Assault Weapons Ban Information

[Kennedy 0]

Come, come, now boys. Let's look at the common enemy here.
We can argue policy later.

Check this crap out -
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/082004/08092004/1456680

Extend the Ban
Political pressure to do the wrong thing threatens to let the 1994 assault weapons ban expire next month.

Actually, the political pressure if from people who want to renew the ban. If no pressure were brought to bear, the law would sunset according to it's own provisions.

Assault weapons are only for people-hunters

PRESIDENT BUSH says he favors legislation to extend the 1994 assault-weapons ban, which will expire Sept. 13 unless Congress acts. He isn't, however, planning to encourage congressional action because gun issues pose an election-year minefield for some of his friends in the House and Senate.

He said he'd sign it if it crossed his desk, not that he would make it a top priorty. Besides, representatives on both sides of the aisle are shying away from the ban. What other issue garners such grassroots (aka large numbers of votes) as continuously as gun rughts?

That is surely a fence-sitting position if there ever was one. The assault weapons that fall under the ban are not for hunting or personal protection.

Who is this person to talk about personal proteciton. What credibility does he have? None, as far as I'm concerned. These firearms are used in sporting competition and for household defense quite commonly.

They are for the efficient, aggressive killing of human beings. They are military weapons. Sportsmen and those who own firearms for self-defense need them about like they need bazookas.

Bazookas? Are you freaking kidding me? We're talking about semi-automatic firearms here. One squeeze, one bullet. And this guy wants to compare them to rocket launchers.

The president's inaction leaves the issue in the hands of fellow Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is more likely to show up for work naked than schedule a vote on the extension legislation. Debate over the issue ranges from whether the ban has served the purpose of reducing gun violence to whether the differences between banned and legal weapons are a matter of appearance. But if elected officials would simply heed what most Americans think, the ban's extension would be a done deal.

Really? Most Americans think the ban should be renewed? Have they written their reps in Washington? I have. The ban would not be near a done deal, even if discussion were to take place, becuase a filibuster would result in the senate, and there is not even near 50% support in the House.

A survey conducted in April by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a research arm of the University of Pennsylvania, found that 71 percent of Americans support the ban's extension, while 23 percent would rather it expired. Even among gun-owning households, 64 percent back the extension, the survey found.

71% of Americans can't agree on which way is right and left. This poll is beyond suspect. And saying that 64% of gun owning households support ANY kind of gun control is idiotic at best.

Gun ownership, however, is one of those issues regarding which the tail wags the dog. The vehemence with which a minority of gun owners fight to protect their Second Amendment rights, which they view as unlimited, helps fuel the efforts of gun-control advocates, who have their own rabid subset. For example, the gun zealots who participated in a recent series of gun-brandishing incidents in Northern Virginia only threaten the rights of those who use and keep their arms responsibly.

"Gun-brandishing incidents?" You mean people who were obeying the law, and were only accosted because a police officer didn't know the law? The people who received a letter of apology? Sorry, but carrying a gun where it's legal to do so is NOT a crime.

The White House, in explaining its stealthy support of the extension, is said to prefer to simply take guns out of the hands of criminals and to pursue its "Safe Neighborhoods" program that funds additional prosecutors. These are legitimate, if rhetorical, goals,

So it prefers methods that have been shown to reduce crime without infringing on the rights of citizens to ineffective, intrusive, unconstitutional methods. Sounds good to me

but they enjoy a greater chance of success if there are fewer such weapons for criminals to select.

Prove it. Even the Clinton DOJ could not find any evidence that the ban had any effect whatsoever on crime.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I hate it when I go to the work of a post, awhen I could have just plagarized a more eloquent source.

[url]http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/082004/08152004/1465177[/ur]

Quote

You have it exactly backward on the federal "assault-weapon" ban. You claim it is expiring on Sept. 13 due to "political pressure" by its opponents ["Extend the ban," Aug. 9]. To the contrary, federal law requires it to expire.

The "political pressure" being waged is by gun prohibitionists who want the ban renewed and expanded, as shown by your high-pressure editorial in which you compare semi-automatic firearms to "bazookas" and describe people who oppose gun control as "zealots."

Despite the pressure, the ban isn't being renewed because most in Congress know that it imposed irrational restrictions on law-abiding Americans and did not affect criminals. In fact, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the ban in 1996.

Not one shred of evidence has been produced in 10 years to validate this law as a crime-fighting measure. Even the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits, "You can't argue with a straight face that the ban has been effective."

The motives of those who pushed the ban a decade ago, and the way that legislators and the public were deceived about it are explained on our clintongunban.com Web site.

The ban's history is interesting, but people should be more immediately concerned about the future. Sens. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy are now co-sponsoring S. 1431, a bill that would effectively ban all hunting and sporting semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine, semi-automatic rifles.

Faced with such assaults on their Second Amendment rights, millions of sportsmen and gun owners across America will be applying true "political pressure" on Election Day.

Chris W. Cox

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Keep supporting those democrats, Kev.

Which democrats do I support, Jeff? Kerry...and who else/

Keep supporting those republicans and voting on a single issue and you're only insuring that you're going to need those guns to get back every other right.

I don't have specifics on your voting plans, Kevin. I just recall seeing you support Democrats and join the Republican bashng. Am I wrong to think that you plan to vote for Kerry the gun banner?

Hey, at least if the Republicans really do fuck things up in the grandest sense, we'll have guns to take back our rights with. If the Democrats get the guns taken away and then we of course lose all the other rights sequentially, then we'll really be fucked!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

A survey conducted in April by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a research arm of the University of Pennsylvania, found that 71 percent of Americans support the ban's extension, while 23 percent would rather it expired. Even among gun-owning households, 64 percent back the extension, the survey found.

71% of Americans can't agree on which way is right and left. This poll is beyond suspect. And saying that 64% of gun owning households support ANY kind of gun control is idiotic at best.

I just cannot figure out why they continue to report this lie. "Gun owners support gun bans." Yeah, okay, sure. Do they have any idea how absurdly false this claim looks, on its face?! It's no more credible than a claim that a poll found that 71% of feminists support tighter restrictions on abortion access.

It's a load of anti-gun bullshit, like everything that comes from that direction.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

OK, so there's about two weeks left. Does anyone know what the House and Senate have planned?

I know there are pending bills in each (some that extend it, some that make it slightly less disgusting, some that will ban everything, some for ten years, some make it permanent, etc). Is there any mention of it in the calendar? Has anything happened lately other than more lies in news clips and news articles?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

I doubt they'll permit that anytime soon, though. I can't even get the motors for big models rockets anymore.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

I doubt they'll permit that anytime soon, though. I can't even get the motors for big models rockets anymore.

Yes, Kallend, we know about your difficulties with obtaining rocket motors and the costs to liberty that that entails.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

I doubt they'll permit that anytime soon, though. I can't even get the motors for big models rockets anymore.

Yes, Kallend, we know about your difficulties with obtaining rocket motors and the costs to liberty that that entails.

-

Are you suggesting that infringements on my liberty are somehow less important than infringements on your liberty?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

I doubt they'll permit that anytime soon, though. I can't even get the motors for big models rockets anymore.

Yes, Kallend, we know about your difficulties with obtaining rocket motors and the costs to liberty that that entails.

-

Are you suggesting that infringements on my liberty are somehow less important than infringements on your liberty?

If the government were going to infringe on the First Amendment, would it be of graver consequence if they prohibited the broadcast of The Power Rangers or if they shut down The Wall Street Journal?

Some liberties are more important than others. That's not to say that we should tolerate infringement on any of them, but if we are going into gripe-mode we might as well prioritize our gripes -- and firearms come before model rocket engines, as far as I'm concerned.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

Yeah, because that's relevant to the conversation.

...like the references to AK-47s and UZIs aren't bad enough, now you want to talk about anti-tank ordinance.

The ban is about SEMI-AUTO

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

Yeah, because that's relevant to the conversation.

...like the references to AK-47s and UZIs aren't bad enough, now you want to talk about anti-tank ordinance.

The ban is about SEMI-AUTO

Why should bazookas be excluded from "right of the people to keep and bear arms... "?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Are you suggesting that infringements on my liberty are somehow less important than infringements on your liberty?

Well lets see...Yes, some liberties are less than others.

I don't see anywhere in the Bill of Rights about model rocket engines...But I do see the right to bear arms...But the left wants to make that illegal.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've always wanted a Bazooka.

I doubt they'll permit that anytime soon, though. I can't even get the motors for big models rockets anymore.

Yes, Kallend, we know about your difficulties with obtaining rocket motors and the costs to liberty that that entails.

-

Are you suggesting that infringements on my liberty are somehow less important than infringements on your liberty?

If the government were going to infringe on the First Amendment, would it be of graver consequence if they prohibited the broadcast of The Power Rangers or if they shut down The Wall Street Journal?

Some liberties are more important than others. That's not to say that we should tolerate infringement on any of them, but if we are going into gripe-mode we might as well prioritize our gripes -- and firearms come before model rocket engines, as far as I'm concerned.

-

SO it's OK for the government to infringe a little, is that your message? Like the death of 1000 cuts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Are you suggesting that infringements on my liberty are somehow less important than infringements on your liberty?

Well lets see...Yes, some liberties are less than others.

I don't see anywhere in the Bill of Rights about model rocket engines...But I do see the right to bear arms...But the left wants to make that illegal.

What about Bazookas?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

What about Bazookas?

That would be an ARM...John.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

What about Bazookas?

That would be an ARM...John.

As I read the 2nd Amendment I don't see any dividing line that delineates what ARMs one has a right to keep and bear, and which ARMs one doesn't. A Bazooka or RPG seems like a pretty good militia ARM to me. I mean, militias all over the world use RPGs, don't they? Why should they be denied to our militia?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

As I read the 2nd Amendment I don't see any dividing line that delineates what ARMs one has a right to keep and bear, and which ARMs one doesn't. A Bazooka or RPG seems like a pretty good militia ARM to me. I mean, militias all over the world use RPGs, don't they? Why should they be denied to our militia?

Who said I think they should not be allowed?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

As I read the 2nd Amendment I don't see any dividing line that delineates what ARMs one has a right to keep and bear, and which ARMs one doesn't. A Bazooka or RPG seems like a pretty good militia ARM to me. I mean, militias all over the world use RPGs, don't they? Why should they be denied to our militia?

Who said I think they should not be allowed?

Not me - I'm just casting out a question to which I don't know the answer. Maybe someone on here can answer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

For one, they're not arms, they're ordinance. The 2nd calls for a "regulated" militia. Meaning, regulations regarding the types of arms is permitted. However, since we are talking about state militias, it should be regulated by individual states, not the federal government.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Not me - I'm just casting out a question to which I don't know the answer. Maybe someone on here can answer.

PK has the best answer....Really good.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

SO it's OK for the government to infringe a little, is that your message? Like the death of 1000 cuts.

So now you're going to argue that there shouldn't even be any little gun laws?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

SO it's OK for the government to infringe a little, is that your message? Like the death of 1000 cuts.

So now you're going to argue that there shouldn't even be any little gun laws?

Just like the camel's nose under the tent. It starts out just a little encroachment, and before long it's all the way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

If the government were going to infringe on the First Amendment, would it be of graver consequence if they prohibited the broadcast of The Power Rangers or if they shut down The Wall Street Journal?

Some liberties are more important than others. That's not to say that we should tolerate infringement on any of them, but if we are going into gripe-mode we might as well prioritize our gripes -- and firearms come before model rocket engines, as far as I'm concerned.

-

SO it's OK for the government to infringe a little, is that your message? Like the death of 1000 cuts.

That is NOT what I said. Stop deliberately misrepresenting me in your paraphrases. Did I not say... okay, I'll quote myself here, "That's not to say that we should tolerate infringement on any of them"?!

My point is, again, don't tolerate ANY infringements of right (your "death by 1000 cuts," which the left is attempting to administer to the right to keep and bear arms, btw) -- but given the fact that we all have limited time and resources to fight our socio-political battles it behooves us to prioritize what we will fight tooth and nail for. If I can manage to donate only X amount of money to rights organizations, or write only X number of letters to corporations, newspapers and politicians, I am not going to spend those resources writing about model rocket engines or spotted owls or the wording of the pledge of allegiance.

Are you ready to read what I actually wrote, this time? You have made a habit of twisting, omitting, or misrepresenting me the way you did above, when my text is clear.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

For one, they're not arms, they're ordinance. The 2nd calls for a "regulated" militia. Meaning, regulations regarding the types of arms is permitted. However, since we are talking about state militias, it should be regulated by individual states, not the federal government.

As I have read it, historians and Constitutional experts read "well-regulated" simply to mean "properly functioning" -- NOT "falling under regulations"! It's not about being permitted to have X or Y, it's about being in good working order.

The term's definition as you are applying it is not correct.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

What about Bazookas?

To my knowledge, bazookas are quite legal to own. It's a tube with a handle.

The self-propelled rocket inside is another story. It too is legal to own, if you can find one, afford the asking price from the private individual who owns it, find a type 9 FFL dealer, file a form 4, pay the $200 transfer tax, get a law enforcement sign-off, get fingerprinted and have your picture taken.

That is the routine for each rocket you buy, again, if you can actually find one for sale somewhere.

If you happen to dispose of one of your rockets, provided you follow federal, state and local laws on it's disposal or discharge, you will need to notify the BATFE immediately. Again, that's for each one. Oh, and once you notify the BATFE, I bet they're gonna ask exactly what you did with your rocket.

Nonetheless, it's an apples and handgrenades argument to compare so-called "assault weapons" to destructive devices, or any other object covered by the National Firearms Act. As it stands now, NFA firearms are out of the grasp of most law-abiding citizens simply due to the prohibitive price tags. I know where there's a M11 (380 version of the famed "MAC 10") with a suppressor (which is basically a design requirement unless you don't mind spraying and praying when you take it out to shoot), but do you have $6,000 plus $200 for each of the two NFA-registered items?

Anyway, as has been said before, the only difference between the dreaded, so-called "assault weapons" and the semi-auto Browning hunting rifle is the stock--one has a plastic stock and one has a wood stock.

It never has made any sense, it still doesn't make any sense, and it never will make any sense. Well, except to someone who is trying to slip the camel into the tent.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.