Banassaultweapons.org

[Romulus]

From the folks who brought us http://www.banhandgunsnow.org , here is

www.banassaultweapons.org

Included is a nifty movie apparently featuring the Columbine Kids.

And don't forget those linked reports on "spray firing" and keeping the "cop killer guns" out "on the streets." :eyes:

Bullet Hoses demolishes the National Rifle Association's phony argument that AK-47 and UZI civilian assault weapons are just like grandpa's semiautomatic hunting rifle," said study author Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst.

Bullet Hoses documents 10 key points about why semiautomatic assault weapons are too deadly for civilian use, using firearms references widely hailed by gun enthusiasts as authoritative sources as well as documents from the gun industry itself.

Bullet hoses - http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosecont.htm
This from the org. that described my plinker as a "Ruger 10/22 assault rifle."

[MrBenchley]

1. Sounds like a damn good idea

to me.

[Withergyld]

2. what a bunch of hooey

They state that 1 in 5 police officers are killed with assault weapons. They then state that "assualt weapons are the choice of cop killers..."

If they were the choice of cop killers why were they used in only ~20%? Handguns probably account for ~70% of the other officers killed. It would seem to me that the HANDGUN is the choice of cop killers NOT the assault weapon.

[MrBenchley]

3. B-b-b-but the RKBA crowd has been claiming

assault weapons are almost never used in crime.... guess we can see what a pantload THAT is.

[CO Liberal]

4. Perhaps.....

....some of them don't consider killing a cop a crime.

:shrug:

[Withergyld]

5. Cop killing is a crime

Here are the latest figures I have found from an UNBIASED source, The Bureau of Justice Statistics (a Government agency)

This is a large pdf file. The report on assault weapons and crime is on the sixth page.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

[Withergyld]

6. That anti-gun group just claimed

That assault weapons were the choice of cop killers. I just pointed out this claim is false/misleading and instead of addressing the lie, you move to a different subject/question.
I try my best to answer/refute the garbage posted here. When I ask a question all I get is a question in return or a change of subject.
From this dancing around the issue I can only conclude that your opinions are based on rhetoric and emotion and lack a basis in fact.

[MrBenchley]

8. Gee, I'm not the one

pretending that an assault weapon bann isn't totally warranted in every way.

[MrBenchley]

10. Here's the study you're sniveling about

and I don't see that claim you seem to think is such a big deal.

But I do see that

"Using data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Violence Policy Center has determined that at least 41 of the 211 law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons. Using these figures, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
While no comprehensive information is yet available for the years 2002 and 2003, it is clear that law enforcement personnel continue to be killed by assault weapons. For example, on February 20, 2003, in Alexandria, Louisiana, two police officers were killed in an ambush with an AK-47-type assault rifle. Anthony Molette, age 25, had a long criminal history, including a charge of attempted first-degree murder. The day before the murders, Molette opened fire on an officer in his patrol car. The officer was not hurt, but 18 to 20 rounds were fired into the vehicle. Molette bragged to his friends about the shooting, prompting Alexandria police to search for him. When officers arrived at Molette's residence to serve a warrant, Molette opened fire, fatally wounding Officers Charles Ezernack, age 26, and Jeremy "Jay" Carruth, age 29. Molette was shot and killed as he charged two other police officers."

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm

[Withergyld]

12. I qouted an UNBIASED source

Are you saying the VPC is UNBIASED
BTW I found a National Institute of Justice (Government) study on the effects of the 1994 AWB
The conclusion?? They don't know!

this is a large PDF file
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah, surrrrre....

And what you posted basiccal;ly made th argument that the assault weapon ban should be renewed and strengthened.

"Are you saying the VPC is UNBIASED"
Gee, just look at these way out organizations who are in bed with them....

