Assault weapon ban gets boost from election results

[billbuckhead]

Assault weapon ban gets boost from election results

November 17, 2006
State legislators from the Cook County suburbs as well as the collar counties would be well-served to look at the results of the Nov. 7 election as they consider their votes on gun issues in the 2007 General Assembly.

In Cook County, a referendum proposal calling for a statewide ban on assault weapons was approved with more than 85 percent of the vote. The results were not all that surprising considering that more than 70 percent of voters statewide have indicated their support for an assault weapons ban in the past. What is surprising is that several legislators from suburban Cook County voted against an assault weapons ban in 2005. If those legislators truly are representing their constituencies, then they should be reconsidering their vote if they have the opportunity to consider this measure next year.

Legislators in the collar counties also should think twice before completely supporting the gun lobby on its agenda next year. In three collar county senate districts (22nd, 31st and 42nd), candidates supported by the gun lobby (Roth, Simpson and Wintermute) were defeated by candidates who support stronger gun laws (Noland, Bond and Holmes). In addition, Congresswoman Melissa Bean, running in a district that takes in suburban Cook, Lake and McHenry counties, defeated National Rifle Association-endorsed David McSweeney.
----------------snip----------------------------------------
<http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/opinion/letters/140269,1LTR1-17.article>

Below is the history of state assault weapons bans.



History of State Assault Weapons Bans


2000


New York - The law established criminal sanctions for the possession and sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, mirroring the federal law. It made it a felony to possess or sell an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine that was manufactured after the federal law took effect.


1999


California - California strengthened its 1989 ban on semi-automatic assault weapons by expanding the list of prohibited weapons to include weapons with specific military characteristics like pistol grips and folding stocks. California also restricted the sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.


1998


Massachusetts - The law restricted sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and required a special license for anyone seeking to acquire an assault weapon, a large capacity weapon or a large capacity ammunition magazine.


1994


Maryland - The law bans 16 types of assault pistols and also restricts ammunition magazines that hold over 20 rounds. The bill prohibits possession, sale, transfer purchase or receipt of assault pistols within the state.


1993


Connecticut - This was the fourth law to ban semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill bans the future sale of 63 types of military-style weapons, including the Connecticut-made Colt "Sporter" assault rifle. Challenged in State Court by the NRA, the ban was upheld as constitutional on June 30, 1994.


1991


Hawaii - Capping a two-year effort, the legislature passed a landmark bill banning assault pistols and pistol ammunition magazines which hold more than ten rounds. This was the first state law to use a generic definition of assault weapons and its magazine ban was the most restrictive in the nation.


1990


New Jersey - This law not only banned a more comprehensive list of assault weapons than the California law, it also banned large-capacity ammunition magazines (over 15). The law included a list and prohibited firearms that were substantially identical to the list. Any "assault firearm" had to be registered, licensed or rendered inoperable by May 30, 1991 or it would be considered contraband. (Note: The NRA has tried desperately to overturn the New Jersey law. In 1993, it looked like the NRA might win when the Assembly overrode the Governor's veto of the NRA's repealer bill. When the vote was finally taken, not one Senator voted for the NRA bill.)


1989


California - The first assault weapon ban passed in the nation was the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act, which banned the future sale of a specific list of assault weapons in California. This law was upheld as constitutional in federal court against an NRA challenge and the NRA did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The law also was upheld against several other state and federal legal challenges.

<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb>

[hollowdweller]

1. Yeah let the states where people want that vote for it. Don't make it federal

The Dems in congress touch any gun control stuff and they'll lose the majority again. Leave it to the states where they feel there is a problem to address it.

[Erika]

2. I know more liberal gun owners than the other way

They just have more common sense on gun locks, gun control, etc.

No, I'm not going to run from the radical NRA nor should our platform. We are the one who has the reasonable stance.

Quit using the battered wife syndrome. We're not there anymore.

[krispos42]

3. Ah. "Reasonable stance", The phrase sounds alarms in all pro-gunners

Well, so it begins. Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008 starts right here and now, ten days after a landslide win.

I also sense a furious debate in this thread over the next couple of days.

I am going to say, in advance, that since nearly all Repubs, a lot of the independents, and a pretty vocal percentage of Dems are pro-gun, that the Democratic Party should let sleeping dogs lie. If we're going to be booted out in '08, can it PLEASE be for impeaching and jailing Bush and Cheney and NOT for trying to make pistol-grip guns illegal again?!?!?!?

[Erika]

6. As a Dem gun owner in a carry state

I welcome the gun issues.

[dubykc]

5. Agreed, let the states handle the gun control issues.

[Erika]

7. But the feds should handle pot and end of life issues?

As Ashcfroft dictated. OK, why the difference?

[lcordero2]

12. I prefer that the states handle that too n/t

[dubykc]

51. I didn't say anything about pot or end-of-life issue, those...

belong at the state level as well.

[-..__...]

56. You mean the way the states have handled the gay marriage issue?

If anything, I would more than welcome a decision from the SCOTUS clearly stating the the 2nd amendment
is an individual right, and that it be incorporated into the BOR under the 14th amendment so that no states can enact gun control laws.

[nebenaube]

4. bullshit!

Facsists at the gate and you want to ban guns? Ban torture and tasers instead!

[Erika]

8. bs about what? n/t

[lcordero2]

9. AMEN!!! n/t

[MGD]

15. Ban tear gas and sonic weapons, not guns.

[Erika]

18. Who was talking about banning "guns"

Reasonable control of the high action automatic weapons is a different subject.

