The W
Views: 97655380
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.07 2300
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Assault Weapons Ban set to expire Monday
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(658 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 1204/1857
EXP: 5307531
For next: 124713

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 427 days
Last activity: 19 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 10.9.04 1336.32
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1338.29
Click Here (cnn.com)

Disgusting, IMHO. Since when is it every American's right to own an AK-47 or an M-16?

Bush is running on his strengths: Counter-terrorism and national security. How does this help counter-terrorist efforts or national security?
Promote this thread!
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 217/512
EXP: 719030
For next: 47179

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 134 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#2 Posted on 10.9.04 1340.05
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1340.15
    Originally posted by gugs
    Click Here (cnn.com)

    Disgusting, IMHO. Since when is it every American's right to own an AK-47 or an M-16?


Since the drafting of the Bill of Rights... :-)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2945/5401
EXP: 26880183
For next: 251821

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 10.9.04 1348.32
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1349.22
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by gugs
      Click Here (cnn.com)

      Disgusting, IMHO. Since when is it every American's right to own an AK-47 or an M-16?


    Since the drafting of the Bill of Rights... :-)

And I assume they are all going for their training in order to remain part of a "well-regulated militia"? Or do we not like that part of the 2nd Amendment?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3914/4700
EXP: 21365103
For next: 471559

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1179 days
Last activity: 976 days
#4 Posted on 10.9.04 1351.52
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1353.34
    Originally posted by spf2119
    And I assume they are all going for their training in order to remain part of a "well-regulated militia"? Or do we not like that part of the 2nd Amendment?
Does nobody listen to anything anybody else posts? I have posted more than once about the Milita Act of 1794...

Incidentally, it is outstanding this piece of shit is going to exprie. Why re-up unconstiutional legislation that like other gun laws did nothing to lower crime.

Remember: Gun Control Kills.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1211/2690
EXP: 8760268
For next: 228551

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on 10.9.04 1411.33
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1413.10
I'd make a lengthy reply but I fear it's fruitless. People can keep and bear arms with assault weapons. The government doesn't allow you to kee a 50 cal. machine gun, it's against the law. Under too many people's opinions, that isn't right. I don't get it.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1566/1759
EXP: 4879754
For next: 113116

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1225 days
Last activity: 24 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on 10.9.04 1419.52
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1423.27
It used to be crime - now it is "terrorists."

The reason for these bans is always supposed to be protect us, yet the people who follow the law when buying these guns are not the ones who commit crimes/terrorist acts with them. You can ALWAYS get these guns, banned or not, via the black market. And that is still the place that the terrorists will get the weapons if they are legal.

The assault weapons ban is pointless, and only affects law abiding citizens. How about spending your energy pressing for something that will actually HELP matters?
BWT
Boerewors
Level: 40

Posts: 165/360
EXP: 422790
For next: 18523

Since: 27.1.04
From: Philly

Since last post: 3101 days
Last activity: 2705 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 10.9.04 1422.13
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1425.10
I cant understand the NRA's logic tossing out stats how crime hasn't gone down since the assault weapons ban was put into effect. How exactly would making them legal be better for safety?
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2946/5401
EXP: 26880183
For next: 251821

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 10.9.04 1427.37
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1428.13
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by spf2119
      And I assume they are all going for their training in order to remain part of a "well-regulated militia"? Or do we not like that part of the 2nd Amendment?
    Does nobody listen to anything anybody else posts? I have posted more than once about the Milita Act of 1794...

    Incidentally, it is outstanding this piece of shit is going to exprie. Why re-up unconstiutional legislation that like other gun laws did nothing to lower crime.

    Remember: Gun Control Kills.

According to Click Here (army.mil) it talks about the Militia Act you reference as allowing the Federal Government control over organization and training of local militias. I could construe that to mean what weapons they would be trained with, thus allowing that under the law.

That said, it will likely surprise people but I am with Grimis and Pool-Boy on this one. I come from a family which owned over 40 firearms in our home, and where every member slept with a loaded firearm or three within arms reach should anyone ever break into our suburban home. As long as someone has a gun, I want the right to be able to unleash violence upon them in return.

