[N8 v2.0]

Senate OKs Assault Weapons Ban Extension
Assoicated Press | 2 Mar 04 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

WASHINGTON - The Senate agreed Tuesday to extend a ban on military-style assault weapons and to require background checks for all buyers at private gun shows, defying the gun industry, the White House and the Senate's own Republican leaders.

The two provisions were embedded in Republican legislation that would deny crime victims the ability to sue gunmakers and dealers, a strategy aimed at pressuring the GOP-dominated House to accept the restrictions to gain passage of the gunmaker-immunity bill.

Underlining the importance of the Senate vote to Democrats, presidential contenders John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina broke away from the campaign trail to cast their first votes of the year, joining the 52-47 majority on the assault weapons ban and the 53-46 majority on the gun show bill.

A dozen Republican senators voted for one or both of the provisions, allowing minority Democrats to gain the victories.

"This is sensible gun safety legislation," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "Now the question is, will the Republicans in the House, and Democrats, be allowed to vote on this?"

Republican House leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, have said they don't plan on voting on an assault weapons ban extension. But the gunmaker-immunity package has been a priority of the White House, the National Rifle Association and conservative groups who say the gun industry is being sued out of existence for making a legal product.

"It is really time that we say that enough is enough," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the gunmaker-immunity bill. "It is the individual who is responsible for the crime, not someone else."

President Bush has called for the Senate to drop the Democratic amendments — despite saying earlier that he supported both — to ensure the lawsuit immunity bill moves quickly through Congress.

"The president is a strong supporter of stopping frivolous lawsuits and stopping lawsuit abuse. That's the context in which he views this legislation," spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Some are simply more interested in undermining that piece of legislation than they are in necessarily getting the other legislation passed."

The assault weapons measure would renew the ban on the manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military-style assault weapons for 10 years. The current ban expires on Sept. 13.

The "gun show loophole" measure would require all buyers at private gun shows to go through a government background check. Under current law, unlicensed gun dealers at private shows are not required to ask for government background checks before selling weapons.

Supporters argued that in that way people who normally wouldn't be able to buy guns can get dangerous weapons. "Criminals and terrorists are exploiting this obvious loophole in our gun safety laws," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

Democrats plan to pressure Bush to pressure the House. "The Senate sent a clear message today. ... It's time for the president to do the same," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "With one phone call, the president can make this happen."

The Democrats say they will scuttle the immunity bill if Senate Republican leaders don't guarantee the assault weapons ban and gun show provision will be part of the final package.

When asked if House Republicans want the immunity bill badly enough to agree to the Democratic amendments, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: "That's the strategic question that's going to have to be answered."

A few Republicans voted with the Democrats on both of their measures, most notably Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia. Warner, who voted against the gun ban in 1994, said the pleading from his constituents and law enforcement officials from around his state persuaded him to vote for renewing the assault weapons ban.

"We hear you, Mr. and Mrs. America," Warner said. "You sent us a message, and the Senate responded. We hear you, law enforcement, you sent us a message, and the Senate responded."

 

[Jorvik]

SON OF A BITCH!!!


:angry:

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well, its good to know that at least criminals can still pick up a decent assault rifle.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, its good to know that at least criminals can still pick up a decent assault rifle.

okay, I swear to god this is not a loaded question, but... how?

every time a gun law is put into place, I hear the same thing: it only keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

So other than seriously organized crime such as drug cartels and mafia (the kind of folks that aren't breaking into the homes of law abiding citizens to steal TVs), who is able to get guns and how? If they can't pass the screening, and the can't get it at a gun-show, where are these criminals getting their weapons from?

I promise ignorance to the answer... I'm not trying to bait anyone. I'm actually for most aspects of the right to bear arms, but I can't understand how anyone can justify the gun show loophole.