[piedmont]

35. The OP, for one. you, for another.

Reasonable control of the high action automatic weapons is a different subject.
And yet STILL not the subject of the Assault Weapons Ban, which is the subject of the thread

[MGD]

42. "high action automatic weapons "

A.) what the hell is a "high action" weapon.
B.) Automatic weapons have been illegal to own since like 1934.
C.) You defend the right to own hand guns; however, handguns are used in the commission of criminal acts far more frequently than assault weapons which you seem to want to ban. Your overall position, therefore, appears to be based on either confusion, holpophobia, or both. Freud had something to say about irrational fears of weapons: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

[Billy Ruffian]

119. What does 'high action' mean?

Fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934, with no new civilian owned full auto weapons added to the registry since 1986.

The 94 Assault Weapons Ban was a ban on scary black semi-automatic weapons.

[Pavulon]

125. Control, like adjusting the gas

system on machine guns to gain the proper cyclical rate ( a shit job)? Firing a coax and hitting something?

that was a funny post.

[krispos42]

10. Before debate, please educate yourself

It is my experience that many DUers are not up-to-date on firearm terminology and firearm laws. Here are some Wikipedia entries that may be relevent to the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban_%28USA%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

[aikoaiko]

11. No support for the AWB here.

You and I both know that some of the newly elected democrats are explicitly against banning guns even the ones that are scary to you Bill.

I predict no federal AWB from democrats for a long while. In the battleground states, like Montana and Georgia, Tester and Barrow were helped by their pro-2nd amendment, anti-gunbanning stances. The AWB is not for everyone, as constituencies vary, but that just speaks more to the irrationality of pushing of federal AWB.

Do you really want to lose our gains in 2008? If so, keep trying to ban guns.

ps. Sometimes I wish we had negative recommendation buttons so that when a thread gets 5 negative recommendations its gets funneled to a "silly threads" forum.

[lcordero2]

13. I think that the issue was multi-pronged

In 1993-4 I would be angry because I would rather have them do something about the economy at that time.

It showed a poor set of priorities.

[piedmont]

26. And if it happened now...

it would indicate complete insanity. Re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Irreverend IX]

53. Why do you think they did it?

The DLC wanted to appease the sheep without upsetting their corporate masters. That's why they're so eager to jump on guns, violent video games, explicit lyrics in music etc. while carefully avoiding any discussion of social justice.

[MGD]

14. There's no denying that Pro-second amendment voters booted out Mike Dewine in Ohio

and ensured that Kenneth Blackwell lost his bid for Governor too. We shouldn't even be talking about revisiting the AWB;however, I would challenge any person here who thinks it's a worthy cause to justify that position with rtaional debate here and now. My guess is however that this amounts to Republicans trying to poison the well to ensure a 2008 comeback.

[Erika]

17. Paranoia will destroy you

Guns are not the answer to local crime.

[MGD]

21. "Guns are not the answer to local crime."

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, how is that a justification to ban their possession? Double-cheeseburgers are not the answer to local crime either. Shall we now ban double-cheeseburgers?

[Erika]

22. Who's banning their possession? Certainly not the Dems.

I live in a carry state. Just need controls to keep the guns in the proper and legal hands.

[krispos42]

Excellent idea. We need to hunt down more straw purchasers n/t

[krispos42]

43. Why is my above post labeled "Original Message?"

How did I do that? Damn, I'm good...

[MGD]

28. Just need controls to keep the guns in the proper and legal hands.

Those controls are already in place so why bring it up Erika? Unless you're looking to poison the well.

[krispos42]

30. They may well be the answer to personal crime.

If I scare off a mugger or intruder with my gun, the mugger may well go attack or invade somebody else in my stead. However, I'm not mugged, my house is not robbed, and my family is safe.

And the criminal may well be caught after his intended victim calls the police, or his next victim might also scare or shoot him, or he might decide (after too many guns pointed at him) to stop mugging and break into cars instead. I don't know.

But the point is that my immediate circle of people are safe. Even if the local crime rate is unaffected, my personal crime rate is lowered.

[Erika]

33. Agreed. No one is going after personal protection handguns

other than Pataki, a GOP New Yorker. Rudy doesn't like them either.

[krispos42]

41. Thank you. You listen. It is an admirable quality

Especially after trying to talk to certain people in the Gundeon. :eyes:

What causes the fights seems to be current and former gun users, who know that a pistol grip does not increase the lethality of firearms, and the gun-ignorant or gun-haters, who either think it does or think it is the sign of a person determined to find a way to legally kill somebody.

[Erika]

20. Are you trying to suggest Blackwell lost because of his gun stance?

Sure,,,ah,,,sure.

[MGD]

25. I'm suggesting that Ted Strickland's A+ NRA rating

is one of things what convinced many middle of the road voters to vote Democratic. Multiple corruption scandals didn't help either to be sure but the fact remains, Strickland is a Democrat with an A+ NRA rating. That should tell you something.

[Erika]

29. George HW Bush revoked his NRA membership

because they went radical. That should tell you something.

I don't thing the gun issue really played in this election.

[krispos42]

36. I agree.

The AWB died the day my son was born, and blood did not run in the streets. States that wanted to keep assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans in place, did, and those that didn't, didn't. Many more states allow concealed-carry (only 2 don't now).

Trying to make this a federal issue again will not be a good thing.

[MGD]

37. George Bush has raped every other aspect of our constitution too

Why would the second amendment be any different?

"I don't thing the gun issue really played in this election."

I think it was definitely part of the formula for success though it certainly wasn't the single most important issue. Regardless, the Democratic coalition is not so strong that we should be alienating our new members over such a pointless issue.

[billbuckhead]

73. No suprise you want censorship

County by county, state by state, nation by nation, the people are democratically speaking against the tyranny of unlimited access to guns. The "gun lobby" is fixing to go down with their neoCON hosts. Cunningham is in Jail, Noe is on his way, DeLay is indicted, NRA board member Norquist under investigation, Cheney is shredding papers, history is marching against the gun lobby and it's minions.

