regulations" and just dont know it as those who dont have a interest in such things have but a little clue about what goes on behind the scenes.
The remington 1100 and 11-87 shotguns, used by thousands of hunters nationwide are the same basic shotguns used by police and SWAT and are demonized as mass killing devices by the anti's. Again, only cosmetic differences, the ones anti's use to divide and conquer gun owners and the public in general to pull the wool over their eyes and nibble away at your rights.
Bryan S.
ARFCOM- S.O.
Olean NY
Ha ha ha...stupid ligeral is getting his ass handed to him.
Wow, that's an impressive argument calling me a "stupid ligeral" really made me want to go into a corner and cry. I do want to thank everybody who did attempt to answer my question without getting all pissy and attempting to call me names like a third grader. However, I am still not convinced that anybody actually NEEDS these weapons. This is a very important part of this argument, because needs play a very important role in our lives. I need air, water, and food to survive, but I don't need an XBOX to survive (but they are a lot of fun). I will grant you that there are different levels of needs, but owning a automatic gun and having a clip that holds 100 rounds is simply not a real need. If people want to own a handgun and a hunting rifle, then fine, go ahead. I understand the need to feel protected and have the ability to hunt, but I don't understand the need to know that you can kill a lot of people, simply because you can. The idea that you can have something simply because it isn't illegal doesn’t work, so I would like for somebody who isn't in the third grade to explain to me why you need something like that. Don't tell me because I can, and don't say that you have a right, that is not an answer to my argument. I want to know why you have such an absolutely important NEED for these kinds of weapons. Thanks, and I look forward to all the responses (if there are any, I know this argument has gotten kind of old).
Proud to be a liberal,
Doc
Post a Comment
<< Home