It seems to me, that if I'm a petty criminal and I want a scary looking gun, I can just go buy one at a show. Close that loophole and I, personally, have no idea where to get a gun. I suppose could buy one privately from my friends from home that own many, but those can all be traced to them, especially if the gun fingerprint database were implemented.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I cannot tell you the path a gun takes to get into the hands of a criminal. I can tell you that criminals, however, are very often caught with these weapons. Make any assumptions you want, but realize the ones with the bad guns are still going to have the guns regardless of what laws are enacted. They are criminals after all.
Now, I know that logically, there is no REASON for anyone to just keep an assault rifle around the house, but at the same time, and Ill use a cliche', if someone's going to go out and kill a guy, they type of gun he uses dont really matter. The dude is a killer just the same and the guy he kills is just as dead. With the right tools, lots of guns can be full-auto...so really, while I kind of halfway see the logic behind this, I also see it as both pointless and repetitive.
The criminals still have the guns, the law-abiders get the backlash.

 

[jdcamb]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I cannot tell you the path a gun takes to get into the hands of a criminal. I can tell you that criminals, however, are very often caught with these weapons. Make any assumptions you want, but realize the ones with the bad guns are still going to have the guns regardless of what laws are enacted. They are criminals after all.
Now, I know that logically, there is no REASON for anyone to just keep an assault rifle around the house, but at the same time, and Ill use a cliche', if someone's going to go out and kill a guy, they type of gun he uses dont really matter. The dude is a killer just the same and the guy he kills is just as dead. With the right tools, lots of guns can be full-auto...so really, while I kind of halfway see the logic behind this, I also see it as both pointless and repetitive.
The criminals still have the guns, the law-abiders get the backlash.

I have grown up with guns and believe in the right to own and posses them. But I cannot find any reason to ever own or posses a assault rifle. They have no real reason to be manufactured and distributed other then for profit or war. No matter what side you take on the subject IMO. So if you know that there is no REASON for anyone to just keep an assault rifle around the house. Then you can see why they should be outlawed and just are towing the meathead line concerning the subject. Most gun owners own multiple guns and not for the sake of defense. I find a revolver works just fine yet many folks say they need a semi automatic....

People are cleary not being responsible with their firearms and we need to cleary define what that resposibility is. As it is right now if skippy gets caught with a assault weapon he gets a fine... If Joe drug dealer gets caught with a assault rifle he gets a fine...
I think Joe drug dealer should get mandatory 10 year sentence as a deterrent to possesing a a asssault rifle... And as a deterrent to losing posession of that weapon to that criminal so should skippy... I can assure you that is not the case now.... the courts hold them in the same regard.....jdcamb

Project exile my ass....

 

[fluff]

I'm confused also. Seems like a very worthwhile amendment to the law. Why not make it harder to get these guns?

Sure if you're enough of a bad-assed MF you'll get one of these guns somehow but so what, that changes nothing. I'm sure I could get one even in the UK but I'd have to deal with some very dodgy people and run the risk of a jail sentence.

If it stops some disillusioned, angst-ridden teenager getting hold of one and mowing down his classmates then it's more than served its purpose.

Why the long faces?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by jdcamb
So if you know that there is no REASON for anyone to just keep an assault rifle around the house. Then you can see why they should be outlawed and just are towing the meathead line concerning the subject. Most gun owners own multiple guns and not for the sake of defense. I find a revolver works just fine yet many folks say they need a semi automatic....

Dude,

There's no REASON for people to smoke cigarettes. There's no REASON for people to go to McDonalds...other than that its a simple pleasure that some enjoy. You dont go outlawing things just because there's no REASON for it. You outlaw something because you think it will help fix a crime problem, right? My Question is...what does this fix? Farmer Joe's gun collection gets three pieces smaller....that's about it. Drug dealer Larry still has his.
As for Fluff's statement on teenager mowdowns, If you could pull up a stat to show that these murders were somehow enhanced by the use of "real" assault rifles...I'd be interested. For the most part, i think its kids with a glock and a shotgun. These events are relatively few and far between, even in the US after all.
Like I said, I sort of see the logic like, yeah, why not get rid of the bad guns...but just realize that next on the list will be semi-autos, then the next, then the next.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

AR's are just plain fun. Expensive! But fun none the less.

I'm a bit of a nutjob when it comes to the gun issue. I'm not worried about Billy Bob the blow dealer - let those guys shoot each other up all day long. It's law enforcement I'm worried about. I know, ya'll think I'm one of those paranoid survivalists now ... but I'm serious. The 2nd amendment is there for a reason and that's to keep government in check. If the cops have them, I want at least the right to have them too. Yes, I want them to be able to do their job in relative safety, but I want sparky the rookie to think twice before he abuses his position.