[aikoaiko]

78. Censorship? get a dictionary.

Yes, the GOP and neocons are going down, but its not because of the stance on guns, usually. If anti-gun movement is sweeping across our country, why are more democrats antiban and more progun. hmmmmm?

Good luck, Bill. Your pro-AWB posts are even getting trashed by nongungeon types in general discussion. Even fellow democrats who would like to see certain weapons banned don't want to bring it up because of the political backlash that would ensurein battle ground states. If you don't see that -- then you blinded by you hatred/fear of firearms.

[billbuckhead]

82. Someone who doesn't fear firearms is a moron

America's gun culture and the run amok corporations and crooks pushing it are ruining our society and "We the people" are pissed. Referendums always go against the gun lobby, that's why the "gun rights" side spends multi millions trying to subvert the will of the people.

[Ignacio Upton]

16. If Congress passes that ban

We will back in the minority in 2008. While the majority of the public may support the ban, those that rank gun issues as important tend to be the people most likely to oppose such legislation. AWB is a loser for us.

[Erika]

19. Quit the battered wife syndrome

We need to stand up to protect our own from these illegal firearms. America will back us.

[piedmont]

23. they're not illegal until you ban them.

Battered wife syndrome is a bad analogy here. Listening to your electorate and learning from past mistakes is not analogous to lack of self-esteem caused by an abusive partner.

[Erika]

24. Huh? Protective handguns are not banned here

What are you talking about?

[piedmont]

32. read your own post

We need to stand up to protect our own from these illegal firearms.
These firearms are not illegal. They would be illegal if "we" banned them. We wouldn't be talking about banning them if they were illegal already. Got it?

[Erika]

34. I know of no dems wishing to ban personal protection handguns

Now Pataki is a different story.

[piedmont]

40. Would you please tell me how on Earth...

post 34 is a response to post 32? Are you even reading the posts you reply to?



edited: corrected post #s referenced. Thanks MGD

[MGD]

45. I'm pretty sure that post 27 is a response to post 19

Are you smoking the pot? :hippie:

[piedmont]

46. thanks MGD, I corrected the post #s referenced

(and no I'm not :D )

:toast:

[krispos42]

44. Try 58% of San Fransisco voters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_H

Proposition H was a proposed ordinance that would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco, California, United States.

The Proposition would also have prohibited San Francisco residents from possessing handguns within city limits. An exception would allow residents to possess handguns if it is required for specific professional purposes. For example, San Francisco residents who are security guards, peace officers or active members of the U.S. armed forces would be permitted to possess handguns.

<more>

[Jackeen]

81. If the SFPD don't like the ban...

You will note that in the ensuing court case, one of the parties in the suit to get the ban overturned was the San Francisco Police Officer's Association. Their members would not have been affected by the ban.

Now, if the police officers are of the opinion that it's such a bad idea that they're going to court trying to get the ban which doesn't affect them overturned, what do you think the average criminal thinks of the idea?

[readmoreoften]

102. I don't think an AWB will make or break the dem party in San Francisco.

But it will in Montana, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, etc.

[MGD]

27. I'm not backing you. eom

[Erika]

31. not backing who? n/t

[MGD]

38. Anyone undermining the second amendment.

[michreject]

50. What illegal firearms?

I'm confused. I thought we were discussing legally owned rifles.

[Irreverend IX]

54. We need to protect our own against weapons that are barely ever used in crimes?

"Assault weapons" aren't the cause of much blood running in the streets. Rifles of all kinds account for less than 3% of annual gun homicides. Twice as many people are killed annualy by fists and feet than by rifles. Charles Whitman, the most famous rifle-wielding mass murderer, used plain old bolt action hunting rifles to do his thing. And outside of such incidents rifles are hardly ever misused because they're impossible to conceal.

[billbuckhead]

55. Machine guns are rarely used in crimes because they're BANNNED!

SUV's were rarely in accidents 30 years ago cause they hardly existed. The point of the AWB is to keep the supply of these powerful weapons scarce and keep their use scare in crime.

[Irreverend IX]

57. BANNNNNNNNNNNNNED!!!

Bill, you seem to have some difficulty grasping the difference between "rifles" and "machine guns." Let's review...

-Rifles (semiautomatic and manually loaded types) are used in less than 3% of homicides annually. Apart from a couple 9mm pistols, the weapons covered by the AWB are all rifles. The size and expense of rifles make them poor choices for criminals.

-Legally owned, fully automatic firearms (some of which are called machine guns) have only been used twice in crimes to my knowledge since the passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act.

-Machine guns are not BANNNED, they are very strictly controlled. You can still buy one if you can pass an extensive background check and you have several thousand dollars to spend. This puts them outside the reach of most criminals.

[billbuckhead]

58. Assault rifles if banned will have similar results to the machine gun ban

Why have an already overwhelmed police force have to deal with military style assault rifles that fire almost as fast a machine guns but are more portable. The public is speaking against these weapons when given a chance like in Illinois.

[Pavulon]

61. Umm no

Having the pleasure timing machine guns for the ng i can tell you that is bullshit.

A m249 can sustain 700 rounds (or more) per minute. It is a belt fed machine gun.

an m16a2 can do about 90. It fires on 3 round bursts. I am sure an m4 rife can fire more but 90 aimed shots (3rd bursts) a minute is about right. That does not include mag changes. 30 rds 10 3 shot bursts. 3 seconds to aim and fire at a target. 1 if you are good.

All the above are strictly controlled NFA firearms. These are select fire weapons.

An ar15 can fire 60 shots just yanking the trigger. It is semi-automatic.
10 aimed shots a minute is reasonable.

You can do the same with a legal semi automatic rifle. Or a bolt action deer rifle. By far the most lethal weapon to do damage in a standoff offensive situation. Shotguns are the "best" method to kill people in close quarters.

Crime is committed with pistols for convenience. Which are banned in NYC and DC, places you stand a better place of getting shot than a city like raleigh, nc. Where it is legal to carry a pistol.

