Clinton at DNC: AWB sunset will help arm terrorists.

[OpSomBlood]

He was rolling pretty good until he hit that ditch. Awful.

[Sagan]

1. Well, it's true...

I own guns. Quite a few, actually. But cheap, easily available assault weapons will find their way into the hands of terrorists. They ALREADY do. Al Queda specifically instructed its cells in the U.S. to buy these weapons at gun shows when possible.

So, I just don't understand how that's an awful ditch, since it's the truth.

And notice I didn't even mention domestic terrorists. That's a whole other kettle of fish that proves Clinton's point.

[MrSandman]

2. I know three gun shops...

Where there are xm-15's on display without bayonet lugs or flash supressors. How will the sunset arm terrorists whent they can't even move their inventory?

The AWB does not cover automatic weapons, explosives, destructive devices, or boxcutters

[slackmaster]

3. Why would any self-respecting terrorist buy a semiautomatic firearm?

When they can get real military weapons on the international black market.

And notice I didn't even mention domestic terrorists. That's a whole other kettle of fish that proves Clinton's point.

How so? Domestic terrorists use bombs.

[OpSomBlood]

6. A semi-auto with a background check and waiting period...

Seems like less of a hassle to just buy a machine gun out of the trunk of someone's car. Too bad the AWB doesn't apply to the black market.

[slackmaster]

8. Someone might say they could get them at gun shows

But there's that self-respect problem again.

Imagine a real terrorist buying USED civilian semiautomatic firearms.

[skippythwndrdog]

7. One more time

AW's are, by proper definition, seither select fire or full automatic fire arms. No foreign terrorists, or any foreigners, can meet the requirements to own one of those legally in the U.S. They'll just get them on the black market as they always have.

[MrBenchley]

12. Shhhhh.....

Amongst our "pro gun democrats" facts are such disturbing things....

[OpSomBlood]

4. In spite of the AWB stuff, a fantastic speech.

Man, it sure was great to have a coherent and charismatic public speaker as president. It seems so long ago.

[slackmaster]

5. He looked GREAT!

Tanned and rested doesn't begin to describe his appearance.

:toast: for the Big Dog!

[Wickerman]

17. Wasn't it great

being talked to, instead of having that snively, chip on the shoulder moran sneering at you? Makes me really miss what we had.

[slackmaster]

19. His eyes shine with real intelligence

His smile looks genuine.

I didn't always agree with him but I do miss him sometimes. It was nice to see him in good health and humor. I particularly enjoyed his commentary on being in the top 1% of income for the first time in his life.

[MrBenchley]

20. It was a great speech in every way....

"They chose to protect my tax cut, while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of their job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of their after-school programs, when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school, learning, going to college and having a good life.

They chose -- they chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising the out-of-pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests.

Now, in this time, everyone in America had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans. And most of us, almost all of us, from Republicans to independents and Democrats, we wanted to be asked to do our part, too. But all they asked us to do was to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts.

Now, if you like these choices and you agree with them, you should vote to return them to the White House and the Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/index.html

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. The worst terrorist attack conducted against the US...

used box cutters, so why are we worried about terrorists using semiauto rifles?

Thier biggest weapon is thier minds.

[Zynx]

10. Was there any evidence that they actually used boxcutters?

Flight 93, IIRC, they *said* they had a bomb.

The ones on the Pentagon plane supposedly had some sort of knives, but I haven't heard anything about the WTC planes.

[MrBenchley]

11. He was right on the money, op....

Much as the bullets for brains bunch don't want to hear fact.....

[CO Liberal]

13. I Thought Every Part Of His Speech Was Right On Target

Including the part you objected to.....

[MrBenchley]

14. The Big Dog tells the world:

"In this year's budget, the White House this year wants to cut off all the federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police officers under the COPS program we've had for 10 years. Among those 88,000 police are more than 700 members of the New York Police Department who put their lives on the line on 9/11.
With gang violence rising, and with all of us looking for terrorists in our midst and hoping they're not too well armed or too dangerous, the president and the Congress are about to allow the 10-year-old ban on deadly assault weapons to lapse.
Now, they believe it's the right thing to do. But our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street. And it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence.
Their policy is the reverse. They're taking police off the streets while they put assault weapons back on the street.
Now, if you agree with that choice, by all means, vote to keep them in office. But if you don't, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter and stronger again."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.clinton.transcript/index.html

Remember, one out of three of our pro-gun democrats ADMIT they aren't voting Democratic. Wonder what the real numbers are....

[NorthernSpy]

16. you are mistaken

Remember, one out of three of our pro-gun democrats ADMIT they aren't voting Democratic.

That is not true.


Mary

[MrBenchley]

18. Yes, it is true....14 of 42 are not

Just 28 out of 42 claim to be voting for Kerry....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=72427&mesg_id=72427

And the enthusiasm among our "pro-gundemocrats" is deafening...wonder what the REAL numbers would show.

But then I wonder which six trigger-happy fuckwits are voting for the Chimp....

[Romulus]

21. some people have gotten TOO good at spin that

they can't tell the WHOLE story without some polishing.

From the poll people are discussing:

28 are voting for Kerry/Edwards

3 aren't voting at all
1 is voting for Nader
6 say they're voting for Bush
4 say they are voting for "other" candidates

Soooo . . .

Out of 42 votes, 28 are for Kerry/Edwards, and only 6 are for Bush.

That's almost 5x as many Kerry/Edwards supporters as Bush supporters.

[MrBenchley]

22. So out of 42 "pro gun democrats" 1/3 aren't voting Democratic

JUST AS I SAID.....

Wonder what the real numbers would show.....

"That's almost 5x as many Kerry/Edwards supporters as Bush supporters"
Boy and the excitement among them was palpable, wasn't it?

[Wickerman]

23. Sadly, Mary 33% of our Gunners would rather someone besides Kerry

take the helm in Jan 2005.

I see that Benchley has cited the poll in the post above mine, but here is the breakout.

Kerry..........66.7%
Not Voting.....7.1%
Nader..........2.4%
Bush*..........14.3%
other..........9.5%

While it would be comforting to believe that many of the votes come from non-gungeonites or that the poll got freeped by someone, the sad truth is that the numbers are consistent with a similar poll conducted in the primaries. The poll isn't, of course, resembling scientific, but is mildly useful for supporting some previously held perceptions.

See, some folks seem to love guns so much that they willfully violate our DU rules and post here even though they are not liberal or progressive in nature. Odd, that conservatives would willfully violate one of their own rallying cries - that of the right to individual ownership. They have no respect for private property.