"More than 250 national, state, and local organizations are working to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban. 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

American Association of Suicidology

American Probation and Parole Association

American Jewish Committee

American Jewish Congress

Americans for Democratic Action

Anti-Defamation League

Association of Clinicians for the Underserved

Central Conference of American Rabbis

Child Welfare League of America

Children’s Defense Fund



Church of the Brethren, Washington Office

Church Women United

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

The Consumer Alliance

Consumer Federation of America

The Episcopal Church, USA

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Family Violence Prevention Fund

Freedom States Alliance

Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America

Handgun-Free America

HELP Network

The Interfaith Alliance

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Justice Policy Institute

Legal Community Against Violence - Firearms Law Center

Mennonite Central Committee US, Washington Office

Mid-Atlantic Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP)

National Association of School Psychologists

National Black Police Association

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA

National Council of Jewish Women

National Domestic Violence Hotline

National League of Cities

National Network to End Domestic Violence

National Organization for Women (NOW)

Physicians for a Violence-free Society

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office

Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE)

States United to Prevent Gun Violence

Trauma Foundation

Union of American Hebrew Congregations

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

The United States Conference of Mayors

Violence Policy Center

Voices for America’s Children (formerly National Association of Child Advocates)

Washington Ethical Action Office / American Ethical Union

Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE)"

http://www.banassaultweapons.org/who_we_are/

Wow, what viciously bigoted groups...NOT.

[Withergyld]

15. I pointed out where the VPC has lied...

and you still claim they are a reputable source of information?
I don't care WHO they are affiliated with. If they lie as blatantly as the did on their web page, why should I believe a word they say?

[MrBenchley]

17. No, you didn't in fact....

You made a claim about a throwaway phrase that isn't in the actual study...

[Withergyld]

22. Watch their little flash movie

In the begining of the movie they claim 1 in 5 cops are killed with an assualt weapon. Near the end they state "Assault Weapons, the choice of cop killers"
Most people visiting the web page will watch the movie. The statements made in the movie are misleading. In my opinion it is an out right lie to appeal to the viewers emotions.
I have have made an effort to use UNBIASED sources. It would be much easier to link to the NRA, GOA or JPFO. However if I did you would immediately dismiss anything from those sites as a "pantload" or "hooey" or "RKBA rubbish" (did I miss any?) Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me and use information from an UNBIASED source?
If I cry foul or point out a flaw in your source you immediately dismiss that fact.
You will probably say that I am sniveling, however it will be obvious to anyone reading these exchanges what the truth is in this case.
No flame/personal attack intended, just a statement of facts as I see them.

[MrBenchley]

25. Peddle it to someone who cares...

"The statements made in the movie are misleading. In my opinion it is an out right lie to appeal to the viewers emotions."
Tough titty.

"I have have made an effort to use UNBIASED sources."
And those unbiased sources make a persuasive case that assault weapons ought to be banned..

"It would be much easier to link to the NRA, GOA or JPFO. However if I did you would immediately dismiss anything from those sites as a "pantload" or "hooey" or "RKBA rubbish""
Yup. And justly so.

[Withergyld]

26. While you may not care

others read what is posted here and might be interested in an opposing view.

[MrBenchley]

30. Sure...

It's always imporrtant to know what far right wing extrremists and the GOP are up to..

[Withergyld]

32. I think Democrats need to see

that not every one in the party is rabidly anti-gun.

[MrBenchley]

34. And I think they need to see

the sort of scum who are associated with the bogus "gun rights" movement.

[Withergyld]

36. I think they need to see

how unreasonable and hysterical gun grabbers gan be.
:hurts:

[MrBenchley]

38. Hahahahahahahaha....

You stick with Gun Owners of America (headed by a bozo too racist even for Pat Buchanan) and I'll stay with the VPC.

[Withergyld]

41. That's funny

When have I ever quoted GOA? I referred to them once explaining why I did NOT use them as a source.
I am glad that the best arguments I have had to refute lately have been lame attempts at labeling and smear tactics. It only makes the gun grabbers and their supporters look more pitiful.
:puke:

[MrBenchley]

43. Who are you trying to kid?

You were the one who claimed you COULD use these loonies as a valid source but chose not to do so.....and postured like we were supposed to get down on our knees in gratitude because you didn't quote these racist shits.

"I am glad that the best arguments I have had to refute"
Yeah? Ever going to start?

[Romulus]

16. *yawn*

So the board members of those groups decided to join the herd. How many members of those groups support those views? I'm in the American Legion, and I don't support their pushing the goofy flag-protection amendment. How many people are even members of those organizations?

