OBAMAHAHs latest AW Ban list!

[9teeneleven]

You said:

You suggest there was leniency in firearms/firearm laws during the aw ban.I'm asking you to show proof of what you stated.

Speaking about the "proposed ban"....well there is no evidence to show the contrary!

Ill also ask this again,why is an AW dangerous?

ETA; Please answer instead of saying this post is offensive

This is an area I am happy to be educated in, but, in part, it seems there is a problem with defining AW. I think a semi-auto M16 or UZI are probably about as good a door stop as they are a semi-auto weapon. There are better tools for the job. Unless, they are being converted. These weapons were designed as far as I understand it, because research on the battle field showed that accuracy of individual bullets were overrated, and because most situations, particularly urban ones, dictated that the range of a traditional rifle was rarely utilized. So, as was pointed out earlier, the issue is at least in part one of collateral damage. An UZI is not a precision tool.

However, in addition to collateral damage (which I don't find the most compelling part of the argument), there is the question of overall benefit/nuance. Weapons can protect the free state, but they can also undermine it. The traditional response to this is a) that we shouldn't restrict lawful gun owners on account of unlawful ones. To paraphrase, "when AWs are illegal, only criminals have AWs." However, this is not an issue of the gun ban itself, but an issue of law enforcement. A law is not unjust simply because it is difficult to enforce.

[Jasongar8]

Mrnick, You have still FAILED to explain how a semi auto "assault weapon" is any more deadly or dangerous than a semi auto hunting style rifle? If you think the way a gun looks makes it more dangerous, then you sir are far dumber than I thought.

-Jason G

[strickj]

This is an area I am happy to be educated in, but, in part, it seems there is a problem with defining AW. I think a semi-auto M16 or UZI are probably about as good a door stop as they are a semi-auto weapon. There are better tools for the job. Unless, they are being converted. These weapons were designed as far as I understand it, because research on the battle field showed that accuracy of individual bullets were overrated, and because most situations, particularly urban ones, dictated that the range of a traditional rifle was rarely utilized. So, as was pointed out earlier, the issue is at least in part one of collateral damage. An UZI is not a precision tool.

However, in addition to collateral damage (which I don't find the most compelling part of the argument), there is the question of overall benefit/nuance. Weapons can protect the free state, but they can also undermine it. The traditional response to this is a) that we shouldn't restrict lawful gun owners on account of unlawful ones. To paraphrase, "when AWs are illegal, only criminals have AWs." However, this is not an issue of the gun ban itself, but an issue of law enforcement. A law is not unjust simply because it is difficult to enforce.

Thanks,let me quote myself so you can read it again

You said:

There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary

You suggest there was leniency in firearms/firearm laws during the aw ban.I'm asking you to show proof of what you stated.

Speaking about the "proposed ban"....well there is no evidence to show anything other then what has already happened!

Ill also ask this again,why is an AW dangerous?

ETA; Please answer instead of saying this post is offensive

Dont define what you think an AW is.

Simply answer why you think they're dangerous.

Also provide proof to support your earlier statement:

There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary

Edited March 15, 2009 by strickj

[Jasongar8]

This is an area I am happy to be educated in, but, in part, it seems there is a problem with defining AW. I think a semi-auto M16 or UZI are probably about as good a door stop as they are a semi-auto weapon. There are better tools for the job. Unless, they are being converted. These weapons were designed as far as I understand it, because research on the battle field showed that accuracy of individual bullets were overrated, and because most situations, particularly urban ones, dictated that the range of a traditional rifle was rarely utilized. So, as was pointed out earlier, the issue is at least in part one of collateral damage. An UZI is not a precision tool.

However, in addition to collateral damage (which I don't find the most compelling part of the argument), there is the question of overall benefit/nuance. Weapons can protect the free state, but they can also undermine it. The traditional response to this is a) that we shouldn't restrict lawful gun owners on account of unlawful ones. To paraphrase, "when AWs are illegal, only criminals have AWs." However, this is not an issue of the gun ban itself, but an issue of law enforcement. A law is not unjust simply because it is difficult to enforce.

There is no such thing as a semi auto M16 sir, M16's are full auto. Also if you are going to be talking about "converting" semi auto guns you need to EDUCATE yourself on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. These will tell you all you need to know about the laws about conversions. These type of weapons have been highly regulated since 1934. By the way you would make a very good politician because you really know how to dance around a question.

-Jason G

[Guest Linoge]

You have failed to explain this irony.

In that case, your reading comprehension seems to be about as weak as your arguments concerning Constitutional word usage... which I see you glossed over with nary a comment.

Speaking of, though, what are your comments concerning the individual rights that the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments apparently do not protect, according to your logic regarding the Second?