And besides, semi-auto is far more accurate. Let the little brats all get auto's so they don't actually hurt anyone

 

[fluff]

More gun news from the BBC Onion: (sorry N8)



Tony Blair says Gordon Brown is fat

Gordon Browns farts at Tony Blair

 

[llkoolkeg]

1. "Assault weapon" is a misleading, rhetorical label cooked up by the gun-banners to strike fear into the hearts of soccer moms who know no better. True assault weapons are short-barreled, short-stocked entry weapons capable of select and/or fully-automatic fire with a high cyclic rate. What the Feinsteins and Schumers of the world label assault weapons for the purpose of banning them are simple turn-of-the-century-technology semi-autos that mimic the appearance of true assault weapons by having flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol-grip stocks, etc. Please use the correct term now that you know better.

2. John Warner is a sell-out.

3. Burglary is how most criminals come into possession of illegal guns. I had one stolen from me. Even if the burglar doesn't use it, he can sell it on the street for a nice price.

4. I own several so-called "assault rifles" and have committed no crimes with them. They are fun to shoot and nice to have around should some $hit go down.

5. Such weapons are only VERY RARELY used in crimes. About the only time I can remember even a true assault weapon being used in a crime was that famous bank robbery in CA by the kevlar-clad white supremacists that the media replays even today. Most criminals use cheap handguns, like the Davis 380, Jennings J-22 or old .32 snubby revolvers.

6. School attacks with assault rifles pose about the same statistical threat as dhgirlie's venomous spider bite.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Assault weapons are those that the liberals consider "scary looking."

In reality they are no different (functionally) than any other semi-auto/gas operated rifle.

For example, the AR-15 (the civilian single shot auto version of the M-16) is considered an 'assault weapon' but the less scary looking Ruger Mini 14 is not. Both fire the same 5.56mm/.223 cal round and both are semi-auto's.

Also, assault style weapons and weapons from scary countries are also banned... like the Chinese Norinco SKS's, and Gov Model .45's. But you can buy Italian Barretta's and German Sig's all day long (well... one a day in some places).

Clinton/Schumer/et al were such ambulance chasers.... bastards all.

In reference to the Bank robbery you mention in #5, I recall that the cops didn't have weapons that could punch thru the bad guy's body armor UNTIL they went to a local gun shop and got some AR-15's... If there had been a well armed citizen in the area perhaps the robbers would have been stopped in a lot less time with a lot less casualities. In addition, the robbers were using FULLY automatic weapons which are against the law to own (generally) which further illustrates that the bad guys can get weapons anyway so most gun laws impact only the law abiding citizen.

 

[Archslater]

I may be mistaken, but didn't this bill get voted down earlier this week? As I understood it, the original legislation was the part about sheilding the gun industry from lawsuits, and the NRA urged the senators to kill the bill after the Democrats added language regarding the assault weapon ban and the background check.

 

[derekbob]

Because our country is so dam saturated with guns and the mentality of the gun owners is so dam unwavering, gun control is a 2 edged sword for sure.

Its turned into a battle that the gun lobbysts will not compromise on. Its true that both assault weapons and hunting/target shooting guns both shoot bullets that can kill ppl easily. But assault weapons are made to kill ppl, and they have lots of features that make them accomplish this. What I dont get is why isnt a hunting rifle or revolver sufficent for home protection??? If you want to protect your home/family any gun will do. If you want to commit a robbery or murder mutliple individuals you need an assult weapon (maybe not need, but itll make your job much easier).

And the whole criminals outgunning the law abiding public isnt a very solid arguemenmt imho. Most burglaries/break in's are unarmed, because the consequences are much lesser. And if an intruder is armed hes usually got some POS hand gun, probly a .22 or .25. A shotgun and revolver are sufficent, you dont need a glock and an AR-15 to protect your house.

I think that the public should be able to buy hunting rifles/shotguns/revolvers/target pistols. But automatics and ARs should be for military and law enforcement only. When I say shotguns I dont mean a benelli m3. Or perhaps a special weapons permit could be issued after some staggeringly thorough background checks.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by derekbob
Because our country is so dam saturated with guns and the mentality of the gun owners is so dam unwavering, gun control is a 2 edged sword for sure.

