[b]Gin (921 posts)[/b]      

Tom DeLay won't vote to renew the ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons...wow. what an American patriot he is. They will renew the ban only if Bush pushes for it publicly.
Who needs Homeland Defense? We can all get semi-automatic weapons and protect ourselves. Do it to them before they do it to us...that is the new American way and Bush doctrine.

Truly...the lunatics are running the asylum!

[b]Derf18 (47 posts)[/b]
Educate yourself. "Semi-automatic weapons" are already legal. "Semi-automatic" means one bullet fires for each pull of the trigger. A revolver is a "semi-automatic weapon" The ban centered was on purely cosmetic criteria, and it targeted weapons that are almost never used (proportionally) in crimes.

So besides being a big loser politically, it was a pointless abrogation of our rights.

[b]Jacobin (3634 posts)[/b]      

Why would anyone feel that their rights were being violated by not having access to an uzi, as you pointed out a fully automatic rifle.
I have several shotguns, a .22-250 and a pellet gun. I grew up with them firearms. I thought nothing of firearms and their use was carefully monitored.

But, I mean, WTF, why would someone need, or for that matter WANT to have a fully automatic weapon hanging around the house?

Just curious.

[b]Derf18 (47 posts)[/b]      
The "assault weapon" ban wasn't about automatic weapons. Those have been (for the most part) not legal for private ownership since the 1930's. It was about semi-automatic weapons that had certain aesthetic features.

The only thing it did was criminalize guns that LOOKED like military style weapons. An AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 function the same and use the same round (.223). But the ban outlawed one and not the other.

It was pointless, (proportionally these weapons are and were almost never used in crime) and it is a huge political loser.

[b]kcolg (61 posts)[/b]
exactly!  it was about banning guns which comprised less than 5% of firearm crimes.
I read a thread earlier that to win the next election, we need more white males voting for us. This is an excelent start.

[b]Gin  (921 posts)[/b]      
I seem to remember Uzis being used in crimes...and then they were banned...
because the cops were outgunned..and I haven't heard anything else about them...so..if they are no longer banned...it seems to me they will be used again in crimes against cops and citizens in general..who the hell needs one anyway?
Thanks for educating me on semi-automatic.

[b]greenwow (347 posts)[/b]      
Sigh. Gin, you’re right they were used in many crimes, just as the M-16 machine guns (oops, the gun idiots call them AR-15’s to try to fool the public) and AK-47’s have been.
Derf18 is right about it only banning almost meaningless cosmetic features. That’s why we need a ban with some substance, something that protects us from weapons that fire any type of those high-powered assault military rounds. Where is our party when we need them? They’re not pushing the ban to help protect us.

[b]jody  (1859 posts)[/b]      
Do you mean assault weapons "were used in many crimes"?
Please provide a link to your proof.

[b]kcolg (61 posts)[/b]      
AR 15 vs M 16
are you being sarcastic or do you not know the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16?
also "you’re right they were used in many crimes" the only crime I know about was the bank robbery in L.A. where the guns have been illegal for years.

"something that protects us from weapons that fire any type of those high-powered assault military rounds" actually those high-powered rounds are waaaaaaay weaker than any real hunting rifle. M-16 is a .223 that means the diamater of the bullet is .223 inches.

typical deer rifle is .30-06 which has a .300 inch diameter (and the ammo is about twice as long as the .223). There has to be about 10 times as much energy from a standard deer rifle's bullet than an AK or M-16.

[b]kcolg (61 posts)[/b]      
the only legal UZI's......are semi-automatic.
to own an UZI like you see in movies, you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms License and it has to have been made before something like 1986 in America or to have been imported before 1960 something.

[b]jody  (1859 posts)[/b]      
Gin, please visit the J/PS forum and learn a little about both sides of the debate on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA).

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)
Today 28 states recognize an individual’s “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual’s RKBA for the “common defense”.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

[b]Gin  (921 posts)[/b]      
I was born and raised in PA...lots of hunters in my family.. I have no interest in guns...
and I am not opposed to owning guns..I do believe in regulations...guns are out of control in this country..the good of the many has to be considered until we get control of the situation.  

[b]jody  (1859 posts)[/b]      
What do you propose? More laws? Stronger enforcement?
Why do you say "guns are out of control in this country"?
Please join in the debate in the J/PS forum. Perhaps your insight will lead to solutions.

[b]JacobG (69 posts)[/b]      
learn about guns if theres anything i detest, its people who dont know about guns talking about the grave danger of someone owning a semiautomatic weapon. its not really a big deal. people just listen too much to the million mom march and their propaganda.  

[b]Fescue4u (88 posts)[/b]      
Thank God!

The Comestic feature ban of 1994 (otherwise known as assualt rifle ban) has been a huge loser for us. It costs us the House and Senate and we still have not recovered.
I have the same exact gun that was banned in 1994. The only difference between mine and the one is banned is that the stock does not fold.
that (lack of) a folding stock has done more damage to the Democratic party than anything else in the last 20 years.

[b]ButterflyBlood  (2440 posts)[/b]      
it'll help us if it's renewed since now Bush will get the blame, and he'll lose the single issue gun voters. If Dean's the nominee that's a huge pickup.

[b]JacobG (69 posts)[/b]      
dean's not really for gun rights dean said he would renew the assault weapons ban, and keep the brady bill, etc. he can say that he would not create new laws, but he wants to keep the assault weapons ban and it has been ineffective. the fact is that most southern gun owners still agree with bush more on the republican social issues and they won't trust dean. you're jaded if you think he will.  