[Irreverend IX]

62. More portable?

You should know the definition of "assault rifle" by now. The fact that you refer to civilian semiautomatic weapons as assault rifles shows an appalling lack of honesty on your part. Anyway, civilian semiauto versions of military rifles are the exact same size as the automatic military versions. An AR-15 is just as big as an M16. M16s, AK-47s, etc. should not properly be called machine guns, though; that term is used to refer to heavy automatic guns with belt-fed ammunition that are mounted on a tripod (or vehicle) when fired, like the M60. Few criminals have the wherewithal to purchase modern semiautomatic rifles or the need for such weapons; the few who do are organized crime soldiers, drug kingpins and similar hardcore crooks who are not deterred by laws. A tweaker who mugs people to feed his habit just wants an easily concealable handgun that he can ditch and replace inexpensively if he has to.

From the USDOJ study (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf):

"The ban's short-term impact on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines, and the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban."

[Paladin]

59. Proving That Gun Control Works.

n/t

[Iktomiwicasa]

60. Don't

confuse Billy with the facts. They make him go on hysterical tangents ;-)

[Irreverend IX]

63. I should report him to the BATF.

I suspect he's illegally in possession of a fully-automatic N key.

[Pavulon]

64. And the system will work how it should

in any gun crime, he will be arrested and sentenced to 10 years mandatory in federal prison. If every shitbag who stuck up the 7-11 got this treatment it would stop.

If you have possession of an illegal part of a weapon you will do federal time. There were stories of people taking the trigger mechanisms and parts from m-16's when i was in the NG. Never happened where I was stationed however. First the army imprisons you then the federal government.

[madmusic]

39. 85 percent in Cook County, 70 percent statewide?

That's more than just Dems voting. Can anyone explain it? And if that is a trend, gun owners had best come up with a solution. Fear is a powerful force.

[billbuckhead]

47. In Pennsylvania, Rendell got more votes than Casey

Rendell was targeted by the NRA and Casey has a NRA "A" rating. Rendell ran against a Steeler legend and Casey ran against neoCON punching bag Santorum. This is a very big hunting state. It's just another fact.

[madmusic]

65. That doesn't explain what is going on in Illinois.

You may be right and the NRA did swing that election, but there were a lot of more public issues that had a stronger influence on voters.

But the question is, is Illinois a trend? What is going on in Illinois that is swaying the voters?

[Pavulon]

67. Ignorance and feel good bs

The "assault rifle" plays very little role in crime.

The root of the problem is the PERSON who is willing to use a firearm usually a pistol, to KILL another person.

That is a hard problem to fix. It is easy and looks good to do something. Hence this legislation.

Having training on small arms, including the real rifles these replicas imitate i can tell you that they would not be my first choice as a gangbanger.

Like reality reflects I would carry a small cheap pistol I stole. being you are my target you dont care if I point a quality made sig 226 or keltec piece of shit at you to get you car wallet or to rape you. That is my primary tool.

If I wanted to be sure and kill someone I would cut the stock and barrel off a shotgun. Put both bbls in the victim he is dead as shit. He could be standing in the OR and a 12 ga blast to the chest is 90 percent lethal. I would use a pump if I wanted to take out a few more folks. Common, effective, weapon.

Or i can carry a rifle that is 2 plus feet long, requires skill to aim, and is very expensive. You thing bangers go zero in rifles. Gee, I missed that crip bitch high and to the right at 100 meters, should I hold low left or adjust the sights with a loose round.

[Jed Dilligan]

48. If the cops have it, I can have it.

Or else, the cops have to shut up--no more endorsing candidates or laws--because they are military.

They can't have it both ways.

I don't own or want a gun (at the moment), but this is a matter of principle. What are we going to do when our city goes fascist, and the cops have assault rifles and helicopter gunships, and we don't?

[madmusic]

69. Who would have helicopter gunships?

Corporations, maybe, not private citizens. Who's side would they be on? The government's. Frankly, saying private citizens have a right to helicopter gunships will make restrictions more likely.

And the public has the image of the bank robbers in L.A. who out gunned the police.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/

Pictures are worth a thousand words and the police/AWB crowd still milk this for all it's worth. They made a moral panic out of it by transforming the very rare into the "Be very afraid. It's everywhere." That is VERY effective. There are also the images of gang violence and drive-by shootings and car jackings.

Maybe anti-AWB people could make some youtube videos to counter that. About safety steps taken to prevent accidental shootings and theft. I would learn from them. It would be very difficult to overcome the yawn factor though.

The "Use a gun, go to prison" and the "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" slogans don't work either. It's like the pro-pot people trying to get stiffer sentences for everyone else. The government is glad to write more draconian laws if they get the chance, and that spills over into more draconian laws for simple possession. Throw guns into the drug dealing mix, and it spills over into the gun ownership as well.

Legalizing drugs might solve a lot of this because it would remove the motivation. This was the reasoning behind Mexico's legalization law that BushCo knocked down. Why would BushCo knock it down? Because drugs and social control are like oil and water. Too many Democrats and Republicans agree with that. Like it or not, guns get pulled into the mix.

That's what gun owners are up against. Republicans say they are pro-2nd Amendment, but then use moral panics and re-elction slogans that are bound to aid in gun restrictions due to people's fears.

EDIT typo

[Pavulon]

72. LAPD bank shooting was not an assault rifle!

those were machine guns banned since 1934. Note spraying rifle fire managed to kill no one (other than the 2 morons) in that incident.

This issue is dead, the corpse should be left alone.

[madmusic]

74. The image is VERY alive...

Doesn't matter if you like or not and think it should be left alone.

[Pavulon]

75. Use of news speak

see those assault weapons, we need to ban them..

Reality:
Those were select fire rifles. NO ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THAT CRIME> Those were Machine guns that those corpses attained and uses illegally.