What I find amusing is that questioning the government on its actions in Iraq or Afghanistan is tantamount to treason according to many people, yet gun ownership is often supported on the idea that one day we may have to rise up in defense of our liberties against our government. I want to get my local militia together to defend ourselves against what I feel are violations against my inalienable rights.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3916/4700
EXP: 21365103
For next: 471559

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1179 days
Last activity: 976 days
#9 Posted on 10.9.04 1444.46
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1444.50
    Originally posted by spf2119
    What I find amusing is that questioning the government on its actions in Iraq or Afghanistan is tantamount to treason according to many people, yet gun ownership is often supported on the idea that one day we may have to rise up in defense of our liberties against our government.
Ironically, the supermajority of those bent out of shape about Iraq are 100% behind gun control.
    Originally posted by spf2119
    I want to get my local militia together to defend ourselves against what I feel are violations against my inalienable rights.
Which unalientable rights?
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 46

Posts: 410/502
EXP: 703577
For next: 8202

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3209 days
Last activity: 3202 days
#10 Posted on 10.9.04 1507.53
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1508.28
With all the pictures of Kerry improperly holding a weapon as he shoots it and not wearing protective gear while doing so, "keeping America safe from guns" is not really an issue he can ride into the White House.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 86/1091
EXP: 2178052
For next: 36057

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2751 days
Last activity: 2479 days
#11 Posted on 10.9.04 1535.42
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1536.00
Can anyone give a good reason why assault rifles should be legal? Not pistols or hunting rifles, assault rifles. Besides the arguement that it's in the consitution or that it's a slippery slope.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2947/5401
EXP: 26880183
For next: 251821

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 10.9.04 1541.32
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1541.50
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Can anyone give a good reason why assault rifles should be legal? Not pistols or hunting rifles, assault rifles. Besides the arguement that it's in the consitution or that it's a slippery slope.

Because what business does the Federal government have telling the private citizenry what sort of weaponry it can own? Why should they be able to decide "you can own a handgun but not one that fires this many bullets per second?" That would be like if they were able to tell us what substances we can put in our bodies without serving years in jail. Or whether we could spend our money wagering on games of chance and/or skill. Or whether we could procure certain types of medicine without their approval. Or whether or not we could ask a doctor to end our life if we felt the agony was too much. And that is NOT the kind of America I want to live in....oops.
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 74

Posts: 807/1399
EXP: 3513896
For next: 139665

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 10.9.04 1544.14
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1544.26
The original legislation of the bill was very poorly implemented and many of the guns banned under it aren't really "assault" weapons to begin with.

If another assault weapons ban never gets passed, I won't be upset. Is it necessary to own an AK-47? Of course not. Due to our vaguely-defined 2nd Amendment, though, a case can be made that it is your right to keep and bear it.

I'm not the biggest gun nut in the world, though I have gone range shooting a few times in the past. With the potential for rights being infringed prevalent, anything that expands on our current rights is welcomed by me.

I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but it would be interesting to see the murder rates from the decade before the ban and during, and see if there was any correlation for the murder rates - both pro and con.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 10.9.04 1346)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3917/4700
EXP: 21365103
For next: 471559

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1179 days
Last activity: 976 days
#14 Posted on 10.9.04 1558.01
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1558.39
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but it would be interesting to see the murder rates from the decade before the ban and during, and see if there was any correlation for the murder rates - both pro and con.
A lot of the numbers you see are from the CDC, and the books were cooked often.

The most improtant gun data is the John Lott study from More Guns, Less Crime, in which states that adopted concealed carry weapons saw their crime rates drop after the enactment of such a law, and had lower crime rates than neighboring states that did not have such a law.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1441/2210
EXP: 6798829
For next: 117099

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 2 days
#15 Posted on 10.9.04 1633.55
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1634.31
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
      I'm too lazy to look it up myself, but it would be interesting to see the murder rates from the decade before the ban and during, and see if there was any correlation for the murder rates - both pro and con.
    A lot of the numbers you see are from the CDC, and the books were cooked often.

    The most improtant gun data is the John Lott study from More Guns, Less Crime, in which states that adopted concealed carry weapons saw their crime rates drop after the enactment of such a law, and had lower crime rates than neighboring states that did not have such a law.


Most important why? I'm right with you on the idea that CDC stats can't be taken at face value, but criticism can equally be directed at Lott's study.

For one, the statistical techniques used reliy on the fact that data used is independent of each other(eg crime rates in neighbouring counties) which is not the case, meaning erroneous correlations can be revealed*.

Lott also failed to account for the trends in crime rates occuring when new laws were passed. Increased Concealed Carry Laws were often passed during periods of rising crime, meaning that even where correlation did exist between the passing of the laws and increaed crime, causation could not be said to.

Finally the volume of data used in his study is limited and has been argued to be insufficient in its ability to be extrapolated over an entire population. When an extension of his survey was conducted, his conclusions didn't hold up**.

And of course, his study was funded by the gun industry, which while not making it in and of itself inaccurate, does bring into question its objectivity.

