im happy as shit to have just purchased 3 lower receivers

2/26/2009 5:14:27 PM

THIS GUN LOOKS DANGEROUS! WE SHOULD OUTLAW IT!

stupidity is dangerous - should we outlaw stupid people too?

2/26/2009 5:15:06 PM

Quote :

"that you could still buy a brand new AR-15,"

are the AR-15 not the semi-auto prototypes for the M16???

Guns are the liquor and Marijuana of the democratic party.

2/26/2009 5:36:35 PM

Quote :

"so why would someone really need all these types of guns? dont say to protect yourself. hell you can do that with a glock 17"

You're asking the wrong question. Or would you respond similarly to the following questions?

Quote :

"Why does anybody need to be able to look at hardcore pornography?"

Quote :

"Why does anybody need to express offensive and even hateful viewpoints?"

Quote :

"Why does anybody need to worship a strange and foreign deity?"

The fact is, these bans accomplish next to nothing in terms of mitigating a social harm - it has been pointed out over and over again the fact that these are based upon superficial characteristics of the weapon and not really in any way its inherent danger (unless being bayoneted to death is now your chief fear from an automatic weapon).

The presumption isn't and should never be, "Why do you need that freedom?" - it should be, "What social good does taking away that freedom solve?" If the answer is "none," then what's the point of such a law?

2/26/2009 5:49:36 PM

^ Beat me to it.

Like Chaos said, the question isn't "why do you need an AK knockoff?" The question is, what is the real purpose of legislation banning moderately powered (by rifle standards), semi-automatic firearms which are used in less than 1% of violent crime?

The answer is that it is the first of many attempts to incrementally prohibit gun ownership in the United States through a controlling of the political dialogue. It starts with attacking the "dangerous" guns first, and the definition of dangerous is subsequently expanded. Hollow point ammunition becomes "cop killer" despite it's inferior ability to penetrate body armor. Non-hollow point "ball" ammunition becomes "armor piercing" despite the fact that it is simply the base-line form of ammo. Un-jacketed lead ammunition, which is neither "cop-killing" nor "armor-piercing" becomes "toxic." You get the point.


Really, this is an attempt by the Obama administration to flex it's political muscle. Ironically, they promptly were bitch-slapped by Nanci Pelosi, but this doesn't mean this issue is going away. I simply suspect that Ms. Pelosi would prefer a mid-term success under her belt before she attempts a potential political land-mine such as this.

2/26/2009 5:59:29 PM

Quote :

"so why would someone really need all these types of guns? dont say to protect yourself. hell you can do that with a glock 17 "

as stated above, need has nothing to do with it. the burden is on the people who want to restrict them to show why THAT'S needed, and I think you'll see, if you examine the issue, that it is all but completely pointless.

also, this business about a weapon that can kill someone from 300 yards? I've actually hit 9/10 torso-sillhouette targets at 500 yards with a ratty old peep-sighted M-16 out of the armory, and 7/10 (or was it 8?) with an M4. With the ACOG scope, I bet I'd hit all 10 almost every time. At five-hundred yards.

But you know what? That pales in comparison to what I could do with a decent hunting rifle. Not only would it be more accurate out to longer ranges, and easier to shoot, having a telescopic sight and at least a decent trigger, but the vast majority of hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than an AR-15/M-16.

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : asfd]

2/26/2009 6:08:59 PM

I don't agree with Obama on this. This won't solve anything and it only infringes further on our rights.

2/26/2009 6:55:13 PM

So has Obama actually said anything on this ban? or just this one statement by Mr. Holder?

2/26/2009 6:57:13 PM

obama has said nothing

personally i think nothing will come of this. I've got confidence in obama's intelligence and political savvy. revisiting the ban is a dumb idea. he's smarter than that/

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM. Reason : /]

2/26/2009 6:59:16 PM

Quote :

""so why would someone really need all these types of guns? dont say to protect yourself. hell you can do that with a glock 17""

It should be pointed out that the Glock 17 would probably also fall under this ban.
It has a magazine capacity over 10 rounds, and can be modified to be fully automatic (Glock 18).

2/26/2009 7:12:28 PM

^hahaaaaa details, details.

I think JCASHFAN statement pretty much wins.