We have asked them to abide by our rules and respect this site as private property but they self-righteously believe their message is more important than following rules.

Frankly, I have little trust in folks who can't follow a simple request - one that they agree to when they digitally sign their names to gain access to our site. If they are unwilling to follow that rule how can we trust such folks with semi-automatic weapons? Concealed Handguns? Safe gun storage?

Some might argue that they don't agree with our rules so they don't need to follow them - they can come and go on this board as they please. Need I even point out the over-arching problem with that kind of "independent thinking"?

Oh well, at least they give me something to do - they keep me busy turning off their accounts, they remind me of my admitted bias that conservatives, by nature, will go to any means, including lying to achieve their goals, and, most regrettably, they reinforce a similar stereotype of the pro- RKBA crowd. A shame, really - one doesn't know whom to trust nor what part of the gun message should be believed.

peace

[MrBenchley]

24. And that's just the ones who admit it....

Some of the ones saying they're voting for Kerry acted like they were taking a dose of castor oil....

[JayS]

77. Castor oil is putting it too mildly. n/t

n/t

[NorthernSpy]

33. but, Lunabush...

... Mr. Benchley said that "...one out of three of our pro-gun democrats ADMIT they aren't voting Democratic," and I believe that he really is mistaken about that, for two reasons.

First, I think that there may have been a little confusion about who exactly was being polled, and about what: was the entire readership being polled on its prediction of how gun owners would cast their votes for president; or were gun owners specifically and individually being polled on their own intentions regarding the presidential race? The question asked, "Will Gun owners vote for Kerry?... Will, indeed, Kerry have enough to offer the RKBA crowd?" seems consistent with the first interpretation. The sample answers presented, however, jibe with the second. Given this, I can't rule out the possibility that at least some of the voters were merely predicting which way the country's gunner vote would swing -- and Benchley oughtn't to rule it out, either.

Second (and assuming for the moment interpretation #2 from above), when Mr. Benchley says that "one out of three of our pro-gun democrats ADMIT they aren't voting Democratic," he might rather have said that "a handful of Republican trolls ADMIT they aren't voting Democratic." I think it's safe to say that anyone who voted for Dumbya in your poll simply isn't a Democrat in the first place. Pro-gun Democrats are still Democrats, and being Democrats, they consistently vote Democratic: it's part of the definition. It's just not accurate to say that "our pro-gun Democrats" "aren't voting Democratic". The gunners that you talk to here every day are as anti-Bush as any of you. And we really are not responsible for the freeper jackasses who barge in on occasion. Those people are just a meaningless distraction -- a buzzing fly that comes and annoys us from time to time. But they have got nothing to do with us, and nothing they do or say is of any significance when measuring the sentiments of pro-gun Democrats.


Disclosure: I did vote in your poll -- for option #2. I'll vote for Kerry, though I'm hardly about to hail him as the Second Coming. He seems pretty reactionary for my tastes. If he'd only run on a more progressive platform, I would be more excited about him. But getting rid of Spurious George is the main thing, and sometimes you just gotta love the one you're with. This is one of those times. So, Kerry it is.


Fun fact: I have never voted for a Republican -- not even for one of these New England Republicans we have (which really are quite different from Repukes in the rest of the country).


Mary


(fixed: errata. Bet there are others -- can't seem to see them just now, tho)

[Wickerman]

35. The sample collected jibes pretty well with the Gungeon

makeup at any given time. Granted, most of our regular posters that are RKBAs are in fact Dems or progressives. Some are, simply, not.

And we really are not responsible for the freeper jackasses who barge in on occasion. Those people are just a meaningless distraction -- a buzzing fly that comes and annoys us from time to time.

I agree you are not responsible for those who barge in. I disagree that it is "on occasion" or "time to time". We have those folks on board nearly daily - it further wouldn't surprise me that we have long term posters here that do not match our liberal perspectives.

Case in point - we had someone here for some time that was always a little Right leaning. One day he decided to relinquish his account and now I see him posting consistently on conservative boards and spouting conservative crap.

That said, I rarely EVER receive an alert from the RKBA crowd for obvious trolls here in the Gungeon. That is unique to this forum, I believe. Most every other forum gets regular alerts from either issue side when someone spouts RT Wing ideology - here, I have one poster who regularly does so. Which is more important? Having an environment where we can discuss the merits of weapons and weapon control without conservative distraction or all hands support the RKBA cause? I understand the rules to support the former.

The conservatives who do post here do no service to the RKBA cause as they will, eventually, be found out. When they are discovered their deception only undercuts whatever good they have done to support the RKBA cause.

And Mary, please do not assume I was referring to you in my previous post. I appreciate your listing of your Dem credentials, but want you to know it was unnecessary to go through the effort - I would never accuse you or another Gungeonite of being a disrupter.

[MrSandman]

66. Did the sample jibe...

with the makeup of the Gungeon, in toto, or with the number of RKBA posters?

I must admit that I do not keep track of the numbers of posters, but if the former, the RKBA proportion might be more or less, depending on the way the non-regular RKBAers voted.

One of the Kerry votes is mine: He is not Bush.

[FeebMaster]

34. See that's the problem with a secret ballot.

We should do away with secret ballots. There should be some accountability when you cast a vote.

[Wickerman]

36. Screw that

and let everyone see that I voted Bush*?

:P

[JayS]

80. In the poll I said that I would be voting for Edwards for...

...Vice-President, which has the effect of garnering a vote for Kerry.

[Jack_DeLeon]

26. I disagree with Clinton on the AWB...

They're taking police off the streets while they put assault weapons back on the street.

How can you put something back that was never taken away.

[MrBenchley]

28. That IS funny....

But thanks for playing....

[slackmaster]

15. It's part of his legacy

I wouldn't expect him to let go of the AWB no matter how ineffective it was as a public safety measure. Bill Clinton put a lot of effort into getting SOMETHING passed. He applied his best diplomatic skills toward working out the compromise.

[OpSomBlood]

25. Some of the comments in the General forum re: AWB

Yeah, try to have Bu$h and the Repukes explain that one - We are making America safer by - putting AK47's in everyones hands, including Terrorists?

I'm not sure how the ban sunset "puts them in everyone's hands" when it never took them out of anyone's hands to begin with. Also note the AK-47 reference, a common theme in AWB discussions.

how about extra cops and extra assault weapons...This way we make sure that as many of our country's bravest die as possible!