* Teret (asahi-net.or.jp)

** Donahue & Ayres (papers.ssrn.com)

For what its worth, the CDC data (webapp.cdc.gov) shows a marked drop in gun related homicide rate from 1994 to 2000. I honestly haven't looked into what changes have been made in their recording methods over that period yet though. Google appears to be entirely unhelpful with regards helping me, so I'd be grateful if someone could enlighten me. Even if that someone is Grimis saying I TOLD YOU SO! ;)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1709/2093
EXP: 6481658
For next: 169032

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 10 hours
#16 Posted on 10.9.04 1827.46
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1828.11
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    It used to be crime - now it is "terrorists."

    The reason for these bans is always supposed to be protect us, yet the people who follow the law when buying these guns are not the ones who commit crimes/terrorist acts with them. You can ALWAYS get these guns, banned or not, via the black market. And that is still the place that the terrorists will get the weapons if they are legal.

    The assault weapons ban is pointless, and only affects law abiding citizens. How about spending your energy pressing for something that will actually HELP matters?


Take this entire arguement and subtitute "drugs" for "guns." It makes just as much sense.

Hey, I think both should be legal. I just don't get folks that think everyone should be able to own whatever kind of gun but not a dimebag.
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 45/104
EXP: 63869
For next: 3855

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3576 days
Last activity: 3573 days
#17 Posted on 10.9.04 1837.06
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1837.09
I've always been an advocate of gun control, up until the last few years. Seeing how many governments are going, however, has made me come to appreciate the value of a country having a citizenry that can, if pressed to, defend themselves from the excesses of a tyrranical state.

So long as owning a firearm obligates you to use/keep them in a responsible manner, and those who don not do so are severely dealt with by the law, I have no problem with a responsible (however you define that) citizen being able to own a gun.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1567/1759
EXP: 4879754
For next: 113116

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1225 days
Last activity: 24 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 10.9.04 1932.05
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1932.32
    Originally posted by MoeGates
      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      It used to be crime - now it is "terrorists."

      The reason for these bans is always supposed to be protect us, yet the people who follow the law when buying these guns are not the ones who commit crimes/terrorist acts with them. You can ALWAYS get these guns, banned or not, via the black market. And that is still the place that the terrorists will get the weapons if they are legal.

      The assault weapons ban is pointless, and only affects law abiding citizens. How about spending your energy pressing for something that will actually HELP matters?


    Take this entire arguement and subtitute "drugs" for "guns." It makes just as much sense.

    Hey, I think both should be legal. I just don't get folks that think everyone should be able to own whatever kind of gun but not a dimebag.


Not going to get an argument from me there - hell, if drugs were legal, they could be regulated. You'd get safer, better, and cheaper pot overall. You could tax the hell out of it, and it would STILL be cheaper than it is now.

Nope, no arguments here...
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 2454/3273
EXP: 12651773
For next: 20211

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 108 days
#19 Posted on 10.9.04 2001.38
Reposted on: 10.9.11 2003.26
Gun control doesn't have any particular appeal to me, but on things like the Assault Weapons Ban I'd feel better if I haven't had this exact conversation several times:

"So you think we should have the right to bear arms, including AK-47's and M-16's, guns that are only good for killing in mass quantities?"

"Yes, it's unconstitutional to prohibit those weapons. They're infringing upon my second amendment rights!"

"So the government is also infringing upon my second amendment rights when they deny me the ability to maintain my own stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, right?"

"No. That's just stupid."


Why?! Pro-Gun people usually walk away shortly after that part of the exchange. For some reason the NRA thinks there is a line out there where government control of arms is needed, but they won't go so far as to define that line for fear of hurting their own cause. Ridiculous. These arguments would have a lot more weight if somebody could explain why it's ok to own an AK-47 but not my own Tank.

-Jag
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1246/1528
EXP: 4044936
For next: 146212

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2739 days
Last activity: 2582 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 10.9.04 2043.18
Reposted on: 10.9.11 2043.21
Does anyone here really know what is banned by the "Assault Weapons Ban?"

There's information and an interesting little quiz here.

Read the Brady Campaign's take here.

And the NRA weights in here.

From what I've read, it seems like this is a stupid ban even if you are a fan of banning "assault rifles." I use the quotes because the definition is pretty darn ambiguous. Take this quiz.

(edited by PalpatineW on 10.9.04 2143)
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Quarter of Germans want country resplit
Next thread: Rathergate an Anti-Kerry Conspiracy?
Previous thread: Report: Syria tested Chemical Weapons on refugees in Darfur
(658 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Assault Weapons Ban set to expire MondayRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.455 seconds.