2/26/2009 7:40:44 PM

Quote :

"But you know what? That pales in comparison to what I could do with a decent hunting rifle. Not only would it be more accurate out to longer ranges, and easier to shoot, having a telescopic sight and at least a decent trigger, but the vast majority of hunting rifles are FAR more powerful than an AR-15/M-16."

but the AR looks scary, it must be evil

2/26/2009 7:47:10 PM

Just like the GOP did when it held power, the Dems are gonna get cocky.
They are going to throw every stinkin piece of liberal agenda against the wall to see what sticks. Better get used to it.

2/26/2009 8:29:02 PM

This is all about principle and precedence.

His stance on gun control was known before he was elected and all reactions to this relatively "harmless" ban are to prevent him chipping away at gun ownership as a whole.

[Edited on February 26, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2009 10:45:03 PM

Quote :

"personally i think nothing will come of this. I've got confidence in obama's intelligence and political savvy. revisiting the ban is a dumb idea. he's smarter than that/"

He's smart enough to know that he should use other people to push stupid legislation or the idea of it. He doesn't want to be downwind. At least he has that going for him.

Quote :

"me either but some of you people act like taking guns like these off the market is going to ruin the country that the GOP already ruined."

It will ruin companies that drive development and put americans out of work. When the automatic weapons were outlawed, it destroyed businesses overnight. It forced the government to purchase foreign made weapons. It prevented anyone other than large/established corporations from developing new technology and creating jobs. Innovation was stopped cold. That is unamerican/treasonous.

The government wants to push 'reasonable' legislation on gun control, which makes no sense and they know that. What is reasonable to a legislator that ultimately wants a police state? All the while talking about how they love hunting and then making 17" shotgun barrel illegal, while a 18" barrel is fine?

The AWB is completely in conflict with the second article to our Constitution's Bill of Rights. To wit, '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.'

Quote :

"i still dont see a problem with banning the sale of assault rifles."

they are functionally no different than hunting rifles. they just look different. you seem to be for banning things that are cosmetically different. if that's the case, do you propose to ban ugly people? just what makes someone ugly?

You don't go to sleep one night a free man and wake up the next morning to find you're a slave in your own country. It happens gradually, and when you realize it, it's too late.

3/1/2009 1:03:46 AM

I think one of the handicaps that the pro-gun camp has is that it's very easy to put forward pro-gun views in a way that seems a bit paranoid. For example, the repeated suggestions that there is a concerted effort on behalf of a large segment of government to wholly disarm or even enslave the American people. To suggest as much is to vastly overstate the planning foresight and vision of government. It can't simultaneously be an evil conglomeration and a pack of bumbling fools.

The simple fact is that politicians are swayed first and foremost by votes. There are districts in this country that are overwhelmingly anti-gun rights, and it wasn't politicians that made them that way -- it was gun crime. Now, I agree with you, a person who sees a lot of gun crime and therefore decides he is in favor of greater gun control probably hasn't thought the thing through terribly well. But still and all, it's public ignorance rather than police-state conspiracy behind the trend.

It's also funny to me that the same people who are calling the whole thing a police-state setup are also calling the assault weapons ban window dressing, so to speak. One implies a concerted effort to get guns out of our hands. The other implies an effort to placate a paranoid and ignorant populace. The two don't really go together.

Let me be clear that I am against reinstating the ban. But some of the arguments used in this thread and elsewhere...well, frankly they aren't helping. They're making us look like a bunch of nuts.

---

I doubt it'll be an issue, at least for a while. The administration has much bigger fish to fry. Gun control got approximately -zero- mainstream media attention during the campaign, which means people didn't elect the guy to change the rules. Even with a congressional majority he's had to fight pretty hard to get support for such a central issue as economic recovery plan. His party was behind that all right. But I'm sure there are several democrats who will try to distance themselves from a gun move at this point.

If he's half as smart as we most think he is, he'll wait until after 2010 or 2012 elections to even consider pushing the issue. If he maintains or grows his support at one of those intervals, he might move on it -- and even then, only if it's a subject dear to his heart.

3/1/2009 2:52:39 AM

that's pretty much my assessment.


particularly:

Quote :

"To suggest as much is to vastly overstate the planning foresight and vision of government. It can't simultaneously be an evil conglomeration and a pack of bumbling fools. "

I think they're a bunch of bumbling fools

Quote :

" But still and all, it's public ignorance rather than police-state conspiracy behind the trend. "

driven by the bumbling fools that vote for them.