[9teeneleven]

There is no such thing as a semi auto M16 sir, M16's are full auto. Also if you are going to be talking about "converting" semi auto guns you need to EDUCATE yourself on the National Firearms Act of 1934, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. These will tell you all you need to know about the laws about conversions. These type of weapons have been highly regulated since 1934. By the way you would make a very good politician because you really know how to dance around a question.

-Jason G

Sorry, AR-15, you know what I meant.

[Mike.357]

Should any citizen be allowed to own a weapon that deploys sarin gas? If you think the answer is no, then you support some forms of restrictions on the second amendment.

There is no mention of aiming or collateral damage in the second amendment.

nuclear weapons and sarin gas are not firearms. The second amendment has no bearing on the legality of possessing these devices.

Seriously there is no point in responding to you anymore. You are not here for reasons you claim.

[9teeneleven]

Mrnick, You have still FAILED to explain how a semi auto "assault weapon" is any more deadly or dangerous than a semi auto hunting style rifle? If you think the way a gun looks makes it more dangerous, then you sir are far dumber than I thought.

-Jason G

It is not. But, good luck converting a Remington 700 to auto. But, this actually brings up a good point, which contradicts something I said a moment ago, which is if people are going to convert an AR-15 it is a matter of law enforcement, not the inherent quality of the weapon as sold.

Let's perhaps put this into a context. Consider North Mexico in its current state. Would that situation be different if the majority of the people were armed? The bad guys are certainly getting a large percentage of their arms legally in the U.S. in border states. The drug cartels also appear to be outgunning the Mexican government.

Again, I really find the personal attacks offensive. I am simply trying to have a conversation about this issue. I have also openly admitted that it is an issue that I am not fully decided on, and also am very open to new positions. 10 years ago, I would not have considered owning any guns. I came here because I find enjoyment in the activity of shooting and collecting guns, and believe that there is value in an armed populace, and as such, wanted to engage in friendly conversations regarding guns, and the issues surrounding them. Nowhere in any of my posts did I present a combative attitude, yet I have received nothing by bad vibes, attitude, and direct attacks on my character and intellect in return.

[9teeneleven]

nuclear weapons and sarin gas are not firearms. The second amendment has no bearing on the legality of possessing these devices.

Seriously there is no point in responding to you anymore. You are not here for reasons you claim.

The second amendment does not say anything about firearms, it says arms. Arms (from the OED)- I. pl. Defensive and offensive outfit for war, things used in fighting.

[9teeneleven]

Seriously there is no point in responding to you anymore. You are not here for reasons you claim.

OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.

[Jasongar8]

It is not. But, good luck converting a Remington 700 to auto.

What are you talking about?

-Jason G

[Jasongar8]

OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

-Jason G

[Guest Linoge]

OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.

Running away before you can defend your positions? Must not be very strong positions, then. I will repeat my question, since you seem to have ignored it for the second time:

What are your comments concerning the individual rights that the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments apparently do not protect, according to your logic regarding the Second?

[strickj]

OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.

Alright,guess my questions proved to difficult

And I'm also out on that note...no need in feeding the trolls....

[Guest Ghostrider]

Let's perhaps put this into a context. Consider North Mexico in its current state. Would that situation be different if the majority of the people were armed? The bad guys are certainly getting a large percentage of their arms legally in the U.S. in border states. The drug cartels also appear to be outgunning the Mexican government.

Yes, let's do put this in context.

1. Would this situation be different if the people were armed. Yes, if they had the will to use them (an issue we have here, as well).

2. The bad guys are getting their guns here. BS.

3. The drug cartels appear to be outgunning the Mex govt. yes

Now, look at 2 and 3 and savor this irony.

In the US (and I know a little about this, several here know more) it is a massive "dance" to get all the stamps, taxes, paperwork, etc to own a fully automatic weapon for an individual, such as an M16 or Thompson.

We must consider that the Mexican govt. has pretty easy access to fully automatic weapons and heavier weapons than that (I'm thinking heavy machine guns aka the M2 and the 20 and 30 mm automatic cannon, as well as automatic grenade launchers, etc)

So, where in the US are the drug cartels purchasing these fully automatic heavy weapons they are using to outgun the mexican govt???

Now, some of the gun trade in Texas "may" be mexican distributors for small time gangs AND for individual citizens for self protection. But, these will NOT outgun the federalies.

If you want the "real" reasons gun and ammo sales have skyrocketed in this country - look no further than the oval office and the man (with cronies) who seek to deprive the lawful from their rights.

To paraphrase, "What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand.

[willis68]

OK, and on that note, I am done. Clearly, no one here likes to do anything but preach to the choir. Carry on. Sorry for the interruption.

What in Gods name did you expect? you come to a Gun Owners forum and suggest that you agree with banning certain firearms, Honestly are you so Naive that you expected to be treated like a true friend to this forum?