They were not the dreaded semi automatic rifles of death and mayhem. They may have had a bayonet lug...

America seems to grow stupider as time passes.

BTW it is illegal to shoot people.

[madmusic]

76. "BTW it is illegal to shoot people."

Then how did the cops make "corpses" out of them?

Anyway, whatever, I'm sure you throughly convinced anyone sitting on the fence, so now that that's settled... time to move on.

[Pavulon]

77. With machine guns, the lie is in the word

people play on the ignorant(of the technical language). Like car dealerships who try to rip off people who dont know better.

Police killed them with machine guns. M16/M4s (whatever)that go bang, bang, bang, when you hold down the trigger. Not ar 15 that goes bang once. The criminals used machine guns (bang, bang, bang, on one pull)

It was illegal for the robbers to shoot people with the MACHINE GUNS they used or if they used a civil war musket. ILLEGAL.

Banners love the word game.

Lots more per cap murder in DC than in raleigh or the towns outside that have the EXACT same racial and socio economic distributions. No restrictive gun laws down here. Less per cap murder.

What is the outcome you expect if an assault weapon ban goes in. My gain would be to buy a shitload of now legal weapons and wait five years and make 10 times my money.

Someone will pay 10 times more for a rifle that has a bayonet lug and telescopic stock. Dont know why, but all this ban will do is increase the price of the device.

[Jed Dilligan]

80. I actually think the opposite

Police should give up their military style weaponry... Or, they should shut up. I would be happier with either of these results than an increase in how well-armed citizens are.

[michreject]

49. Fortunately that law is in Cook County

and not binding throughout the state. Again Chicago tries to bully the state. Won't happen.:)

[dubykc]

52. I grew up in a house full of personal protection and hunting...

weapons, and was taught at a very young age to respect and honor our right to own them. But, to this day I cannot think of a PRACTICAL reason to own assault weapons. The only reasons I can drum up are "bragging rights", "ego" or "killing people" (which was the intent of their original design).

[Pavulon]

68. Cash money

a legally purchased m16a2 bought in 1990 for 8000 now sells for 20,000. That is why most people own legal NFA ordinance. I am talking about legal machine guns.

As for the replica rifles I do not have any reason to own one. I like to shoot targets and there is only so far you can take the stoner rifle. They are expensive to accurize. They can be used for competition. They are regularly used for that reason. Legally.

I do not have a reason to BAN someone from possessing one if they have met legal requirements to own one. In reality a ar-15 is no more deadly than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The hunting rifle is probably more deadly because it uses a more powerful round.

[Pavulon]

66. Please list what you want banned>>

What exactly do you banner types consider an assault rifle?

Anything that is black and scary (could be a large sex toy..)

A scary ak looking rifle?

grampy's shotgun?

What exactly do you want to ban, and why?

[billbuckhead]

70. Here you go

On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols

Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
Q: Does the law ban all semi-automatic guns? Does it affect hunting rifles and shotguns?

A: No. The definition of an assault weapon is tightly drawn. Only semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapon features are banned (see below). Traditional guns designed for use in hunting and recreational activities are not affected. To alleviate concerns that hunting weapons somehow might be affected, the law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently being manufactured. The list is not exhaustive and a gun does not have to be on the list to be protected. Again, the only weapons that are prohibited are those with multiple assault weapon features.

Q: What does the NRA think about the federal assault weapon ban?

A: In 1996, the NRA pushed the U.S. House of Representatives to vote to repeal the ban, but the Senate refused to follow suit. In 2002, the NRA has listed opposition to renewal of the law as one of its criteria on its 2002 election candidate questionnaire. The NRA continues to try to gut the current law and prevent its reauthorization.

Q: What have the courts said about the federal assault weapons ban?

A: The law has been challenged in court by the extremist gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which fought against passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994 and continues to oppose it to this day. However, federal courts have rejected these legal challenges.

In October 2000, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge brought by notorious assault weapon manufacturer Navegar, Inc., after the case had been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Circuit Court had rejected Navegar's arguments that the statute exceeded the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The NRA brought its own lawsuit against the statute in Michigan federal court, but was dismissed by the court for lack of standing to sue. Assault weapon maker Olympic Arms continued the suit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in March of 2000. The appeal, argued by an NRA attorney, was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in April of 2002.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, representing itself as well as several public health and law enforcement organizations, filed amicus curiae briefs in both cases supporting the statute.

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features:

A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.
A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.
A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.
A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.
Q: What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?

A: An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can twitch your finger. This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns were still being produced until the federal assault weapons ban was enacted.

Q: Why does the gun lobby say that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault weapon?

A: Playing word games, the NRA/gun lobby often claims that semi-automatic assault weapons don't exist because the term "assault weapons" only means fully automatic weapons (machine guns - see above). Law enforcement groups disagree with the NRA on this, as did Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and Congress. Even the gun industry disagrees with the NRA and uses the term "assault weapons" to refer to semi-automatic, military-style weapons. In 1986, Gun Digest, considered by many to be the Bible of the gun industry, first published a book entitled, The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. Here is what they had to say about a few of the weapons they test-fired for their second edition:

"The Cobray M11/Nine bears a striking resemblance to the Ingram M11 submachine gun, because it is basically the same gun. Current manufacture is made in semi-auto."

", now being produced by F.I.E., is a semi-automatic clone of the Spectre submachine gun that is being manufactured in Italy....If you can't have the steak, you can still have the sizzle."

<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb>

[Pavulon]

71. This is beyond stupid (not you)

So no FNC. Have you ever seen an FNC. I saw them while in IFOR, a belgian rifle. I have never seen one in the US. It would probably cost a fortune.

The ruger mini 14 is missing. It uses the same mag as the m16, used to be used by nypd, and is based off a military design.