3/1/2009 3:59:56 AM

let's hope that by the time he's finally finished off the economy and healthcare we'll have a more sensible Congress.

3/1/2009 12:34:00 PM

History has shown us that government leaders often ignore the fundamental fact that people demand both dignity and freedom. Because of this disregard, these decision-makers then initiate acts that are ultimately self-destructive.

Guns are an important element in any truly free society, for a society that does not trust its citizens with individually owned weapons really does not trust its citizens. We must protect a cultural value that is worth defending vigorously.

[Edited on March 1, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : k]

3/1/2009 10:37:28 PM

that sounds really similar to the United State's stance on drugs

only i guess you can't ward off criminals with a sack of weed

3/1/2009 10:42:49 PM

Quote :

"government leaders often ignore the fundamental fact that people demand both dignity and freedom."

Sure.

But there's also a lot of people that demand stricter gun laws. From a quick google search it appears that the majority of people wanted it extended in '04. Not sure what the numbers say now, but I doubt they've swung the other direction from such a healthy margin.

Quote :

"Guns are an important element in any truly free society, for a society that does not trust its citizens with individually owned weapons really does not trust its citizens."

Yeah man, I hear you. That doesn't mean that gun-control efforts are part of an active conspiracy to destroy free society.

Then again, government doesn't trust its citizens, because we don't trust each other. If everybody could trust everybody, we wouldn't need government.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ]

3/2/2009 12:33:06 AM

Quote :

"From a quick google search it appears that the majority of people wanted it extended in '04. Not sure what the numbers say now, but I doubt they've swung the other direction from such a healthy margin. "

i'll bet that the majority of those, though, lack even the most basic understanding of the AWB. With a few exceptions who understand it and still support it due to lack of judgement, the vast majority support it just because it sounds good and they have no idea what it's about.

3/2/2009 6:29:38 AM

holy crapballs Seotaji

you wiped out like 14/15th's of that original post

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 10:38 AM. Reason : !]

3/2/2009 10:38:43 AM

The assault weapons ban seems like a good idea exactly because it's so incredibly stupid.

It makes uninformed anti-gun people happy, without actually banning anything of significance.

They can go back to their constituents and they they banned dangerous assault rifles (boogity boogity boogity!), while not actually banning much at all.

3/2/2009 10:52:09 AM

Quote :

"i'll bet that the majority of those, though, lack even the most basic understanding of the AWB."

Oh, sure. But frankly the majority of people lack even the most basic understanding of anything Congress does. And, I hate to say, it's not exactly Congress's job to educate them. The information is out there, and people are too damn lazy to find it.

So, again, blame the idiot people on this one, not the idiot government.

3/2/2009 11:05:13 AM

^ The Govt. School system has failed us then. It has failed to educate the general masses how our own government is run.

3/2/2009 8:48:52 PM

no school can teach if parents aren't willing to help

3/2/2009 9:47:12 PM

Quote :

"^ The Govt. School system has failed us then. It has failed to educate the general masses how our own government is run."

The Federal Gov't needs to get its grubby hands out of primary and secondary education.

Between NCLB, teaching to the fucking standardized tests, and making sure no one/parents get "offended" I am surprised we are not more behind than we are when it comes to education.

3/2/2009 9:49:31 PM

my word

that's an incredibly myopic notion of problems of the education system

but i suppose this is a gun thread

so ho-ray

3/2/2009 10:01:43 PM

In the past, anti-gunners have used domestic crime prevention as the reason to ban semi-automatic rifles. Holder's new reason is that a ban on these weapons would help stop the flow of weapons into Mexico.

Quote :

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." "

I think the weapon of choice along the border war would be fully automatic machine guns, and not so-called assault rifles. Banning law-abiding citizens from owning a semi-automatic weapon will do nothing to stop gangs and criminals along the border from obtaining their desired weapons.