Its turned into a battle that the gun lobbysts will not compromise on. Its true that both assault weapons and hunting/target shooting guns both shoot bullets that can kill ppl easily. But assault weapons are made to kill ppl, and they have lots of features that make them accomplish this. What I dont get is why isnt a hunting rifle or revolver sufficent for home protection??? If you want to protect your home/family any gun will do. If you want to commit a robbery or murder mutliple individuals you need an assult weapon (maybe not need, but itll make your job much easier).

And the whole criminals outgunning the law abiding public isnt a very solid arguemenmt imho. Most burglaries/break in's are unarmed, because the consequences are much lesser. And if an intruder is armed hes usually got some POS hand gun, probly a .22 or .25. A shotgun and revolver are sufficent, you dont need a glock and an AR-15 to protect your house.

I think that the public should be able to buy hunting rifles/shotguns/revolvers/target pistols. But automatics and ARs should be for military and law enforcement only. When I say shotguns I dont mean a benelli m3. Or perhaps a special weapons permit could be issued after some staggeringly thorough background checks.

Is it that some of the "assault style" weapons scare you...??? Since there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between them and sporting sporting weapons... just looks.

 

[derekbob]

Originally posted by N8
Is it that some of the "assault style" weapons scare you...??? Since there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between them and sporting sporting weapons... just looks.

guns only scare me if someone is pointing one at me, then it dont matter what kinda gun it is. Theres a big difference between hunting rifles and assault weapons. If thats the case why isnt the millitary armed with cheap hunting rifles?? When gun designers make a gun to kill people rather than animals they change the spec a little. Why dont you step into your weapons vault and compare your .30-'06 to your AK or AR 15. Compare your benelli m3 to your mossburg bird gun. They are different, beyond looks.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by derekbob
guns only scare me if someone is pointing one at me, then it dont matter what kinda gun it is. Theres a big difference between hunting rifles and assault weapons. If thats the case why isnt the millitary armed with cheap hunting rifles?? When gun designers make a gun to kill people rather than animals they change the spec a little. Why dont you step into your weapons vault and compare your .30-'06 to your AK or AR 15. Compare your benelli m3 to your mossburg bird gun. They are different, beyond looks.

Really??? And in what way are they different besides styling...???

There are a lot of .223 cal gas operated semi auto sports rifles. How are they different functionally than their assaullt style counterparts?

I'll give you a hint:


NONE

BTW, what would you consider a Springfield 30-'06...??? Assault or sporting rile?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
guns only scare me if someone is pointing one at me, then it dont matter what kinda gun it is. Theres a big difference between hunting rifles and assault weapons. If thats the case why isnt the millitary armed with cheap hunting rifles?? When gun designers make a gun to kill people rather than animals they change the spec a little. Why dont you step into your weapons vault and compare your .30-'06 to your AK or AR 15. Compare your benelli m3 to your mossburg bird gun. They are different, beyond looks.

You know nothing of guns obviously. A 30.06 is far more lethal than a .223 AR-15 could ever hope to be. Better range andmore power. Also, AR-15s arent full-autos unless you modify them, neither are their military counterparts..the M-16s. An AR-15, other than having a metal body, is the exact same gun as a .223 hunting rifle (used for verman).
Pleasue educate yourself before spouting off rhetoric.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You know nothing of guns obviously. A 30.06 is far more lethal than a .223 AR-15 could ever hope to be. Better range andmore power. Also, AR-15s arent full-autos unless you modify them, neither are their military counterparts..the M-16s. An AR-15, other than having a metal body, is the exact same gun as a .223 hunting rifle (used for verman).
Pleasue educate yourself before spouting off rhetoric.

Oh man....

I was waiting to discuss how the '06 Springfield was produced as an infantry weapon in WWI & WWII...

I wasn't going to mention my '06 cal M1...

When I was in military, the M-16A1 was full auto and semi-auto... no M-16A2 three round bursts for us.

*EDIT*... Ok, I found a distinct difference between sport and assault style.... a bayonet lug....

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by N8
Oh man....

I was waiting to discuss how the '06 Springfield was produced as an infantry weapon in WWI & WWII...

I wasn't going to mention my '06 cal M1...