How about we clamp down on the black market so that the weapons being used to kill cops don't get out there?

why are americans so in love with guns? why not ban them altogether? ALL guns? out here in India its extremely difficult to procure a license for a gun...

Ah, here comes the "love affair." Hang on to your hats, we'll get into love, insecurity and penis size soon enough.

Americans are basically Cowards...You see it on display constantly. They have watched so many violent movies and seen so much violence on the TV News that they have terrified themselves. There is no other logical explanation other than intense fear.

I somehow fail to see my desire to have the ability to defend myself and my family with lethal force if necessary as "cowardly." To the contrary, the fear is there but we choose to stand up to it rather than cower or place our lives in the hands of others.

so you're FOR assault weapons in the hands of... oh, just any-old-body? seriously? why? to what purpose? who really needs one of these? i mean besides crazy assholes who decide to go postal on a group of innocents or street thugs? i'm not putting you down, i really want to know why you support these tools of rage.

Here's the commonly-used "who needs them" argument coupled with the "only psychopaths want them" generalization. Talk about "intense fear"...

Is that what it means when the bill bans all models of Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs? That it's just going for things that "visually resemble" assault weapons?

Also TEC-9, Colt AR-15, etc.

Those aren't sporting rifles by any stretch of the imagination. What do you need an AK-47 for? Or a TEC-9?

"Who needs em" again. I had no idea we had to prove need in order to own things in this country.

Let's take your question to its logical end: Why would the government stop you from owning any weapon at all? What right does it have? Fully armed tanks; chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; why should you have to prove that you "need" these items? How about fully automatic guns, SAWs, SAMs, artillery? Why not open the floodgates?

And now we're cooking. Semi-automatic rifles are somehow akin to nuclear weapons and heavy artillery. I'm suprised it took this long to make the leap.

[MrBenchley]

31. What's hilarious, op...

is that the only argument our "pro gun democrats" can make as to why they should be able to get their sweaty shaky hands on assault weapons is the obvious lie: "we already have guns just like them....the ban didn't do anything."

But keep up the silliness, by all means...Tom DeLay knows what he's talking about but Clinton doesn't....

[Saltdog]

37. replies

"Yeah, try to have Bu$h and the Repukes explain that one
- We are making America safer by - putting AK47's in everyones
hands, including Terrorists?
I'm not sure how the ban sunset "puts them in everyone's
hands" when it never took them out of anyone's hands to
begin with. Also note the AK-47 reference, a common theme in
AWB discussions"

Answer:  There are many derivatives of the AK-47, the most
widely produced assault weapon on earth.  It is used
synonymously as short hand for assault weapon.  It took it out
of people's hands by not allowing new additional owners.  By
banning them, they also make it possible for law enforcement
to seize them during criminal investigations.  That's two ways
they keep them out of people's hands.

"how about extra cops and extra assault weapons...This
way we make sure that as many of our country's bravest die as
possible!
How about we clamp down on the black market so that the
weapons being used to kill cops don't get out there?"

Answer: Commendable, but the weapons have to be illegal to
remove them from circulation, otherwise the black market is
just the private market.  We also need to rid ourselves of the
loopholes for private gun sales at gun shows to criminals as
well as figure out a more reliable system of preventing access
to guns by the mentally incompetent.

"why are americans so in love with guns? why not ban them
altogether? ALL guns? out here in India its extremely
difficult to procure a license for a gun...
Ah, here comes the "love affair." Hang on to your
hats, we'll get into love, insecurity and penis size soon
enough."

Answer: Huh?  Was your response meant to refute anything?

"Americans are basically Cowards...You see it on display
constantly. They have watched so many violent movies and seen
so much violence on the TV News that they have terrified
themselves. There is no other logical explanation other than
intense fear.
I somehow fail to see my desire to have the ability to defend
myself and my family with lethal force if necessary as
"cowardly." To the contrary, the fear is there but
we choose to stand up to it rather than cower or place our
lives in the hands of others."

Answer: I don't agree with either position here.  I wouldn't
say people are cowardly because they live in fear.  One can be
afraid and still act bravely.  That said, buying a gun is not
an act of bravery.  Gun ownership might provide peace of mind
to the owner, but it is silly to think that owning a gun will
make you invulnerable to attack.

"so you're FOR assault weapons in the hands of... oh,
just any-old-body? seriously? why? to what purpose? who really
needs one of these? i mean besides crazy assholes who decide
to go postal on a group of innocents or street thugs? i'm not
putting you down, i really want to know why you support these
tools of rage.
Here's the commonly-used "who needs them" argument
coupled with the "only psychopaths want them"
generalization. Talk about "intense fear"...

Answer: The original poster asked a serious question, though
in a somewhat inflammatory way.  The reply fails to address
their primary concern, namely who should have access to
assault weapons and why?

"Is that what it means when the bill bans all models of
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs?
That it's just going for things that "visually
resemble" assault weapons?

Also TEC-9, Colt AR-15, etc.

Those aren't sporting rifles by any stretch of the
imagination. What do you need an AK-47 for? Or a TEC-9?

"Who needs em" again. I had no idea we had to prove
need in order to own things in this country."

Answer: We do indeed need to provide proof of need in order to
own many things in this country, as we should.  I, for one, do
not want my drunken idiotic neighbor to have access to C4
plastic explosive for the 4th of July because he thinks it is
cool.  Nor do I want frat boys to have unlimited access to
Rohypnol.  Anything that has a great likelihood of producing a
significant negative impact on others requires justification
for its possession and use.  This is common sense and standard
policy for most things on earth in most countries.  The burden
of proof remains with those who want to possess them.

"Let's take your question to its logical end: Why would
the government stop you from owning any weapon at all? What
right does it have? Fully armed tanks; chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons; why should you have to prove that you
"need" these items? How about fully automatic guns,
SAWs, SAMs, artillery? Why not open the floodgates?
And now we're cooking. Semi-automatic rifles are somehow akin
to nuclear weapons and heavy artillery. I'm suprised it took
this long to make the leap."

Answer: They are all military weapons designed to kill people,
their differences are in scale, not in kind.  The question
posed asked for a logical basis for defending the possession
of military style firearms.  They deserve a well reasoned and
thoughtful response.

[MrBenchley]

38. Worth noting

that we actually DID have "pro gun democrats" spouting THIS sort of thing down here a few days ago.....