You like so many who unknowingly want to ban firearms know nothing about them, as a tax paying (serious Taxes) law abiding citizen I legally have the right to purchase any semi auto, gun out there right now, for me to protect my loved ones and to truly have a passion for firearms somehow threatens you, I do not understand this people like yourself wish for only the criminals in society to posses weapons, why on earth are you here on these forums if not just to be a pain in the ass Troll ?

Edited March 15, 2009 by willis68

[9teeneleven]

I am happy to answer, I just have at this point, at least 5 separate people asking questions, and at least 8 people personally insulting me simply because I had the audacity not to produce the correct response to the thread, i.e. GRRRR, posture, posture, posture, GRRR some more. If you look back over the thread, I fail to see how I am the one who deserved to be banned, when clearly the forum rules state that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Clearly, that rule only applied for certain people. I am leaving the thread, not because I am unwilling to try and answer anyone's post, but because frankly it is a waste of my time to sit here are get insults and rude comments hurled at me. I don't want to get into a pissing match. I was genuinely under the impression that when the forum title stated that this is a place to "discuss legal and political issues specifically regarding the Right To Keep and Bear Arms" it actually meant discuss. My bad. I was mistaken, and don't want to be a part of such a forum. There are plenty of places I can go and be around rude people, apparently this is one of them, so why do it on my free time.

[9teeneleven]

What in Gods name did you expect? you come to a Gun Owners forum and suggest that you agree with banning certain firearms, Honestly are you so Naive that you expected to be treated like a true friend to this forum?

You like so many who unknowingly want to ban firearms know nothing about them, as a tax paying (serious Taxes) law abiding citizen I legally have the right to purchase any semi auto, gun out there right now, for me to protect my loved ones and to truly have a passion for firearms somehow threatens you, I do not understand this people like yourself wish for only the criminals in society to posses weapons, why on earth are you here on these forums if not just to be a pain in the ass Troll ?

No, but I did expect a modicum of decency.

Also, I didn't realize that being a "gun owner" meant that you had to unequivocally support ALL gun ownership. Does this mean I have to give my guns up?

I also assumed that discuss meant discuss. Clearly it doesn't.

Edited March 15, 2009 by 9teeneleven

[Jasongar8]

Again, dont let the door hit you on the way out.

-Jason G

[Daniel]

mrnick. pls report the posts with personal attacks and the moderators of this particular sub-forum + the admin will get a report and be able to make a decision. for the most part the moderators have a sub-forum that they moderate and cannot edit posts in the others.

Personally, even though I disagree with alot of your opinions I support your right to be heard. Im hoping you will stay long enough for some of the more eloquent of us to maybe make a more concise argument opposing your present view point.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Daniel

[GLOCKMEISTER]

I have made my decision....

IMHO he cant answer the questions because if he answered them correctly he would be proving himself wrong. Coming here and arguing any "anti gun ownership" position is kinda like a member of planned parenthood trying to hang out with the Pope.

Instead of answering reasonable questions Mrnick points out one poster because he spelled banned wrong, then gets offended because another poster pointed out his ignorance in firearms. There is a big difference in m16/ar15.... if you know what your talking about.

It appears, at least to me Mrnick is trolling a bit but we will wait and see where this ends up.

[Reservoir Dog]

It appears, at least to me Mrnick is trolling a bit...

Trolling? Absolutely.

I thought Ralph G. Briscoe had registered with a new name.

[Guest Linoge]

It appears, at least to me Mrnick is trolling a bit but we will wait and see where this ends up.

*dingdingdingding*

Give the man a cookie.

Oh, and I am still waiting for the answer to my question, Mrnick... starting to think you are intentionally ignoring me because you do not have one!

[Guest db99wj]

Weapons don't assault people. People use tools to assault. If I go get my hammer out in my shop and beat you with it, I now have an assault hammer. The weapons on the list, are just that, tools. The problem with this whole argument (Gun ban list) is that the problem, the true problem, is not with the the tools...err, guns. It is with the criminal element that has no repercussion when they commit a crime. Get rid of the cable, get rid of the ac, get rid of the college credits, get rid of the rec room with games, ping pong, weight room, etc. Make prison into working farms, have these inmates grow there own food, clean the county they are in, litter on the roads, public places, produce things that are beneficial to the community that they had no regard for when the committed their crimes against the citizens.

So, IMO, the argument here is a flawed all the way down to the foundation. Fix the real problem, the criminals.

Some interesting things from the last gun ban.

An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does not include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon. (3)(64)

* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet.

* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban.

Source: Justfacts.com

[Guest nraforlife]

Personally, I think the 2nd amendment gives me the right to be as well armed as the army with the same weapons.

Remember y'all the founding fathers preached against a standing army and it was the DUTY of everyman to be armed and ready to repel any invader.