Colt a5-15, no ban on bushmaster, armalite, etc.

This bans arbitrary shit. Bayonet mount sums it up. Lots of bayoneting.

That page has more bullshit. A flash suppressor is made to keep the shooters night vision intact. You can see a muzzle flash from miles at night.

Ban gangs.

[Jackeen]

79. Relying on the Brady Campaign for gun facts...

Is probably like relying on Al Capone for an honest assessment of tax and liquor laws. I don't think you can get any more biased.

I mean, look at the list of features of a 'bannable' weapon. A bayonet lug. How many drive-by-bayonettings have you heard of? (There was a drive-by stabbing in the UK a few months back though). Pistol grip. Why? What possible effectiveness does that have on either accuracy or lethality? Note that almost no sniper rifles used by police or military have pistol grips, for example (Dragunovs are about the one exception I can think of). Barrel Shroud. So that I can burn my hand on the barrel, no doubt?

Or you can just go outright wrong: "Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip." I defy you to find me any rifle manual, or marksmanship instruction that says "To fire your AR-15, place the stock by your hip, and spray in a general direction"

[billbuckhead]

83. Comparing the Brady campaign to a killer like Al Capone is dishonest

It's the NRA that has a criminal like Grover Norquist on it's board of directors.

[Jackeen]

86. Which completely misses the analogy.

Readers will note that not only have you totally missed the point of bias of the analogy, (Maybe I should have said 'asking a lion on the merits of being a vegetarian?') but you also failed to address any factual issue raised. That's not going to win much support over the centrist voters.

[dairydog91]

84. The inevitable retort

Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip

Gun companies will create a gun designed to shoot from the hip the day that Trojan comes out with a condom designed to be placed over your nose.

No gun is "designed" to be fired from the hip, it's awkward and the accuracy is horrendous. The one time I tried firing a HK91 (That's definitely an "assault weapon" under your definition of the term) from the hip, I was barely able to hit a 2 foot wide log I'd placed 20 feet away. Not to mention, guns with "classic" grips, as opposed to pistol grips, are more comfortable to shoot from the hip because your wrist isn't twisted.

Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading

You could claim that any semiautomatic weapon is designed for rapid fire. Second, few if any of the rifles banned hold magazines over 30 rounds (The magazine would become ludicrously large in order to accomodate that much ammo). Second, ammo capacity isn't really a relevant factor. For example, I can fire a stream of 10 round magazines through a Mini-14 at pretty much the same rate as I can fire a few 30 round magazines. The difference is really only a matter of a few seconds.'

assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets

As far as I know, silencers are regulated under the 1934 NFA, so it's just blatant deception to say that "assault weapons" come "equipped" with silencers. Second, folding stocks only make the weapon shorter, and there are still regulations as to the minimum length of a rifle-class weapon. I think the minimum length is two feet, which is definitely less concealable than a revolver that's 5-6 inches long. Third, bayonets aren't a threat, so bringing them up is just silly.

The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes.

No, a military grade flash suppressor simply lowers the amount of flash. The goal is not to conceal the shooter, but to make firing with iron sights in dark conditions a tolerable experience. A brief bit of military footage of a night-time firefight will contain plenty of muzzle flashes, which contradicts the deceptive comment in that Brady brief.

When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

And the only way to fire a semi-automatic that quickly is to secure it to a non-moving firing table and fire it by jerking your upper body.

high-powered

A classic piece of Brady absurdity. All military assault rifles and SMGs fire cartridges considerably less powerful than standard hunting cartridges. There's no difference in calibre between assault rifles and their semiautomatic conversions, so why are "assault weapons" considered to be high-powered.

Hell, as an example, Patrick Purdy managed to hit 35 children with his AK-style rifle, and only 5 died. That is not exactly the mark of a "high-powered" cartridge. If he'd been shooting them with a semi-auto chambered in a decently-sized deer cartridge, probably many more would have died.

[billbuckhead]

85. Only 5 died

:wtf:

[dairydog91]

89. Do you speaken da English?

Hell, as an example, Patrick Purdy managed to hit 35 children with his AK-style rifle, and only 5 died. That is not exactly the mark of a "high-powered" cartridge. If he'd been shooting them with a semi-auto chambered in a decently-sized deer cartridge, probably many more would have died.

My point, as is clear in my quote, is that if he'd shot 35 with a semi-auto hunting rifle (For example: Benelli R1, Remington Model 7400, Civilianized Browning BAR), then the more powerful cartridges of such a rifle would have resulted in more deaths. What is so hard to understand about this? Hunting rifles are designed to deliver massive, instantly lethal wounds to their targets. Military weapons fire less powerful ammo, and are frequently designed to cause nonlethal wounds (Treating/rehabilitating a wounded soldier is much more expensive than burying a dead one). In fact, many military cartridges are banned from deer hunts due to their insufficient power.

To clarify for you, when I said "only 5 died", I was saying that 5 deaths out of 35 hits is not a sign of a powerful cartridge.

Again, as shocking as this may be to your sensibilities, it's preferable to have a nut shoot 35 people with military-type cartridges than to have that nut shoot 35 people with hunting cartridges. Since the military cartridges are less powerful than hunting catridges, more victims will survive.

[billbuckhead]

90. So only 30 were wounded?

Gee, it's like we don't even vaguely have the same values.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[stepnw1f]

94. lol....okeedokie

:crazy: :silly:

[billbuckhead]

116. One thing that can't be debated...................

The United States has the most failed gun policy of all advanced nations and is even behind India. It can't even be argued. For decades now, the USA has had multiples worse murder, gun deaths and gun crime than whole continents like Europe and Oceania. Americans should be more ashamed of this than even iraq.