"Yes they should all be legal for civilians to own. ICBM's might be now, I don't really know the laws concerning ballistic missiles....What's wrong with ICBMs? They're just large rockets....I built a lot of model rockets as a youth....Please cite the law that says I can't build my own working Minuteman 3....."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=71799

[FeebMaster]

39. You might want to read the AWB.

"Answer: There are many derivatives of the AK-47, the most
widely produced assault weapon on earth. It is used
synonymously as short hand for assault weapon. It took it
out of people's hands by not allowing new additional owners.
By banning them, they also make it possible for law
enforcement to seize them during criminal investigations.
That's two ways they keep them out of people's hands."

There are lots of AK-47 derivatives. Most of the ones in the US are semi-automatic. Most of the ones not in the US are machine guns. Some of the ones in the US are assault weapons with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors and sometimes folding stocks. Some of the ones in the US aren't assault weapons, they don't have bayonet lugs or flash suppressors or folding stocks.

To use AK-47 synonymously with assault weapon is being dishonest since most of the AK-47s in the world are actually machine guns and not a semi-automatic clone like you most often see here in the United States.

You really might want to read the AWB since it doesn't take anything out of anyone's hands and certainly doesn't prohibit additional owners or authorize law enforcement to seize them on a whim.

[Wickerman]

40. "...read the AWB since it doesn't take anything out of anyone's hands"

If it doesn't take anything out of anyone's hands and it doesn't prohibit new owners nor allow LE to seize them without just cause, why all the hubbub about the AWB? What am I missing?

If it is only cosmetic and doesn't accomplish anything, then why all the fight?

The more I read this forum the more I'm tempted to subscribe to the theory that the whole issue of gun ownership and gun control IS actually a giant conspiracy by gun manufacturers to sell more guns.

:tinfoilhat:

[Saltdog]

42. Don't be misled.

"If it doesn't take anything out of anyone's hands and it doesn't prohibit new owners nor allow LE to seize them without just cause, why all the hubbub about the AWB? What am I missing?"

What you are missing is that gun advocates aren't accurately informed. It does take them out of people's hands and it does prohibit new owners.

[slackmaster]

45. The AWB restricted supply and raised prices

And in so doing prevented some people from becoming new AW owners, but only if you follow the strict (i.e. legal) definition of assault weapon.

If you shift gears and consider post-bans to also be AWs, the law really accomplished nothing other than raising the price of used large-capacity magazines.

[Saltdog]

48. legal definition

defines what weapons are banned. It "restricted supply" by making them illegal.

It is a fantasy to think that nothing was accomplished.

[slackmaster]

59. Not meaning to nit-pick you, but it made manufacturing new ones illegal

(for other than governmen tor law enforcement use)

It did not make the existing weapons illegal in any way, including transfers of grandfathered ones.

It is a fantasy to think that nothing was accomplished.

Note that I have never made any such claim.

Let's look at what it really accomplished:

- Manufactuters were able to modify AFAIK all of their AW designs to not be AWs and therefore legal to manufacture. Notably in the case of the AR-15, this resulted in lots more choices of configurations than existed previously.

- The Violence Policy Center claims that more than one million post-ban weapons have been sold in the last 10 years.

- Prices of true (pre-ban) AWs increased a lot due to static supply.

- Prices of some types of large-capacity magazines increased. Others remain plentiful because the market is saturated.

[Saltdog]

62. Agree

there are unfortunate loopholes, as there will be in any legislation, but the intent of the law was good and so was the overall effect.

As you note, the static supply has caused an increase in prices. The supply of these weapons is not increasing, which is the intent of the law.

As manufacturers use various means to undermine the law, the appropriate response of legislatures is to continue to meet them by advancing the legislation to include the new modifications.

If there have been so many post ban sales, imagine how many more sales there would have been had there not been any such ban.

[slackmaster]

65. I have to answer your last sentence as "essentially zero"

Post-bans took the market niche that pre-bans had occupied. Pre-bans became toys for wealthier people and collectors.

It's conceivable to me, though I cannot prove it, that the ban increased interest in military-looking firearms that take detachable magazines, so there may be more of them in circulation than there would have been with no ban. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

[Saltdog]

68. Unintended consequences should be verified

I guess you are saying that banning them increased demand, so would making something legal would reduce demand? I'm not certain that could be proven. Interesting theory though.

[slackmaster]

70. As I said, I have no hard evidence to back up my claim

It would be impossible to experimentally go back to 1994 and not enact the AWB to get a really meaningful result.

...so would making something legal would reduce demand?

Let me say this about that:

Right now gun stores in most states have post-ban weapons on the shelves. Pretty much everyone who wants an AR-15 or an AK clone right now has one, except for a small trickle of newly interested people who reach age 18 or come into sufficient cash to make such a discretionary purchase.

Any serious movement in Congress to regulate them (ban or anything short of that) is bound to increase interest in them. Some people will buy them because they believe a ban is coming.

OTOH if people who wish to reduce gun-related crime would honestly adopt the stated goals of the Violence Policy Center, i.e. to find NEW APPROACHES to the problem (other than banning this or that type of weapon) that probable run on gun stores will have no motivation to materialize. The less discussion of what kinds of guns are "good" vs. "bad", the less interest people will take in them IMO.

[Saltdog]

71. Ban plus new approaches

would be the most prudent course of action. I wouldn't endorce removing all gun control laws from the books as a first step toward any program to reduce gun violence. I would think of bans as a first step.

[MrBenchley]

73. Welcome to the gungeon, saltdog

As you can see, our "pro gun democrats" put gun industry profits above ALL other considerations.....

[JayS]

75. I'll go with the "new approaches" aspect of gun control...

...any day. My support goes to those programs that exact extremely harsh penalties on violent felons using or possessing firearms. However, this approach will not, as expected, do anything to combat other forms of violence or may even increase them, as is possibly what next year's stats will reveal about homicide by knife here in Texas after the new firearm laws took effect. (There is the appearance that the use of knives in homicides is up sharply but no supporting data is available yet that I am aware of)

This new gun control approach MUST include efforts at reducing the root causes of violence or else the current generation of violent criminals may be off the streets but a new one will be in the making. My personal take is that the War On Drugs, as we currently know it, must end and the educational opportunities, broadly defined, must be greatly increased. The crickets really go at it when you start talking about this half of the equation though.

[MrBenchley]

78. Gee, that IS hilarious....

"This new gun control approach MUST include efforts at reducing the root causes of violence"
Gee, what do people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein have to say about job programs, aid to education, aid to dependent families, after-school programs, etc. etc. etc.....

[JayS]

79. I am certain they have a lot to say about these issues but...

...their message is totally lost in the noise they create. When Kerry takes office this will be the same sort of mess he will create for himself unless Edwards can talk some sense into him.