When I was in military, the M-16A1 was full auto and semi-auto... no M-16A2 three round bursts for us.

Isnt it nuts how people will just sit there and try to tell you whats best for you, knowing full well they have no Idea what they're talking about? I mean, a shotgun is an "assault weapon" if its used by a "SWAT" team right?
It saddens me that like half the country is trying to make rules for a concept they havent even tried to understand.

 

[derekbob]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You know nothing of guns obviously. A 30.06 is far more lethal than a .223 AR-15 could ever hope to be. Better range andmore power. Also, AR-15s arent full-autos unless you modify them, neither are their military counterparts..the M-16s. An AR-15, other than having a metal body, is the exact same gun as a .223 hunting rifle (used for verman).
Pleasue educate yourself before spouting off rhetoric.

1 bullet out of a .30-'06 is more deadly than 1 bullet out of an AK or AR-15, and the .30-'06 was originally designed as an infantry weapon. But today its made as a hunting rifle for the most part. And an AR with a 30 round mag is a much more effective killing weapon in most situations.

And when you take a rifle, give it a metal body, a bayonett, a 30+ round mag, and gnarly ass ammo, you have successfully made it a more effective killing machine.

And who cares about full auto, thats for ppl who cant shoot. A semi auto is a more efficnet way to kill ppl if you know how to use it.

 

[derekbob]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Isnt it nuts how people will just sit there and try to tell you whats best for you, knowing full well they have no Idea what they're talking about? I mean, a shotgun is an "assault weapon" if its used by a "SWAT" team right?
It saddens me that like half the country is trying to make rules for a concept they havent even tried to understand.

A shotgun becomes an assult weapon when you shorten the barrel and give it a greater ammo capacity and then fill it with optimum killing ammo. Theres a difference between gun made to hunt animals or targets and guns made to hunt ppl. Why do you guys refuse to admit this? I figure you gun enthusiasts would know the difference between a tactical shotgun and a hunting shotgun.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
1 bullet out of a .30-'06 is more deadly than 1 bullet out of an AK or AR-15, and the .30-'06 was originally designed as an infantry weapon. But today its made as a hunting rifle for the most part. And an AR with a 30 round mag is a much more effective killing weapon in most situations.

And when you take a rifle, give it a metal body, a bayonett, a 30+ round mag, and gnarly ass ammo, you have successfully made it a more effective killing machine.

And who cares about full auto, thats for ppl who cant shoot. A semi auto is a more efficnet way to kill ppl if you know how to use it.

You are wrong.

Military rifles are metal because they're cheaper to make, more durable and easier to maintain. A bayonette is a non issue in any situation because its not even part of the gun. Military ammo is very very VERY low quality compaterd to something you'd buy even at wal mart. You can buy a clip for a 30.06 in any size you want as well.

Again, you dont know what youre talking about. The AR-15/M-16 arent even designed to be "deadly" as such, but are designed to wound people (ie, geneva?)
To put in in contect, youre not even allowed to Deer hunt in most states with an AR-15 because the round is too small to effectively kill a deer. Its a varmint gun.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by derekbob
1 bullet out of a .30-'06 is more deadly than 1 bullet out of an AK or AR-15, and the .30-'06 was originally designed as an infantry weapon. But today its made as a hunting rifle for the most part. And an AR with a 30 round mag is a much more effective killing weapon in most situations.

And when you take a rifle, give it a metal body, a bayonett, a 30+ round mag, and gnarly ass ammo, you have successfully made it a more effective killing machine.

LOL!

Its the bayonet lug that makes it oh-so-deadly.... ahahahaaahaha!!!

What's the diff between the '06 and the 7.62mm that is used in the Marines' sniper rifles?

Assault style weapons are "effective killing machines?" Hahaha! The whole idea of a military caliber round (like the .22 cal) 5.56mm is to not kill but to MAIM... sheesh... Do you know why it is better to wound your opponents than to kill them?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
A shotgun becomes an assult weapon when you shorten the barrel and give it a greater ammo capacity and then fill it with optimum killing ammo. Theres a difference between gun made to hunt animals or targets and guns made to hunt ppl. Why do you guys refuse to admit this? I figure you gun enthusiasts would know the difference between a tactical shotgun and a hunting shotgun.

WOW!