[b]jody  (1859 posts)[/b]  
Using murder as a focus for debating "assault weapons" consider the following
Crime in the United States 2001
Table 2.13
Murder Victims 13,752
Murder by Firearms 8,719
Murder by Rifles 389

The table does not report how many of the rifles were "assault weapons". In my opinion, the number would probably be five or less and the percent of murders committed by "assault weapons" would be a very small percent.

[b]greenwow (347 posts)[/b]      
One addition...
You forget that the AWB actually has some good measures to prevent the sale and manufacture of assault pistols. For example, the outlaw of the forward grips, pistols that fire assault rifle rounds (indirectly banned since it dealt with magazines that were too large to be placed inside the pistol grip, like the high-powered 5.56mm NATO assault military round), and heavy (> 50 oz) pistols would be included in the ban, and would have been included in your total firearm number rather than in the rifle #.

[b]jody  (1859 posts)[/b]      
Please cite a source for a one are more murders commited with an "assault pistol".  

[b]lateo (68 posts)[/b]      
This is a topic that kills the Democrats
The gun control ideologues are the Dem's worst enemies (along with the (DLC). Banning certain types of guns because of how much ammunition they hold or how they look is just plain stupid. Guns shouldn't be banned what should be looked at instead is the violent nature of our society and the social inequality that drives people to commit crimes.
When the ballon goes up in America and Johnny Asscough's thugs are patrolling the streets I will bet a lot of the gun control people will be wishing they had more ammo.

[b]EDT (13 posts)[/b]      
A ban on alcohol would save 100 times as many lives as any gun ban. And it would be on something that no one could argue had any postive benefits (unlike a gun ban, which gun owners can claim threatens people defending themselves, as only honest citizens would turn in their guns) but since both Dems and Repubs have lots of heavy drinkers among them, and the booze industry is loaded with dough to fight it, a real "life saver" issue like this would never come up (again).

[b]jody  (1862 posts)[/b]      
I agree. DUers should read "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994--96"
Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994--96

QUOTE
To estimate the net effect on criminal use, the researchers measured criminal use of assault weapons using data on gun trace requests submitted by law enforcement agencies to BATF, whose tracing data provide the only available national sample of the types of guns used in crime.13 These data are limited because police agencies do not submit a trace request on every gun they confiscate. Many agencies submit very few requests to BATF, particularly in States that maintain gun sales databases (such as California). Therefore, tracing data are a biased sample of guns recovered by police. Prior studies suggest that assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms.

As shown in exhibit 6, law enforcement agency requests for BATF assault weapons traces in the 1993--95 period declined 20 percent in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Some of this decrease may reflect an overall decrease in gun crimes; total trace requests dropped 11 percent from 1994 to 1995, and gun murders declined 10 percent over the same period. Nevertheless, these trends suggest a 9- to 10-percent additional decrease (labeled with a triangle in exhibit 6) due to substitution of other guns for the banned assault weapons in 1995 gun crimes.
UNQUOTE

The report "measured criminal use of assault weapons using data on gun trace requests submitted by law enforcement agencies to BATF".

That report wouldn't be accepted from a freshman in a 3rd rate college statistics class.

The bottom line is, the report has not shown any proof that the assault weapon ban had any effect upon crime. And some Democrats fall on their swords over a ban which has yet to proven as effective in reducing crime.

Quoted:
I'll drink to that! [:D]

EDT (13 posts)
A ban on alcohol would save 100 times as many lives as any gun ban. And it would be on something that no one could argue had any postive benefits (unlike a gun ban, which gun owners can claim threatens people defending themselves, as only honest citizens would turn in their guns) but since both Dems and Repubs have lots of heavy drinkers among them, and the booze industry is loaded with dough to fight it, a real "life saver" issue like this would never come up (again).

Quoted:
definitely some infiltration going on
and nice and polite infiltration at that
not me though, I can't stand that place and would never be able to hold my tongue long enough or lie enough to build up enough posts for anyone to not spot me as an infiltrator

Quoted:
I'll drink to that! [:D]

Quoted:
Oh.. On Liberals and Laws

It is a fundamental herasy that to liberals that 'everyday americans' would want to circumvent the 'spirit' of a law...

You see, as they see it laws are 'guidance' that all 'normal' people (being inherantly good) listen to. The exception is criminals, who break laws.

So once something is 'banned' in spirit (even if not in letter) the point is supposed to have gotten accross, and said something is supposed to be culturally 'taboo' (since Liberals, especialy those in education, believe it is their divine appointment to controll American 'culture') as well...

The idea that companies would simply remove the proscriped features from a gun, for example, flies in the face of all of this... Despite being perfectly LEGAL, it is a 'terrible thing' as far as liberals are concerned because it shakes the foundation of their system (people are good, they just need guidance) when people say 'screw your guidance, I want my AR-15s')...

Quoted:
Here is some interesting reading about the ban...

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51740-2003May13

But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates

Quoted:
Continued:




Good GOD!  Is anybody else REALLY creeped out by that statement?

How can liberals THINK like that?!!

Quoted:


Well, as we all know, this was tried in the 20s. I once did some research on Prohibition and discovered that the acreage devoted to growing wine grapes in this country was 10 times higher at the end of Prohibition than at the start.  I think it would be reasonably easy to prove that Prohibition actually caused an increase in drinking in the U.S.

We all know the AWB has had zero impact on crime, and for obvious reasons.  When will the bleeding-heart morons learn?  You can't legislate social change.

Dammit, JR, quit posting this DU BS here.  It's bad for my blood pressure. [:D]

Quoted:  
Perhaps we could get someone over there who REALLY knows what they are talking about.  A knowledgable anti could tear them to shreds.