[MrBenchley]

81. That IS hilarious....

In fact, the "gun rights" politicians, such as the fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus, do nothing but exacerbate these "root causes of violence" you profess such concern about.

"this will be the same sort of mess he will create for himself"
What mess will Kerry face? Right wing fuckwits from the gun lobby lying their asses off? Big surprise there.

And last time anybody looked, Edwards stood for closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons. He felt so strongly on those issues he and Kerry came back to lead the charge on them during the campaign...and defeat the gun lobby's shameful "immunity from liability" bill that the GOP was trying to ram through the Senate...

[JayS]

82. Actually, the number of politicians that take any workable...

...approach to solving the root causes of violence is extremely low, almost non-existent. Don't look for this to change any time soon.

Study Bill Clinton's first term and see what a mess he made and how much of what he could have truly done get wrecked. And no, it does not take any lies from anyone when the simple truth will do.

And yes, Edwards does have to try and appear in sync with Kerry on some issues. You will note that the NRA and most gunowners want to see NICS expanded to cover private sales, just like Edwards does. You will also note that Edwards voted against the Lawful Commerce In Arms Act because he had the same problem with it that I did; it only covered one industry against lawsuits arising from the illegal use of their products when all industries need this same protection.

[MrBenchley]

83. Who the hell DO you think you're kidding?

"Study Bill Clinton's first term and see what a mess he made and how much of what he could have truly done get wrecked."
Gee, and who wrecked it? Oh yeah, the same sort of right wing fuckwits who trun around spouting this gun rigths bullshit.

"yes, Edwards does have to try and appear in sync with Kerry on some issues"
They were running AGAINST each other when they shot down the NRA's scummy "get away with murder" bill, Jay.

"You will note that the NRA and most gunowners want to see NICS expanded to cover private sales"
Oh, that IS a fucking laugh and a half. The NRA has opposed any attempt to close the gun show loophole. Here's that right wing ass James Baker on the subject:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/baker/baker3.html


"You will also note that Edwards voted against the Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"
Again, it's swell to see what outright fantasy the RKBA arguments are made of...Edwards did not vote at all on the bill, since the NRA was scuttling the measure, and he was preparing his own withdrawal from the race....

[JayS]

84. Clinton did it all on his own and the pounding he got for it was...

...justified, in my opinion. When Kerry is elected in November I will be among the first to engage in preemptive pounding and will step it up once he takes office and shows the first signs of starting down the wrong path.

I have no idea where you get your information on Kerry and Edwards and on how and why they take the actions they do. I don't even think you read the links you post. If you do, you missed what they were about.

[MrBenchley]

85. Wow....talk about demial and distortion...

"When Kerry is elected in November I will be among the first to engage in preemptive pounding"
Gee, and I'm supposed to be surprised that one of our "pro gun democrats" hates Democrats?

"I have no idea where you get your information on Kerry and Edwards"
Read the news once in a while.

[JayS]

86. No, I have a growing dislike for Kerry, along with an...

...already strong aversion to certain other Democrats. You have a problem with that? I don't.

For news on Kerry and Edwards, try their websites.

[MrBenchley]

87. No, I'm not surprised at all....

It just confirms what I've said all along about our "pro gun democrats"...

[JayS]

88. Yes, we do tend to stop and evaluate candidates based on...

...their merits, or lack thereof, and vote accordingly and not just based on who happens to be sporting a "D" after their name. Sadly, the only choice this election cycle is Kerry; I can tolerate him for four years and hope to see a Democrat running for office in '08.

[MrBenchley]

89. Yeah, it shows....

"hope to see a Democrat running "
You're looking at them.

[JayS]

90. What a scary statement.

[MrBenchley]

91. Only to Zell Miller type DINO's

But then a third of our "pro gun democrats" admitted they won't vote for Kerry...guess lying out loud about a supposed threat to their crappy little popguns is more important than the good of their country and their fellow citizens.

[Romulus]

92. but, but, but

I thought if the guy/girl has a "D" behind his/her name, that's all that matters, and he/she was beyond reproach?!?!

Anyone who criticizes any Democrat MUST be an assclown dittomonkey, rotten from stem to stern!!! <snicker>

(edited to add)

Two out of three people polled said they would vote for Kerry. A DU moderator said that of the 1/3 who indicated otherwise, a substantial percentage were disruptors or trolls.

So, that makes the actual percentage of pro-gun-owner Democrats who are voting FOR Kerry higher than the 66.7% indicated.

Any further reference to "one third won't vote for Kerry" is just a bunch of pie-hole flapping. But I'm sure that won't stop the extremists from next clamoring about the "one in four," or some such other nonsense.:eyes:

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JayS]

74. I agree with Slackmaster about the increased demand...

...but only have anecdotal evidence to base this agreement on. To my knowledge, no objective study has ever been conducted in this area other than to note the increased sales of this type of firearm before the ban took effect.

[JayS]

76. I disagree with you here. The ban did not include a...

...confiscation clause, excepting those that cannot legally own any firearm of course, and you can certainly buy pre-ban weapons in most states, or buy a new one without certain features.

I'm too old-fashioned to care for military-style firearms but if I had call for something that will get banged around a lot then I would look into one. If it began to look like an expanded ban was down the road then I might buy some just for the investment potential though.

[FeebMaster]

44. I didn't say the AWB didn't do anything.

I said it didn't take anything out of anyone's hands. Am I mistaken?


"If it doesn't take anything out of anyone's hands and it doesn't prohibit new owners nor allow LE to seize them without just cause, why all the hubbub about the AWB? What am I missing?"

So then you're going to subscribe to the "gun owners want it to sunset so maybe it shouldn't" view? The hubbub is that people want cheaper magazines and collapsible stocks and bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. For some people, it's just the principle of the thing.


"If it is only cosmetic and doesn't accomplish anything, then why all the fight?"

Perhaps you'd like to point out where the word "cosmetic" appeared in my post. The AWB accomplished plenty. The gun grabbers have spent the last 15 years or so pissing away money on bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks. If they had any sense at all they'd be using the NFA to get rid of shotguns with more than a 5 round capacity. They wouldn't even need to pass a new law. How hilarious is that? Of course, since most of the haven't read the NFA and have no clue whatsoever about what it does, I guess they're just out of luck.


"The more I read this forum the more I'm tempted to subscribe to the theory that the whole issue of gun ownership and gun control IS actually a giant conspiracy by gun manufacturers to sell more guns."