Quote :

"Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however. "It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be." "

Again, I think Obama's people are just tossing out past liberal agenda to see what kind of reaction it will get.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2009 10:02:56 PM

Quote :

"holy crapballs Seotaji you wiped out like 14/15th's of that original post "

i listed the exact moment in time where this gun regulation thing started going wrong.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

my family and i have paid untold amounts in taxes, even when the president said that people like me were not paying their fair share. my family has never received or asked for aid/subsidy's/handouts, we've been double/triple taxed our entire lives (income tax, estate tax, capital gains, etc...) and we've paid every tax without complaint. i've paid more taxes in my lifetime than the president and his wife combined.

what i don't get is that my government constantly tries to rob me blind and then has the audacity to enact laws to restrict what i enjoy doing. they say "it's for the greater good". what greater good is there other than developing proficiency and teaching others to be self-reliant? instead of the government giving me a pat on the back and saying "good job teaching others to be good citizens!", they try to enact even more laws that restrict my rights and make it tougher for ordinary citizens to protect themselves.

how exactly does banning one rifle that looks similar to another prevent any of them from aiding mexican drug lords?

how does restricting/banning rifles that only fire one round per trigger pull prevent the corrupt mexican army officals from selling U.S. donated full-auto/select-fire rifles and equipment to the cartels?

the problem is with the general populace. to them the typical shooter is a cousin marrying toothless redneck hillbilly, when in reality they are educated and a good majority of them are professionals who earn a middle/high salary.

to this populace, buzzwords like "cop-killer" bullets and "assault rifles" strikes fear into their ignorant hearts. we need to fix this first before we try and do anything else.

I did not grow up around guns, nor were my parent's advocates of firearm ownership. I chose this path because it's a part of being a citizen. Our forefathers didn't write the constitution, bill of rights and the declaration of independence for nothing. We might not use all of our rights, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to be legislated away based on some ignorant knee-jerk politician trying to win votes. That's unamerican. We have those rights whether we use them or not.

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM. Reason : f]

3/3/2009 3:23:04 PM

Quote :

"The Govt. School system has failed us then. It has failed to educate the general masses how our own government is run."

Of course it has. Education in this country is a joke. However, I don't think switching to private schools would do much to help. Kicking the federal government out of the issue would save us some money and give us some flexibility, which would be good.

With regards to this issue, though, I'm not sure how much good it would do. Even if they actually understood their government they wouldn't necessarily understand this bill. A large portion of this country doesn't really give two shits about guns. They don't own any, or if they do, they own simple hunting rifles and shotguns that aren't under present threat of being banned. It's hard to get them worked up about a right they're never going to use, especially when the people saying they do want to use it are the kind of folks that get really worked up about guns. That latter group scares people.

3/3/2009 3:41:14 PM

See the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

And understand that while some guns will end up being banned by name, similar to canada, others will be targeted by a catch all of a gun and any / all guns that derive from it. Some places you cannot have any gun that is in a 'military' caliber. The result is that as guns remove the 'evil bad scary' features that get used to group them, they all end up being added to the list.
The result? We will be stripped of our RIGHT, God given, to have the ability to defend ourselves, and to OWN ARMS.
Not pistols, not rifles, not 'guns' , ARMS. And to keep and bear, means to be able to USE them, DISPLAY them, not just have them in a safe, unloaded, with the ammo at $50+ a box, plus serial number fee on the 'safe' ammo.

3/4/2009 8:40:36 PM

Quote :

"We will be stripped of our RIGHT, God given, to have the ability to defend ourselves, and to OWN ARMS."

God didn't give you shit.
Your right to own guns is from the US Constitution.

3/4/2009 8:55:34 PM

God invented guns

and he gave them to Jesus

because Jesus was ready to lock and load

3/4/2009 8:58:09 PM

oh, right

3/4/2009 8:59:50 PM

I saw some guy that had a Hitler bumper sticker quote about guns...something like less guns on the street etc...anybody seen it?

3/4/2009 9:04:52 PM

Quote :

""The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke. In looking for this quote in other editions or printings, please focus on the date of the talk to locate the correct page number."

Also see http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/hci_nazi.html

3/4/2009 9:07:56 PM

^ when Obama says hes going to take all guns from people in other countries that quote will apply. For now, even if his measures pass I'll still be able to buy all the handguns, shotguns and semi automatic rifles i want.

3/4/2009 9:23:08 PM

Probably:

Quote :

"This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Which has been falsely attributed to Hitler for years.

3/4/2009 9:27:10 PM

If you like the idiot Obama, you have the 1984 part right.^^

[Edited on March 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ...]