They say that a sign one is crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. What about watching 20 or other nations doing a far better job protecting their citizens and the quality of their lives and copying what they're doing right? Is that arrogance or just George "w" Bushlike stupidity? We lose more Americans from guns than from Iraq, terrorism and Afghanistan put together. We lose 4000 people a year in car accidents.Think about it, we lose 3000 people from gunfire. What about this comparison with cars? On one side you have 100's of millions of people driving billions of miles. These drivers are from the ages of 16 to 80+ and are driving cars of often dubious quality, on roads of dubious quality. It seems unbelievable that the number of deaths from car accidents is almost the same as deaths from firearms.

Check out these charts and weep for all the dead Americans. I know many are minorities in gangs who society obviously never cared about to begin with. Many gun lobby people blame our failed gun policy results on poverty, but if you notice, we are now worse than India in murder.<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

The apologists for these disasterous failures say that even if guns weren't so easily availible in the USA, there would still be the same amount of murders. I ask all the fence sitters to look at the charts showing total murders vs murder by gun in dozens of nations and make up your own mind if this is true. And if you can make up your own mind, whichever side you're on , then SHOULDN"T THE VOTERS DECIDE WHAT GUN REGULATIONS THEY WANT? LET THE VOTERS DECIDE WHAT AN ASSUALT RIFLE IS!
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[Pavulon]

117. Just issue me a sig550 and a brick of ammo

like in switzerland. I will keep it in my closet and shoot it on the weekends.

[SIIHPAPP]

87. We need a new ban NOW!!!!!

Sometimes I patrol the right-wing, freeper, gun-ownin', bible-lovin' message boards to see what they are up to. I am a total pacifist, and they give me nightmares. I believe they will use any means to take over the government in 2008. Our nation has been reduced to a thrid-world dictatorship since Dr. Chimpenstein was selected. If we ban their military machine guns NOW, they won't be able to use force against us when OUR TEAM TAKES BACK THE HOUSE THAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS!!!!!

[Jackeen]

88. If you think the right will use machineguns to prevent a D white house...

What on Earth gives you the idea they will quietly comply with a polite request to turn them in?

Nobody's resorted to firearms violence yet.

[Rechter Flugel]

98. Illinois AW ban

madmusic to answer some of your questions.

"That doesn't explain what is going on in Illinois."

Illinois is currently run by a corrupt govenor. Probably as bad or worse than Ryan!

"You may be right and the NRA did swing that election, but there were a lot of more public issues that had a stronger influence on voters."

I vote for whoever is going to protect my 2nd amendment rights, be that republican, democrat or independent!

"But the question is, is Illinois a trend? What is going on in Illinois that is swaying the voters?"

This was only on ballots for Cook county, because Dickhead Dailey wants all guns banned in Illinois. There is no way in hell that 70% of all voters in Illinois want an AW ban. I would guess that they "polled" a select group of people to get the number they wanted.

My only ray of sunshine will be when Daley and Blogoshit are both put in jail for corruption. As for George Ryan, I hope he dies in prison!

[readmoreoften]

105. Huh? There is much wrong with your assumptions

(1) An AWB ban will not prevent your freeper neighbors from killing you. They can kill you with their shot guns.
(2) Gun owners are also likely to be civil libertarians who would defend you when the hippie-hating federal government comes to drag you away
(3) Why aren't you more afraid of the sonic and microwave weapons the government has for crowd control? I'm less afraid of my neighbor's rifle than I am of Bush's thugs with their finger on the giant microwave machines they bring to protests.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

92. Didn't your last thread on this get locked?

Having an agenda isn't against DU rules, but you're not doing yourself any favors making it so obvious. :shrug:

Previous thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2690708

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Good. It's about time 'murka started growing up.

[dairydog91]

96. I don't get it.

How is banning items based on their "scary looks" a sign of political maturity?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Is their "looks" why people buy them?

I don't think so. Nor is it their looks that kill.

I see the ban on "assault" weapons as a first step towards some real gun control laws.

[Pavulon]

99. Please explain

how banning a cosmetic feature is a sensible form of gun control. Bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds are very dangerous.

Example the colt ar-15 is banned the ruger mini 14 is not. Same ammo, magazine, and general use.

BTW fixing the problem, people who shoot people, is harder than the silly step of attempting to ban the tool.

Think about how many calls you would have to make to score the illegal "banned" drug of your choice...

Yeah, bans work. DC is crime free, pistolas are banned.

[dairydog91]

100. Of course not!

Everyone knows that people never buy stuff solely for the cosmetic appeal!

Edit: A great part of the appeal of military-style weapons is their reliability, "cool" appearance, durability, and their use of cheap, lower-power ammo (Less unpleasant recoil, plus its more affordable for a frequent target shooter).

[piedmont]

101. It's their "looks" that get them banned

The AWB banned guns that only cosmetically differed from allowed guns. Pointless legislation.

first step towards some real gun control laws.

And what would those "real" laws be, in your opinion?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. Gun registration on all firearms, for a start.

Why not?

[Pavulon]

106. why?

what is gained. Why does the government need to have an inventory of a persons firearms?

They are legally sold products.

Other than pissing off millions of people.

The majority of people who shoot people do not register or legally purchase their firearms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. My father was shot and killed by non-criminal with a legally owned firearm.

I see gun registration as a step to make guns more difficult to purchase.

But, never fear, the gunmakers and NRA are powerful lobbies to keep arming those folks who want to kill others.

[dairydog91]

110. Yeehaw!

I see gun registration as a step to make guns more difficult to purchase.

Why should it make them harder to purchase. Most gunowners are law-abiding, so why make it harder for them to buy guns?

But, never fear, the gunmakers and NRA are powerful lobbies to keep arming those folks who want to kill others.

Oh boy! I was wondering when the ad hominems would being to flow...

[billbuckhead]

122. Have you no decency?

The gun lobby doesn't care about 30,000, they don't care about 10,000, they don't care about 400, they don't care about 30 wounded, they think 5 dead is trivial, they don't care about anyone but themselves.