You finally got it. Any gun is an "assault rifle" if employed properly. Ammo has nothing to do with this argument. Its the same gun no matter what you put in it.
Why do yourefuse to admit that you dont know what youre talking about? Its painfully evident.

 

[Silver]

I've gotta agree with N8 and BS on the arbitrary nature of an "assault weapon." The ban as it is written makes little sense to me, it's like it was specifically written to ban scary looking weapons.

Now I'm not a gun nut, so I'm not going to argue that a citizen with a Stinger missle in the back of his Hummer would have stopped those armored bank robbers, and I'm not going to argue lethalities of various caliber sizes, but how many people a year get killed by a bayonet?

A bayonet mount is one of the things that turns a "gun" into an "assault weapon."

 

[derekbob]

Main, kill.. same difference

the point is the guns are made and modified to be used against ppl. Theres no talkin to you guys, you guys wont even admit that guns are deadly. We dont call you guys "gun nuts" for nothing.

Christ if my riding buddy dont call me in the next 10 minutes im riding solo.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
WOW!

You finally got it. Any gun is an "assault rifle" if employed properly. Ammo has nothing to do with this argument. Its the same gun no matter what you put in it.
Why do yourefuse to admit that you dont know what youre talking about? Its painfully evident.

One of the best "every man's" assault rifles is the lever action 30-30.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
Main, kill.. same difference

the point is the guns are made and modified to be used against ppl. Theres no talkin to you guys, you guys wont even admit that guns are deadly. We dont call you guys "gun nuts" for nothing.

Christ if my riding buddy dont call me in the next 10 minutes im riding solo.

Dude, I know weapons because its my business to know weapons. I rarely shoot them, and I own some rifles in my dad's attic 2,000 miles away. Im hardly a nut.

Its no surprise you'll be riding Solo


EDIT: And since you just spent however long talking about how an assault gun is more "lethal" and now you totally abandon that, can we just consider this over since you obviously just went down like the Hindenberg?

What's that phrase....I think its...um....



OWNED.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Silver
I've gotta agree with N8 and BS on the arbitrary nature of an "assault weapon." The ban as it is written makes little sense to me, it's like it was specifically written to ban scary looking weapons.

Now I'm not a gun nut, so I'm not going to argue that a citizen with a Stinger missle in the back of his Hummer would have stopped those armored bank robbers, and I'm not going to argue lethalities of various caliber sizes, but how many people a year get killed by a bayonet?

A bayonet mount is one of the things that turns a "gun" into an "assault weapon."

Pretty goofy huh?

The Dims couldn't get an outright ban on all guns so they went after the 'scary' looking ones first. The kind the liberal Hollywood LOVES to show us splattering people in movies and TV.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
Pretty goofy huh?

The Dims couldn't get an outright ban on all guns so they went after the 'scary' looking ones first. The kind the liberal Hollywood LOVES to show us splattering people in movies and TV.

N8, you have a persecution complex that is rivaled only by evangelical Christians.

I thinking of a famous actor in a lot of violent action movies...

He's currently a politician...

He ain't a Democrat.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
They are fun to shoot

here's the crux of the problem for me...

I support the right to bear arms
I understand the desire to protect one's family, and own a fire-arm for that purpose
I support the right to hunt for food
I grew up around rifles and am relatively comfortable handling and firing them (though handguns still give me the heeby jeebies)...

... and I agree that they are fun. That is my problem. I rarely find the adamant defense of the right to owning any guns sincere on any of the grounds that I just stated, except the last one. When I hear people demanding that it's their right to own a 50 cal sniper rifle (to hunt moose from 1.5 miles ) all I can think is, "this person doesn't care about protecting their family, or maintaining an armed populace... they just don't want someone to take away their favorite toy."

If people didn't like guns just for the sake of guns (and as a gearhead, I too am susceptible to that), guns would be neither as big a business or as big a problem as they are. People would own a single ugly rifle (maybe a single ugly handgun too if you're urban), and that would be that. It's the desire to take guns out and play with them like toys that makes them frightening to "dems" and dangerous to the public.

Is something being fun a good enough reason to allow the broad distribution and usage of a very deadly deadly? No, but protection and hunting ARE good enough reasons... I just don't like the latter being a smokescreen for the former.