The NRA probably makes more money off of gun control than the gun manufacturers do. Although, I'll grant you that the AWB increased the interest in so called assault weapons. Come to think of it, every gun control law that gets passed does make the gun manufacturers more money. Especially import bans. Drives the price of guns up and forces them to be produced domestically.

[Wickerman]

50. An apology if you felt the cosmetic issue was attributed to you

the question was much more rhetorical in nature than directed AT you. Thank you for the clarification of the "hubbub".

The profit issue was tongue in cheeck, but sometimes I gotta wonder.

[FeebMaster]

55. I don't wonder.

The NRA certainly profits from gun control. Where would they be without it?

As I understand it, Bill Ruger supported a restriction on magazine capacity of 15 rounds since his pistol had a 15 round capacity while his competition had 17. I've even heard it said that the magazine ban was his idea. Could be an urban legend, I guess, but plenty of businessmen are happy to use the government and its power to increase their profits. Is it just a coincidence that the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30 are specifically exempted from the AWB despite firing the same cartridges as the AR-15 and AK-47?

[Romulus]

53. nibbling away at firearms ownership

The "hubbub" is over several things, but I consider the main argument against the AWB to be that there is ZERO decrease in firepower available to civilians under such a ban than without such a ban. (I'm talking about the "no more than two banned pieces" part of the AWB, NOT the magazine capacity component of Fed law)

The stated purpose of the AWB is to get "firepower off the streets." Since the supposedly banned amount of firepower was never taken "off the streets" under ban #1, guess what needs to be banned next? When ban #2 also doesn't work, guess what gets banned next?

Since there is no obvious safety benefit from the ban, we must look at what the other benefits are from the ban. I think number one benefit would be a desensitization to firearms regulation, leading to further restrictions in the name of "public safety."

The only purpose for these further restrictions is to eventually wind up with a South African-style "may issue" firearms ownership licensing system where your application for mere ownership can be denied "because you husband can protect you.":eyes:

A similar chipping away strategy can be seen in the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban movement. "Late term" abortions are condemned outright, but not earlier term abortions because "that's not what's being talked about." But if the "late-term" abortions are to be considered "baby killing," what does that do to the argument that abortions performed one week before the arbitrarily-imposed "late term" cutoff date are OK? Is it a "baby killing," or is it not? What makes one week "A-OK," but another week "murder?"

[MrBenchley]

54. Wow...so few people

confuse a popgun with childbearing and their sex life....

"there is no obvious safety benefit from the ban"
Sure there is....

"The only purpose for these further restrictions is to eventually wind up with a South African-style "may issue" firearms ownership licensing system where your application for mere ownership can be denied "because you husband can protect you.""
Too TOO funny. Yeah, that's the world thinks of Nelson Mandela's South Africa...there aren't enough gun owners....

[MrBenchley]

56. The gun lobby itself showed what a lie that was...

when they scuttled their disgraceful "immunity from liability" bill...clearly they know the AWB works.

"The bill was a top priority for the National Rifle Assn. But before the final vote, gun control advocates successfully proposed amendments to extend the federal ban on assault weapons and to tighten background checks for sales at gun shows.
Just before the final vote, the NRA told its Senate allies that it could no longer support the bill, which had 54 sponsors as the day began. The chief sponsor, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), then stunned colleagues by urging them to vote against his own bill.
With both sides of the issue now opposed to the bill, the vote to kill it was 90 to 8. "I've never seen anything quite like this," said an amazed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) after the final vote. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a leader of the gun control forces, joked that the vote would jeopardize his 0% favorability rating from the NRA.
Sens. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina interrupted their campaigns for the Democratic presidential nod Tuesday to return to the Capitol and vote for the amendments."

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/latimes3_3.cfm

[MrSandman]

67. Because when it is proven ineffective...

There must be some more restrictive alternative, and another....

As in SB 1431(I think that is the bill), it would be presumptive that any semiautomatic rifle adopted by the US military or Fed law enforcement has no sporting purpose. How far is it from this to any rifle? There, now Bolt actions and lever actions fall under AW category.

Oh, let's use this test on handguns. There goes the M1911, the various Glocks, Sigs, S&W's.

Well the single shot rifles are still available for sportsmen. Did the army not use Trapdoor actions?

[Saltdog]

41. You might want to read my post

Criminals arrested for any charge (drugs, etc.) in possession of illegal weapons will have such weapons seized under the AWB, thereby removing them from people's hands. Banning addition importation and sale of the weapons also take them out of people's hands by disallowing additional new owners. I never mentioned police taking them away on a whim.

As I said, there are many derivatives of the AK-47. They all have military uses, even the semi-automatic ones. China has been using the SKS variant (semi-automatic model) for years. I don't advocate using AK-47 as a synonym, but many people do, I was explaining that.

It is not an entirely unfair use of the term though since so many assault weapons are derivatives of the AK-47. Furthermore, the semi-automatic nature of the derivative weapons allow them to be used very aggressively, especially if used in conjunction with high volume clips. I've seen people fire semi-automatic rifles 8 times per second. That is equivalent to a fully-automatic rifle firing 480 rounds per minute (480 rounds per minute is rather fast, even by fully-automatic standards).

Frankly, implying that somehow a semi-automatic AK-47 derivative is a harmless hunting gun while a fully-automatic AK-47 is in a totally different category is intellectually dishonest.

[slackmaster]

43. The AWB is not needed in order to seize firearms from criminals

Just a data point about the Gun Control Act of 1968: Anyone who is convicted of a serious crime (violent or a felony or ANY illegal drug charge, for example) is not allowed to possess any kind of firearm. Someone who is arrested on suspicion of drug dealing or live-in-lover beating or felony jaywalking can (and they routinely do) have all weapons in their possession confiscated by police. If they're convicted (and even sometimes when they aren't) they never see those weapons again.

[Saltdog]

47. convicted versus arrested

Someone arrested, but not convicted, for a crime is allowed to keep their weapons. If those weapons are assault weapons and the AWB is no longer in effect, then they can keep those weapons. If the AWB is in effect, then they are in possession of illegal firearms that will be seized, regardless of the outcome of the criminal charges against them.

[JayS]

51. Do you have a cite for this? If this were accurate, I am sure that...

...it would have made the rounds here a time or two. :)

[slackmaster]

57. Uh, no

Maybe I've missed some relevant parts of the thread, but the present about-to-expire AWB fully grandfathered all existing AWs. WRT the right of a person accused but not convicted (i.e. charges dropped or defendant acquitted) of a crime to keep them, AWs are treated exactly the same as all other firearms.

Please accept my apology if you are talking about a hypothetical, stricter AWB that actually requires confiscation of weapons.

[Saltdog]

63. Only if

They happen to be someone who owned one of the weapons banned when the ban went into effect would there be an "okey-dokey" on the part of law enforcement.

I guess I should have clarified.

[MrSandman]

94. No, only if the banned weapon were manufactured...

after the ban went into effect.

Transfer of preban weapons is okey-dokey.

[MrSandman]

72. If they are criminals...

They have a previous conviction.

If they are not convicted, they are not criminals.

Of course, if as many weapons as possible are "banned" then more can be taken out of civilian ownership.

BTW, even a "semi-automatic assault weapon" will be returned to a non-criminal(YMMV) if it was manufactured pre 1994. The ban is on the manufacture, not sale or possession.

[Romulus]

46. OK, nice post

Frankly, implying that somehow a semi-automatic AK-47 derivative is a harmless hunting gun while a fully-automatic AK-47 is in a totally different category is intellectually dishonest.

Explain why a magazine-fed semi-auto Saiga or magazine-fed semi-auto Mini-30 is "less deadlier" than a magazine-fed semi-auto SKS or magazine-fed semi-auto AK-clone.

BTW: Any reference to a "spray firing pistol grip" ends the discussion.

[Saltdog]

64. I wouldn't say that

I might even conclude they are worse because they are more easily concealed.

I'm not saying the AWB is ideal, but it is a start.

[FeebMaster]

49. Criminals as in people with criminal records

"Criminals arrested for any charge (drugs, etc.) in possession of illegal weapons will have such weapons seized under the AWB, thereby removing them from people's hands. Banning addition importation and sale of the weapons also take them out of people's hands by disallowing additional new owners. I never mentioned police taking them away on a whim."

at least of the felony variety are forbidden from owning firearms. It has nothing to do with the AWB.

The AWB doesn't bar the sale of Assault Weapons. If I'm mistaken, please quote the portion of the law that does.


"As I said, there are many derivatives of the AK-47. They all have military uses, even the semi-automatic ones. China has been using the SKS variant (semi-automatic model) for years. I don't advocate using AK-47 as a synonym, but many people do, I was explaining that."

Show me a military that issues semi-automatic AK-47s. China sure as hell doesn't. Semi-automatic SKS? Kind of redundant don't you think? Almost every SKS is semi-automatic.


"It is not an entirely unfair use of the term though since so many assault weapons are derivatives of the AK-47. Furthermore, the semi-automatic nature of the derivative weapons allow them to be used very aggressively, especially if used in conjunction with high volume clips. I've seen people fire semi-automatic rifles 8 times per second. That is equivalent to a fully-automatic rifle firing 480 rounds per minute (480 rounds per minute is rather fast, even by fully-automatic standards)."

Whooptie-friggen-do. Ed McGivern could accurately fire five shots out of a revolver in two-fifths of a second. So someone can pull a trigger 8 times in a second. Can they do it accurately, hit what they're shooting at and so forth? Does it matter if they can?


"Frankly, implying that somehow a semi-automatic AK-47 derivative is a harmless hunting gun while a fully-automatic AK-47 is in a totally different category is intellectually dishonest."

I never said they were harmless, but I don't see what's wrong with hunting with an AK-47 whether it's a semi-auto derivative of a machine gun or the real deal. In fact, the word hunting didn't appear in my post at all. That's an interesting point of view you've got about intellectual dishonesty.

[Saltdog]

58. Replies, again

"The AWB doesn't bar the sale of Assault Weapons. If I'm mistaken, please quote the portion of the law that does."

Answer:
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the `Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act'.
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,
transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

US Code, Title 18, Section 922
(a) It shall be unlawful
(1) for any person -
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing,
manufacturing, or dealing in firearms
(2) for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector
licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or
transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any
person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector

"Show me a military that issues semi-automatic AK-47s. China sure as hell doesn't. Semi-automatic SKS? Kind of redundant don't you think? Almost every SKS is semi-automatic."

Answer: I clarified the nature of the SKS for those members of the DU community who are not familiar with the particular model cited. I didn't say that the SKS was standard military issue in China. China distributes them in bulk to various allies for use by militias and rebel groups. Is this really what your argument centers around?

"Whooptie-friggen-do. Ed McGivern could accurately fire five shots out of a revolver in two-fifths of a second. So someone can pull a trigger 8 times in a second. Can they do it accurately, hit what they're shooting at and so forth? Does it matter if they can?"

Answer: Well, yes, since we are debating the difference between semi and fully automatic machine guns and the potential damage to society by their uncontrolled distribution among the criminal population.

"I never said they were harmless, but I don't see what's wrong with hunting with an AK-47 whether it's a semi-auto derivative of a machine gun or the real deal. In fact, the word hunting didn't appear in my post at all. That's an interesting point of view you've got about intellectual dishonesty."

Answer: So you advocate elimination of all restrictions on gun ownership? Wally and the Beav running around town with an M60 on a Saturday afternoon? What a sensible position to hold. And this will reduce crime and protect our freedom in exactly which ways?

[FeebMaster]

60. You missed a few lines

like where it grandfathers all of the "Assault Weapons" manufactured before the ban. Nice try though, better than the last guy I asked. He quoted the NFA.

"Answer: I clarified the nature of the SKS for those members of the DU community who are not familiar with the particular model cited. I didn't say that the SKS was standard military issue in China. China distributes them in bulk to various allies for use by militias and rebel groups. Is this really what your argument centers around?"

Translation: China can barely give the things away since everyone wants full-auto AK-47s.

"Answer: Well, yes, since we are debating the difference between semi and fully automatic machine guns and the potential damage to society by their uncontrolled distribution among the criminal population."

Oh, is that what we're debating? Your "difference between semi and fully automatic machine guns" is unclear to me. Are you saying "the difference between semi-auto weapons and full-auto machine guns" or "the difference between semi-auto machine guns and full-auto machine guns?" Because one of those simply doesn't makes sense, but I don't want to misunderstand what you mean.


"Answer: So you advocate elimination of all restrictions on gun ownership? Wally and the Beav running around town with an M60 on a Saturday afternoon? What a sensible position to hold. And this will reduce crime and protect our freedom in exactly which ways?"

As a matter of fact I do advocate the elimination of all restrictions on gun ownership. If Wally and the Beav want to buy an M60 and go blast away down by the crick on Saturday afternoon, that's just fine by me.

I'm glad you agree it's a sensible position to hold. I make no claims on the reduction of crime or protecting freedom. Regulation of weapons has nothing to do with crime, other than creating a black market and affecting the prices on that market. As for protecting freedom, well if the government trusts Wally and the Beav to own an M60 I don't think that government is particularly concerned with taking away Wally and the Beav's freedom.

[Saltdog]

61. Wading through the...

"like where it grandfathers all of the "Assault Weapons" manufactured before the ban. Nice try though, better than the last guy I asked. He quoted the NFA."

Answer: The section is quite long, I didn't include everything because a lot of it doesn't affect the argument here. The grandfather clause was included so that weapons currently owned would not be seized from their current owners. Stopping the production and sale of additional new weapons constitutes a significant reduction in the availability of these weapons for future generations.

"Translation: China can barely give the things away since everyone wants full-auto AK-47s"

Answer: What a strange reply. So, the millions of rifles in the hands of rebel groups through Southeast Asia grudgingly accept the weapons? Bizarre theory.

"Oh, is that what we're debating? Your "difference between semi and fully automatic machine guns" is unclear to me. Are you saying "the difference between semi-auto weapons and full-auto machine guns" or "the difference between semi-auto machine guns and full-auto machine guns?" Because one of those simply doesn't makes sense, but I don't want to misunderstand what you mean."

Answer: You honestly want to try to differentiate between the term weapon and machine gun as it relates to the nature of its operation? Since the US government classifies all rifles as weapons, regardless of their mode of operation, I think you'll have a tough time coming up with evidence.

"As a matter of fact I do advocate the elimination of all restrictions on gun ownership. If Wally and the Beav want to buy an M60 and go blast away down by the crick on Saturday afternoon, that's just fine by me."

Answer: I'm glad you are able to clearly demonstrate to everyone here the absurdity of your position. Such irresponsible policy positions are the realm of Libertarians, not Democrats. Perhaps you'd feel more at home on another forum?

[FeebMaster]

69. Wading through what?

"Answer: The section is quite long, I didn't include everything because a lot of it doesn't affect the argument here. The grandfather clause was included so that weapons currently owned would not be seized from their current owners. Stopping the production and sale of additional new weapons constitutes a significant reduction in the availability of these weapons for future generations."

Long? If you say so. How does stopping the production of new weapons constitute a significant reduction in the availability of the weapons when the very same weapons are being produced minus flash suppressors and bayonet lugs?


"Answer: What a strange reply. So, the millions of rifles in the hands of rebel groups through Southeast Asia grudgingly accept the weapons? Bizarre theory."

What are you talking about? An SKS is certainly better than nothing.


"Answer: You honestly want to try to differentiate between the term weapon and machine gun as it relates to the nature of its operation? Since the US government classifies all rifles as weapons, regardless of their mode of operation, I think you'll have a tough time coming up with evidence."

Machine guns, by definition, legally and otherwise are fully-automatic. I was questioning whether you were mistakenly referring to semi-automatic weapons as machine guns or if you were just being deliberately dishonest.



"Answer: I'm glad you are able to clearly demonstrate to everyone here the absurdity of your position. Such irresponsible policy positions are the realm of Libertarians, not Democrats. Perhaps you'd feel more at home on another forum?"

How is my position absurd? Up until 1934 it was perfectly acceptable for Wally and the Beav to buy a BAR or one of Browning's belt feds and blast away down by the crick. Even after that the law was only occasionally enforced up until '68 or so. There weren't too many problems that I've heard of. In fact, pretty much all the problems with drugs and guns started up after the gun grabbers and puritans got their various regulations passed. Who is being socially irresponsible?

[FatSlob]

27. He's wrong on that issue, but right on most others.

He's forgiven for his slip! Go Wild Bill! Isn't it nice that we have the political stars, and THEY do not?

[OpSomBlood]

29. I can't think of many other issues Big Dog is "wrong" on.

Like I said...AWB aside, I thought last night's speech was spectacular.

[FatSlob]

30. I only caught a portion of it, my daughter wanted to play.

But he seemed to look great, and sounded darn good.

[JayS]

52. The part I heard was darn good but I lost interest after he...

...started in on the "assault weapons will be back on the streets" nonsense. If he wants to go on national television and lie, I wish he would do it some other time, and definitely not while endorsing Kerry. If he wants to help Bush, he should go on FOX. At least he didn't start in on the "500,000 felons prohibited from buying guns" stuff again.

[MrBenchley]

32. Says it all....

Federal Law Banning Assault Weapons Unlikely to Be Renewed
Coalition of Republican Party, NRA, Crips, Bloods, Taliban, Mafia working hard for its defeat.

http://www.ironictimes.com/

[EconGeek]

95. Yeah, cause the Taliban is tired of Full Auto!

In the middle east you can go to their "gun shows" and buy rocket propelled grenades not to mention full auto "Assautl weapons".

why would they buy them in the US where its extremely rare to see even a single FA rifle at a gun show, let alone be able to buy one. (You can't. You simply cannot buy FA without going thru a lot of paper work....)

I sometimes think that people who want ot ban guns think that a random person or criminal can walk off the street, into a gun show, and but a machine gun.

That hasn't been the case for 70 years!

[MrBenchley]

96. Geem, gun nuts must be hardly able to contain themselves...

waiting for this country to become another Beirut....

"why would they buy them in the US?"
Gee, because they might have trouble smuggling them into the US in their suitcases? It would be much easier to just walk into a gun shop with a credit card.

[EconGeek]

97. Full of insults, but very ignorant.

Please, inform yourself on the current set of laws before you make such silly assertions. You may fool the ignorant but you're not going to fool the informed. Gun shops don't even sell RPGs, and very rarely do they sell FA weapons, and even for what they do sell, you need more than a credit card.

[MrBenchley]

98. Nope. I was right on the money.

[library_max]

99. Psst. Your tombstone is showing. /nt

[thomas82]

100. Well I would almost agree

But terrorist will cause more death and destruction with explosives, IEDs etc. AKs have always been readily available $300 at most gun shows. Most of the AKs used in crimes are illegal full auto's or stolen weapons. This once again proving the Assault Weapon ban is a waste of time and effort.
Tom

[library_max]

101. Almost agree with what?

The full-auto AKs you refer to are almost 100% converted from semi-auto, not purchased in Russia, etc. And stolen weapons are generally stolen from someone who owned them legally. Remove the legal weapons and what's there to steal? This once again proving the Assault Weapon ban is not a waste of time and effort. (Well, actually, it doesn't prove anything, but neither did you).