[Pavulon]

112. While I am sorry for your personal

loss that is no excuse to remove my legal right to own firearms.

If you want a complete ban say so, targeting silly cosmetic things is a joke.

hundreds of kids drown in 5 gallon buckets and swimming pools. That has zero bearing on my owning them.

[piedmont]

113. Tierra_y_Libertad, I'm sorry for your loss.

I have a couple of questions about your thoughts on gun registration. Why would registration necessarily make it more difficult to purchase a gun? How would it keep someone with no prior felony convictions, etc. from owning a gun?

[billbuckhead]

118. The gun lobby has churches fighting to keep guns out of their buildings

The NRA and it's dittoheads have no decency whatever.

Ruling gives churches leeway under handgun law
BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press
ST. PAUL - Minnesota churches aren't bound by a state law requiring private property owners to either post a sign or verbally inform people when concealed handguns are barred from their parking lots and sanctuaries, a judge has ruled.

Hennepin County District Court Judge William Howard issued a permanent injunction Tuesday freeing religious institutions from the law's requirements. He extended a temporary order put in place by another judge last year.

The state simply has no answer for the plaintiffs' contention that a secular sign on their front door infringes on their religious beliefs. Thus, the signage requirement, as written, infringes on the plaintiffs' freedom of conscience," Howard wrote in his ruling.

David Lillehaug, a lawyer for an Edina church that was part of the case, said the injunction is the latest in a string of rulings made in favor of religious institutions.

"Religious institutions have the complete right to ban firearms from their properties and to notify others of the ban as the religious institutions see fit," he said. "The rules that apply to commercial property don't apply to religious institutions."
------------------------snip--------------------------------
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/16019311.htm>

[piedmont]

121. And this has what, exactly, to do with anything in this sub-thread?

Do you just throw out as many cut&paste posts as you can and hope ONE of them makes a relevant point?

[dairydog91]

107. Why not?

Because part of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people the power to oppose the government's encroachment on freedoms. It's part of the whole "checks and balances" thing

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

109. In a well regulated militia..

Funny how that part is never mentioned by the gun freaks.

[dairydog91]

111. It's not mentioned...

...because it's not relevant to their argument. The 2nd grants "the people" the right to keep and bear arms so that they may form into a militia. There's nothing that says one must be in such a militia in order to own guns.

[piedmont]

114. Furthermore,

All citizens over 18 are by default in the unorganized militia.

[billbuckhead]

127. The Courts and the ACLU say that gun laws are quite legal

Check it out:

"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." "
<http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html>

[piedmont]

128. more cut&paste with ZERO relevance

[Pavulon]

130. Not what the supreme (you know the big one) ct says

* 7.3.3.1 United States v. Miller
* 7.3.3.2 United States v. Cruikshank
* 7.3.3.3 Presser v. Illinois
Many others,,

Thanks for coming out..

[karlrschneider]

115. You really want the government to have a list?

:eyes:

[Pavulon]

104. reality (pics)

most effective tool available to kill a person..



Shotgun.

Most used. Common handgun.



scary thingy to ban (clean your fucking weapon, this rusty rifle's should be ashamed)

[billbuckhead]

120. If shotguns and pistols are so good at killing why make miltary rifles?

Why don't soldiers carry shotguns? Some expert you are!

[Pavulon]

123. Qualified expert..and they do..

With an m16a2. It is an offensive weapon that requires (some) skill to use. The military issues shotguns to infantrymen. Same with the m4 that replaced the m16.

Gangbangers with the m4..

crip: damn dude i missed that blood at 100 meters high right. You got a loose round I can use to adjust my sights?

crip2: na holmes, hold low low left and let the recoil walk the burst onto the target..




the shotgun you use to shoot deer, doves, and someone breaking into your home..In iraq.

Right in front of the scary machine gun.

No assault rifles in the military. Fake term , news speak.

[piedmont]

124. How is anything covered in the AWB a miltary rifle?

How come there are MANY military rifles not classified as AW?

By the way, shotguns and pistols ARE used by the military:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=28

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBW/is_1_3/ai_103384455

[billbuckhead]

131. Once again if all these other gun are so great, why do need

semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips?

[Pavulon]

133. The same reason you need

the ability to speak freely. I mean come on. Do you have a point benchley?

[dairydog91]

134. Sheesh...

Your pistol grip fetish getting pretty absurd.

Fine, I'll bite. I need a pistol grip because my wrists can be touchy and the pistol grip is more ergonomic during fire from the shoulder.

[dairydog91]

126. Shotguns...

Shotguns are devastating at close range, far more powerful than almost any rifle. They just lose effectiveness over a short range. Most soldiers carry rifles to give them medium range capability, while soldiers engaged in heavy CQB (Especially pointmen) often carry shotguns.

[billbuckhead]

129. OK, if shotguns are so freeping great, why have pistol grip semiauto rifles?

:crazy: If weapons laws don't work, let's legalize real machine guns, IED's, RPG's, Bazookas, mortars, etc. You know all that stuff the insurgents are using in Iraq to destroy their nation.

[Pavulon]

Why have sports cars,

fake tits, cocaine, strippers and boilermakers. All serve no greater purpose.

All that shit is legal, just regulated...You can buy a mortar if you want. Called a destructive device..

They are tools, they serve a purpose.

edit: cocaine is not legal, but pretty easy to get even though it is banned..

[dairydog91]

132. Why?

Well then, why not ban conventional stock rifles too? The M1A series of rifle has a conventional stock, and it's very popular with special forces.

Edit: Behold! A conventional stock battle rifle! (Go to http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-socom-ii.shtml)

[stepnw1f]

95. Good .... Good Post (nt)

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

135. I'm going to lock this.

Since gun rights v. gun control can be such a hot topic, this is better discussed in the Gun forum.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator