http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=686&ParentID=0&SectionID=32&SectionTree=32&lnk=b&ItemID=675



I just don't see how stuff like this makes anyone "safer"


even though I'm fairly sure most of you here will disagree with me

I'm tired of legislation against inanimate objects

if she really wanted to protect honest law abiding citizens she'd introduce a bill to take the machine guns and real "assault weapons" out of the hands of "alphabet armies" of the federal government... these agencies are more of a danger to the people than me with a few guns


all in the name of safety I guess

[Edited on February 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM. Reason : lol]

2/16/2007 1:51:14 PM

Wow, 4 dead people. He could have accomplished the same thing with 9s in each hand.

It's not so much that she wants to ban dangerous guns that bothers me, its that it's so reactionary. These dumb fucking politicians. Just like after someone dies crossing the road listening to their iPod. Holy shit, we better ban all iPods in crosswalks because they are a danger to people.

Might as well ban all cars, because after all, cars can be dangerous if not used appropriately.

2/16/2007 1:57:27 PM

exactly, If I'm not mistaken the dude in Utah used a shotgun
(which she failed to mention conveniently)


and it's not like AKs suddenly became available after 04 either

kneejerk reaction laws, gotta love the govt

[Edited on February 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ...]

2/16/2007 1:58:54 PM

Well, she didn't mention it, but in discussing the Utah shooting, she transitioned from banning assault rifles to strengthening the background check process because the guy was "mentally unstable" (as if someone that goes on a shooting rampage could be stable).

2/16/2007 2:03:57 PM

yeah, it's all reactionary either way


just like you said...It's not like I can't get pissed off and drive my truck up a sidewalk and kill people too

2/16/2007 2:06:02 PM

maybe she's cared about this all along, but just figured this was the time with the best chance of getting stuff passed.

2/16/2007 2:06:13 PM

I'm sure


because self defense isn't an issue when you have armed bodyguards...


I hope this cunt gets beat down with a baseball bat so she can try to ban bats

2/16/2007 2:18:57 PM

It really feels like in this day and age that none of our rights are 100% iron clad.

2/16/2007 2:40:31 PM

i'm going to go home and cry about not having an AK-47.

2/16/2007 2:44:31 PM

^^ except when it helps defeat the turrorists. you're ok with giving up some of our rights (free speech, privacy, habeas corpus) then, right?

2/16/2007 2:56:10 PM

Quote :

"i'm going to go home and cry about not having an AK-47"

thats your choice

2nd amendment isn't about hunting weapons

^ plenty of people threw a fit about the patriot act, but don't say a word when the 2nd amendment is involved... I for one, am not a fan of the patriot act and I am damn sure not a fan of anyone who violates or seeks to violate our rights of any type

2/16/2007 3:01:57 PM

i don't see limiting the sorts of guns one has as being an unreasonable interpretation of the constitution. i also don't see anything wrong with people who have different interpretations. but i do have a problem with people who act like the meaning of the constitution shouldn't (and wasn't meant to) be interpreted and change with time. that is its biggest asset.

[Edited on February 16, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2007 3:13:56 PM

wont get out of committee.

2/16/2007 3:15:48 PM

^^ yeah, the second amendment already differentiates firearms


hunting and sporting arms aren't protected, military arms are however, at least according to the courts

^ I doubt it, I wouldn't be shocked if it made it all the way through and was signed by Bush, his dad already signed the first one which I believe helped cost him re-election

he's already proven that he doesn't care about too much about certain rights, why would he not sign it as some sort of appeasement for the left


all stupid laws like this do is drive up the price of weapons, ammo, magazines... which in turn prompts people to horde them

doesn't make anything safer

[Edited on February 16, 2007 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ...]

2/16/2007 3:22:32 PM

if someone wants to go on a killing spree and cant get an assault rifle, they'll just get swords and knives and pistols and shotguns and non-assault rifles and whatever the hell else they can find

2/16/2007 4:04:01 PM

yeah they will

I've seen someone choose to use a sword over a gun before

go figure

2/19/2007 9:05:22 AM

For those that think the fully auto assault weapons should be legal to own, what about high explosives like grenades, etc?

2/19/2007 9:10:30 AM

not every soldier has artillery pieces, high explosives etc either

just because someone wants a select fire weapon doesn't mean they want grenades and bombs and stuff like that, sure it'd be fun to play with, but serves no real purpose

germany completely avoided a certain european country that requires it's citizens to have a machine gun also

honestly I'd rather have suppressed weapons so that I can shoot without ear plugs and not damage my ears or piss off anyone that can hear me... before guns were pretty much "eliminated"(well, the law abiding citizens were disarmed) the shooting ranges required suppressors

2/19/2007 9:22:12 AM

how can you say that hand grenades "serve no real purpose," ive read the second amendment a few times and see nothing about "selective fire"

2/19/2007 9:31:23 AM

Quote :

"i do have a problem with people who act like the meaning of the constitution shouldn't (and wasn't meant to) be interpreted and change with time. that is its biggest asset."

Yea, if the founding fathers had meant the constitution to be read literally then they would have included an amendment process or something. [/sarcasm]

2/19/2007 9:34:03 AM

yeah because select fire was around back then right?

current use military rifles


like I said, not every soldier carries a bag of grenades...

the whole argument about "well if you think you should own a current mil-spec rifle do you think you should own a howitzer.. omg" is pretty off the mark

hell grenades would be fun to play with and if it was legal, I'd buy a few, but I'm not too concerned with them mainly because the 2nd amendment makes no mention of explosives

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:36 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 9:34:48 AM

oh ok, well im fine with everyone having the right to carry muzzle loading weapons

2/19/2007 9:36:15 AM

grenades existed back then, so did cannons. The word used is "arms" which is short for armaments, which is the most general term in existence; I think it would include a B17 bomber.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/19/2007 9:38:07 AM

actually its short for state militias, but i digress

if you are making an argument that the 2nd amendment doesnt exclude assault weapons you cant place any other restrictions on it

2/19/2007 9:39:42 AM

The founders discussed this very issue... it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells.

In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. According to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission.

2/19/2007 9:46:10 AM

I say grenades can serve a purpose. I think people should be allowed to have them. And if some madman goes into a crowded area and takes out 20-30 people where handguns might have only taken out 5, or assault weapons 10-15, well...thats the price of freedom.

2/19/2007 10:03:47 AM

well, regulating inanimate objects as opposed to holding people more accountable for their actions is kinda lame


can you imagine the govt telling you in 1934 that you owed them $200.00 for a "tax stamp" on a $10 gun?


these laws are what we get when the BATF had nothing to do after prohibition ended and what we get when the government was trying to keep black people from protecting themselves

2/19/2007 10:09:37 AM

Can you imagine Columbine if grenades were easier to obtain? They wouldn't have even needed to go in the rooms shooting people. Just walk down the halls tossing hand grenades into rooms.

2/19/2007 10:13:37 AM

oh Jesus, the old Assault Weapons Ban was absolutely THE most retarded, useless, and ill-conceived (because it was written by people with underlying agendas who also had absolutely no idea what they were talking about) piece of legislation that I can think of offhand.

it didn't actually ban the ownership of ANYTHING. the way it chose which guns to ban production of was basically an arbitrary checklist that measured the scary-lookingness of a gun, and didn't always even do a very good job of that.

2/19/2007 10:15:59 AM

it would cause some really cool drive bys

^i agree, it was a stupid ban. but drawing some line where assault rifles are ok because of the second amendment but other arms are not is equally stupid.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 10:16:07 AM

i would say that there is a fundamental difference between a grenade and a regular rifle, whereas there is no such thing between a so-called "assault" rifle and a regular rifle.

for that matter, if i wanted to go on a killing spree, I'd probably use my hunting rifle, even if I did also own a scary-looking AK-47 or AR-15.

also, have any of you arguing about grenades ever actually thrown one? I have, and while I'm fairly libertarian in my views (to include gun control), I'm enough of a pragmatist to take no issue with hand grenades being illegal.

2/19/2007 10:21:53 AM

ok then, so lets focus on people instead of "scary things"


^^ see...there is a reason the 2nd amendment exists

and it has nothing to do with rich white people going duck hunting with a $1400 shotgun

^ exactly

Quote :

"for that matter, if i wanted to go on a killing spree, I'd probably use my hunting rifle, even if I did also own a scary-looking AK-47 or AR-15"

my deer rifle would be the first thing I chose

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 10:22:09 AM

Quote :

"also, have any of you arguing about grenades ever actually thrown one? I have, and while I'm fairly libertarian in my views (to include gun control), I'm enough of a pragmatist to take no issue with hand grenades being illegal."

Care to elaborate?


The point I am trying to make is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. There will be winners and losers as always. If the average common criminal can't easily get assault weapons, then I am fine with them being banned. You make the argument at no real purpose for grenades, I make it at no real purpose for full auto assault weapons.


I don't know the history of gun control so I can't reply to your beef about certain type of weapons versus other types and the "scary looking" test. That's generally a different, though related, issue.

2/19/2007 10:30:13 AM

Quote :

"i would say that there is a fundamental difference between a grenade and a regular rifle"

theyre both arms, the 2nd amendment doesnt distinguish

2/19/2007 10:32:40 AM

^^iirc the only major event with a full auto weapon was the St. Valentines day massacre


and what was that about... oh yeah, mobsters and another certain inanimate object that was regulated


prohibition and gun control laws go hand in hand

^

Quote :

"According to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

if thats how you want to look at it, rights are rights

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 10:33:34 AM

no thats not how i look at it at all. the first amendment protects the press, it says nothing about only certain types of press. the first part 2nd amendment is the same way, it doesnt dictate what type of arms so i should be allowed to buy whatever i want. you are the one saying that certain arms arent ok, you are the one saying the press needs to be hand-operated.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 10:38 AM. Reason : /.]

2/19/2007 10:37:47 AM

ok, I see what you mean

maybe you read me wrong too

it's all good

but yeah, I'm personally just fine with being able to legally own anything that the average ground soldier carries

but for the sake of this argument, I really don't have a vested interest in grenades, bombs, artillery or what not...

if I wanted to blow something up I possess the knowledge to make it happen myself anyway

2/19/2007 10:45:27 AM

Quote :

"the average ground soldier carries"

2nd amendment says nothing about this

2/19/2007 10:49:08 AM

you're avoiding the reason that the founders wanted the citizenry to own the same pieces that the current standing army had...

they had just fought the British to be free from an oppresive tyrannical govt


I'm not saying that it will be needed, today, or even in my lifetime, but it could happen

I don't want my kids, or grandkids to not have the means to fight back if the need arises


(I'll be expecting the BATF at my house soon after this thread I guess)

2/19/2007 10:53:48 AM

Quote :

"Care to elaborate? The point I am trying to make is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. There will be winners and losers as always. If the average common criminal can't easily get assault weapons, then I am fine with them being banned. You make the argument at no real purpose for grenades, I make it at no real purpose for full auto assault weapons."

a line does need to be drawn in the sense that not EVERY type of badass arm needs to be legal. grenades are not like what you see in the movies. they are fucking BAD ASS. they are of little to no use that i can think of outside of military combat, other than as huge, very dangerous fireworks. you could very, very easily accidentally kill yourself or others with one.

changing the subject, "assault" weapons and full-auto weapons are two COMPLETELY different things. when people talk about banning assault weapons, they aren't talking about anything to do with full-auto (other than scaremongering people who don't know any better but have an opinion on the matter anyway). ALL full-auto weapons have been illegal for ~75 years (unless you have a Class III license, which isn't expensive, but requires a VERY extensive background check and a lot of legal hoops to jump...and full-auto weapons themselves are prohibitively expensive simply due to supply and demand), and no one noteworthy is arguing for their legalization.

Quote :

"my deer rifle would be the first thing I chose"

haha, yep...you've seen my handiwork with a hunting rifle! for that matter, i've hit 9/10 torso-sized targets from 500m with a beat-up M-16 (although the best I could really do consistently is prob 7-8/10). still, with my hunting rifle, i would be substantially more accurate. I'm sure it also delivers several times more power than an M-16/AR-15--enough to easily punch through body armor or whatever.

2/19/2007 10:55:54 AM

yes, thats why they guaranteed the right to a militia

2/19/2007 10:55:56 AM

Quote :

"changing the subject, "assault" weapons and full-auto weapons are two COMPLETELY different things. when people talk about banning assault weapons, they aren't talking about anything to do with full-auto (other than scaremongering people who don't know any better but have an opinion on the matter anyway). ALL full-auto weapons have been illegal for ~75 years (unless you have a Class III license, which isn't expensive, but requires a VERY extensive background check and a lot of legal hoops to jump...and full-auto weapons themselves are prohibitively expensive simply due to supply and demand), and no one noteworthy is arguing for their legalization."

Ok, so what is it about assault weapons that gets everyones panties in a wad?

2/19/2007 10:58:58 AM

what about some of the laws that limit types of ammo. does that create the same anger?

2/19/2007 10:59:30 AM

^^^yeah, a militia

you mean when citiznes get together with guns?

govt pretty much frowns upon that type of thing... they've been known to use the same weapons that I can't own against the people that do this


because last I checked our National Guard "militia" is doing work for the Feds nowadays and has often been the group killing citizens (Kent state, waco, ruby ridge, etc)

^^ because they have a kneejerk reaction to "scary guns" for political purposes rather than safety of the people

^what do you mean?

like the Black Talons?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:01:59 AM

^^^ i'm really not sure.

i don't know if it's ignorance of them coupled with the perception of greater danger, since they look like and share some features with military rifles

or if it's political opportunism--i.e., that the people who want to ban "assault" weapons would really like to ban most or all guns, but they'll settle right now for what is politically easier pickings (outlawing AR-15s pisses some people off, but nothing like outlawing grandpa's shotgun).


about the only real "dangerous" feature of assault rifles i can think of (as compared to a hunting rifle) is that most of them hold more ammunition and/or can be reloaded a little more quickly due to being fed through removable magazines. however, they are generally substantially less powerful and somewhat less accurate than most hunting rifles.

thinking tactically, though, it doesn't matter too much if my deer rifle only holds, say, 4 rounds, whereas an AR-15 can hold 18-28. if i'm far enough away to be using a rifle, I'll have all the time I want to reload and keep killing (in a Charles Whitman/DC sniper scenario...not military combat). furthermore, every trigger squeeze will almost certainly result in a dead victim (an AR-15 is much less powerful and less accurate). if you need to fire a lot of rounds quickly and reload easily, you could just carry a pistol as backup.

there is really no purpose in outlawing "assault" rifles, and if you're going to do it anyway, the way they legislated it before was PARTICULARLY stupid.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ^^^]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:10 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

2/19/2007 11:02:19 AM

even in very recent times states have threatened to use national guard forces to resist federal action in their state that they did not like.

2/19/2007 11:03:46 AM

the national guard is hardly a "militia" for the people now


the best safeguard against abuses by the govt is an armed citizenry... no one wants that to happen, but it's just how it is... I know I'd never want to be in that situation


I don't get how some of the same people that scream "stay out of my bedroom" (which I do, because I don't care what grown adults do) are the same ones that refuse to stay out of my gun cabinet

oh damn, just heard about this, the write for outdoor life magazine Jim Zumbo has created quite the controversy about hunting and assault weapons... he's lost all of his sponsors and is not making any friends right now
http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:11:30 AM

Quote :

"about the only real "dangerous" feature of assault rifles i can think of (as compared to a hunting rifle) is that most of them hold more ammunition and/or can be reloaded a little more quickly due to being fed through removable magazines. however, they are generally substantially less powerful and somewhat less accurate than most hunting rifles."

Take an unskilled shooter, say, some guy that shoots guns but isn't trained and isn't what you would call a marksman, will be able to kill more people in a mall/school with an assault weapon or a hunting rifle?

Quote :

" the best safeguard against abuses by the govt is an armed citizenry... no one wants that to happen, but it's just how it is... I know I'd never want to be in that situation"

I just don't get why we continue to hearken back to when the constitution was founded to try and make arguments. It just isn't valid anymore. Unless you intend to allow citizens (presumably the rich) to amass the same technology as the government, the whole "armed citizenry" that applied 200+ years ago is bunk now. It's an empty argument.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:15 AM. Reason : a]

2/19/2007 11:13:07 AM

hunting rifle... unless he just gets lucky


more powerful, more accurate, easier to shoot

sure he'll make a lot of noise and scare everyone, but if he's shooting an AR or AK compared to a deer rifle with a scope and a detachable box mag(pretty much the standard hunting rifle)

^ how is it empty... everyone knows that a common guy with a rifle can't beat a tank or what not...

but thats the thing, if shit hits the fan, it's the guy with the rifle that takes out things with far greater value than a tank

add up all the FBI, BATF, and feds with guns and equipment, then think how many private firearms owners there are...

it's quality not quantity

(see the debacle in Iraq)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:14:11 AM

I just find that hard to believe (and I think many other non-gun people would too) that a guy wielding an assault weapon walking into a crowded food court at the mall and filling the air with lead can't do more damage (ok, I said "kill" earlier, but injury too) this way than with a hunting rifle.

Maybe he could be a more precise killer with the hunting rifle, but I would think more lives get fucked up with the assault rifle.

Maybe the rest of the non gun toting American thinks this way, too. How can they (we) be educated about this matter?

2/19/2007 11:18:28 AM