Last point: I don't see gun ownership/usage as much different than car ownership/usage. Both are important and valuable tools, both are deadly weapons in the wrong hands, and both are tempting to play with, especially for young males. For some reason with cars with have a comprehensive licensing system that requires training and a written test (not as thorough as I'd like, but that's another debate)... why no uproar over that? Why do we trust people to train themselves in gun safety and responsibility but not car safety?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Do you feel about the 1st Amendment like you do about the 2nd...???

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
Why do we trust people to train themselves in gun safety and responsibility but not car safety?

To me, you've kind of settled your own argument. If you agree that there are logical reasons for guns to be legal than fine, you're halfway there, but the numbers of gun "accidents" (the type that training would supposedly limit or cut down on) are very very few in the grand scheme of things.
I thought the issue here was about criminal misusing guns, not teenagers accidentally shooting themselves. Perhaps a more accurate correlation could be made with Vehicular Homicides Vs. Shootings or Gun Accidents Vs. Car Accidents. Training people to drive cars and shoot guns wont stop shootings or vehicular homicides. Gun accidents are so minor in number, and not only that, but "assault weapons" being the issue here, are almost insignificant. THeyre no more dangerous than any other gun. Sure, it sucks if little timmy blows his face off after snooping through dad's sock drawer, but that's dad's fault. Just like if he left the keys and the whiskey in the corvette.

Did that make sense

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
To me, you've kind of settled your own argument.

I was never arguing against the right to bear arms. Like I said, I support it, just like I support the right to own and operate a vehicle.

My argument was for better regulation, education and licensing requirements. My question was, why are these measures SO adamantly opposed by NRA-types? Do people see it as the first step to eliminating the right entirely? That's as silly as believing regulating 3rd trimester abortions will lead to eliminating the right entirely...

I was also kind of hoping someone would just admit that they want the right to bear arms simply because guns are fun.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ohio
here's the crux of the problem for me...

I support the right to bear arms
I understand the desire to protect one's family, and own a fire-arm for that purpose
I support the right to hunt for food
I grew up around rifles and am relatively comfortable handling and firing them (though handguns still give me the heeby jeebies)...

... and I agree that they are fun. That is my problem. I rarely find the adamant defense of the right to owning any guns sincere on any of the grounds that I just stated, except the last one. When I hear people demanding that it's t
heir right to own a 50 cal sniper rifle (to hunt moose from 1.5 miles ) all I can think is, "this person doesn't care about protecting their family, or maintaining an armed populace... they just don't want someone to take away their favorite toy."

If people didn't like guns just for the sake of guns (and as a gearhead, I too am susceptible to that), guns would be neither as big a business or as big a problem as they are. People would own a single ugly rifle (maybe a single ugly handgun too if you're urban), and that would be that. It's the desire to take guns out and play with them like toys that makes them frightening to "dems" and dangerous to the public.

Is something being fun a good enough reason to allow the broad distribution and usage of a very deadly deadly? No, but protection and hunting ARE good enough reasons... I just don't like the latter being a smokescreen for the former.

Last point: I don't see gun ownership/usage as much different than car ownership/usage. Both are important and valuable tools, both are deadly weapons in the wrong hands, and both are tempting to play with, especially for young males. For some reason with cars with have a comprehensive licensing system that requires training and a written test (not as thorough as I'd like, but that's another debate)... why no uproar over that? Why do we trust people to train themselves in gun safety and responsibility but not car safety?

Just because one finds a tool fun to employ does not mean that it is taken to be a toy. I take my gun ownership serious as a heart attack. To use your example, same thing with driving- I enjoy driving my car, but that doesn't mean I treat it like a bauble. I have guns (1) to protect my wife and daughters (2) to do my part in discouraging the erosion of freedom (3) because you just never know... (4) because shooting them is fun. If you're ever in the DC/Metro area, PM me and we'll address your fear of handguns. I even taught my 50YO mom to shoot my 10mm Glock and .44 magnum to competent effect.

 

[derekbob]

Talkin to gun nuts is the same as talking to a wall (and BS you are a gun nut). They are completely unwavering. Look how N8 and BS insist that a gun is a gun and it dont matter if its a .22 target pistol or a GE minigun.