3/4/2009 9:27:31 PM

Quote :

"God didn't give you shit. Your right to own guns is from the US Constitution. "

I think what he was getting at is that self-defense is a natural right, not really subject to being constrained by laws.

3/4/2009 9:33:53 PM

We all know that Obama won't let the Constitution get in his way.

3/4/2009 9:36:18 PM

^^ ok, but i haven't heard the self-defense argument crop up in this thread, because not even NRA members are dumb enough to say that assault rifles are necessary or particularly useful for self defense compared to "normal guns" that have always been, and will always remain legal

3/4/2009 10:40:06 PM

^^ ok, but i haven't heard the self-transit argument crop up in this thread, because not even sports car owners are dumb enough to say that sports cars are necessary or particularly useful for self transit compared to "normal cars" that have always been, and will always remain legal

3/5/2009 2:47:21 AM

what if shooting ranges were equipped with rental guns, but you were banned from owning them? you would still be able to "have fun" with your guns but you wouldn't be able to keep them in your house and accidentally (or purposely) kill someone.

3/5/2009 4:29:39 AM

^^
Exactly. If I want a machine gun to just look at, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN IT.
Also, I can own cars that aren't street-legal. Just because something has limited or no use IS IN ABSOLUTELY NO WAY A JUSTIFICATION FOR BANNING IT. You dirty fucking nannies are basically saying shit like, "Well, you don't really need it, so it's ok if we ban it." That is 100% unamerican, illogical, unfair, unjust, stupid, counter-productive, and just plain wrong.

^
Yeah, that would be stupid.
Good thing our nation recognizes every humans' inalienable right to own guns.
You anti-gun nuts are the fucking lamest ever. You're more lame than the anti-booze crowd.
Please shut the fuck up -- No one cares about your retarded fantasies.
Listen to yourself: "but you wouldn't be able to keep them in your house and accidentally (or purposely) kill someone". Is this a joke? Are you scared of the gun-boogy-man? Get a grip.

Quote :

"I think what he was getting at is that self-defense is a natural right, not really subject to being constrained by laws"

Exactly. The constitution merely codifies it. The right is inalienable. In other words, even if the 2nd amendment was struck down, we'd still all have natural rights to free speech, religion, self-defense, etc. Rights aren't created by man.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 7:50 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 7:49:28 AM

^^ The right is keep and bear arms.

Quote :

"ok, but i haven't heard the self-defense argument crop up in this thread, because not even NRA members are dumb enough to say that assault rifles are necessary or particularly useful for self defense compared to "normal guns" that have always been, and will always remain legal"

Do you actually know what constitutes an assault rifle? You should watch the video kylekatern linked up above. The differences between an "assault rifle" and a "normal gun" are almost all purely cosmetic and in no way affect the lethality or power of the gun in question. As for defense, ask some of the korean shop owners how useful their ARs were during the LA riots.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 7:51 AM. Reason : SAdf]

3/5/2009 7:51:29 AM

Watching a CNN debate on whether the recent spree shootings warrant the renewal of the assault rifle ban.

Pittsburgh shooting:

Quote :

"Wearing a bulletproof vest and armed with an AK-47, a long rifle and a pistol, Poplawski fired about 100 rounds during the standoff, Harper said."

Binghamton, NY:

Quote :

"Wong then entered the building front door armed with two handguns, and without saying a word, began shooting, police said."

Carthage, NC:

Quote :

"A witness told CNN affiliate WRAL-TV in Raleigh-Durham that Stewart was armed with a rifle, a shotgun and other weapons."

I couldn't find anything on the 4 cops shot in Oakland.

4/4/2009 8:04:07 PM

^ Well, given that the AWB would have only maybe affected 1 of the above weapons in 1 of the above crimes, and even then only if the "AK-47" was a real AK-47 or functional equivalent and either automatic fire (which would also be already covered under existing laws regarding automatic weapons) or had 3 or more of the functions which, albeit entirely scary looking, in no way affect the actual lethality of the weapon in use, I would say that answer is a resounding no.

Of course, even asking that question assumes that a person who will walk into a building armed to the teeth and start shooting random people would be bothered to care about whether a folding stock and a bayonet lug are legal or not.

4/4/2009 9:15:18 PM