Assault weapons are more lethal than hunting weapons, im stickin to that. And ammo and magazines are very much part of the equation. They are part of the modifications which make a weapon more effective to use against ppl.

And I didnt ride solo, my riding buddy worked later than he thought he was going to

And BS the only thing you own is an admiration for that Urlacher guy that goes beyond the admiration any hetero man should have for another hetero man.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob

Assault weapons are more lethal than hunting weapons, im stickin to that. And ammo and magazines are very much part of the equation. They are part of the modifications which make a weapon more effective to use against ppl.

Dude, different ammo and magazines can be baught for just about any caliber of gun. Tell me, Derekbob, how military ammo is different than what you can go buy at wal mart. Since guns come in only so many sizes, many guns are the same caliber as military guns...and all the ammo is interchangable. Ammo is a seperate issue. I, for one, have no problem with the outlawing of Teflon coated bullets (cop killers) but anything regulary used by the military is still just about the same, or of lesser quality than what civilian guns use. Again, you dont have any idea what youre talking about.
As for them being more lethal, we've already determined that these guns are meant for injury, not lethality....yet you're still sticking with your meritless crap. Who is unwavering now?
Stick to what you will, but realize that since you've been "proven" wrong, and you still continue to spew at the mouth, you're only looking more foolish. Call me a gun nut, call me what you will. I dont care. I've taken enough from this argument alone to know that your opinion is basically worthless since you dont base it on facts.
Good day.

 

[Jorvik]

Originally posted by derekbob
Talkin to gun nuts is the same as talking to a wall (and BS you are a gun nut). They are completely unwavering. Look how N8 and BS insist that a gun is a gun and it dont matter if its a .22 target pistol or a GE minigun.

Assault weapons are more lethal than hunting weapons, im stickin to that. And ammo and magazines are very much part of the equation. They are part of the modifications which make a weapon more effective to use against ppl.

Talking to non-"gun nuts" is worse than the wall you're talking about. BS and N8 told you exactly how all firearms can kill somebody. An assault weapon (as labled by that dumbass law) is no different from a hunting weapon in terms of lethality. Ammo is certainly part of the equation. Look at the rounds that the military uses. Full metal jacket rounds for the most part. These are the rounds that are used in the AR 15s and AK 47s and 74s. These rounds don't cause half of the damage that a hunting round does. Have you seen what happens when you shoot a deer with a muzzleloader? A whole the size of a quarter for the entrance, and an exit wound bigger than my fist. That is a deady wound anywhere on the torso and probably upper legs too. Take a semi auto Ruger Mini 14. Empty a 10 round magazine into somebody and they will be torn apart much worse than a 30 round AR 15 could do.

Bah.

 

[fluff]

Ohio
I was also kind of hoping someone would just admit that they want the right to bear arms simply because guns are fun.

Seems on the money.


BS
there is no REASON for anyone to just keep an assault rifle around the house

llkoolkeg
Burglary is how most criminals come into possession of illegal guns. I had one stolen from me. Even if the burglar doesn't use it, he can sell it on the street for a nice price.

I own several so-called "assault rifles" and have committed no crimes with them. They are fun to shoot and nice to have around should some $hit go down.


So, there is no reason (need?) to have one but having one in the house gives criminals the opportunity to get them. Seems like a good reason to get rid of anyone having them at home.


BS
As for Fluff's statement on teenager mowdowns, If you could pull up a stat to show that these murders were somehow enhanced by the use of "real" assault rifles...I'd be interested. For the most part, i think its kids with a glock and a shotgun.

llkoolkeg
School attacks with assault rifles pose about the same statistical threat as dhgirlie's venomous spider bite.


Just because it hasn’t happened is not a justification for keeping the availability of such weapons legal, I doubt anyone has decimated their classmates with cluster bombs or tactical nukes but that’s no reason to make such things available.


N8
If there had been a well armed citizen in the area perhaps the robbers would have been stopped in a lot less time with a lot less casualities.

But more well-armed citizens would mean more well-armed criminals as llkollkeg has already told us that’s where the criminals mostly get their guns…



Finally over to Senator John McCain, beloved of the Republican partisans:


Supporters argued that in that way people who normally wouldn't be able to buy guns can get dangerous weapons. "Criminals and terrorists are exploiting this obvious loophole in our gun safety laws," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.