Gee, the VPC and Handgun-Free America are signed up. There's a surprise. How many members do those guys have? How about "The American Association of Suicidology?" Why are they there - I thought evil handguns were the things causing people to kill themselves? Then there's "Physicians for a Violence Free Society" - whatever that is.

[MrBenchley]

18. Gee, rom....

Peddle it to someone who gives a crap. Even funnier, try to pretend that ALL those groups are biased against the poor oppressed armed neurotic.

""Physicians for a Violence Free Society" - whatever that is."
You REALLY have trouble figuring that out, rom?

http://www.pvs.org/

Be sure and tell us how those folks are anti-second amendment...we could use a laugh..

[Romulus]

23. you mean these guys?

PVS was originally headquartered in San Francisco, but relocated to Dallas in 1995, where there were a full-time staff and executive director for three years. PVS was told after relocating that its overhead costs would be paid for if PVS took no stance on gun safety. Finding this unacceptable, PVS moved back to San Francisco in 1998 and has since been rebuilding its staff, infrastructure, and vision.

And includes this tired stuff on its website:http://www.pvs.org/firearms.shtml
The risk of suicide or homicide is twice as high for individuals with a family history of registered handgun purchase, than for those without such a history. (Cummings, P., et al. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide AJPH, 87 (6) June 1997: 974-978.)

or:http://www.pvs.org/domestic.shtml
In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate partner in self-defense, 83 women were murdered by an intimate partner with a handgun. (Violence Policy Center; When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 1998 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents; 2000)

Yeah, they sure would be willing to listen to what I had to say after hearing that I own firearms.

Anyway, this is all beside the point.

[MrBenchley]

24. Gee, rom....

"includes this tired stuff on its website"
Doesn't sound tired to me. Sounds like actual fact....you know, that stuff the RKBA crowd is always lacking.

"this is all beside the point"
Which is that a tiny nutcase splinter group and the corrupt gun industry are trying to keep the AWB from being renewed.

[RoeBear]

27. "...we could use a laugh.."

I'm laughing my ass off at this!

Here's something they support:

California Legislation
AB 992: Bullet Tax to Fund Emergency Services


This bill, authored by Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas, would institute a 10-cents per bullet tax on ammunition sales which would fund emergency rooms. Five California cities now have a tax on firearms.

http://www.pvs.org/action_leg_992.shtml

That is pure anti-gun wackiness to the extreme!


Interesting note, on their legislation page they don't even mention the assault weapon ban.
http://www.pvs.org/action_legislation.shtml

[MrBenchley]

37. Gee, roe, seems like a pretty good piece of legislation

"a 10-cents per bullet tax on ammunition sales which would fund emergency rooms."

Considering how much guns cost the American taxpayer NOW....I don't see anything wrong with it.

"In 1994 in the United States, based on an average medical cost of $17,000 per injury, the 134,445 gunshot injuries cost $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion (49%) was paid by the U.S. taxpayers.
The estimated average total cost of each fatality (including medical care, police services, and lost productivity) is $938,500.
In a sample population of 168 nonfatal firearm injury victims, the patients averaged a net deficit to the hospital of $8,664 per patient."

http://www.psrla.org/FS-Economics.htm

[Romulus]

39. sounds great

how about using that model and applying it to other items:

1) prescription drug tax per each dosage - funds go to drug rehab and to ER's for all the OD victims
2) gas tax per gallon - funds go to ER's to cover drunk driving costs
3) cutlery tax per item - funds go to ERs for stabbing victims
4) baseball bat tax per bat -, funds go to ER's for beating victims
5) hand-and-foot tax per each, recovered monthly - funds go to ER's for assault victims

After all, the taxpayers are footing the bill for those injuries, too.

[MrBenchley]

40. Gee, rom

If you think you can sell those, go get 'em....

But I think people consider prescription drugs and gasoline much more important than whether gun nuts get their jollies firing bullets.

[Romulus]

42. that's right

But I think people consider prescription drugs and gasoline much more important than whether gun nuts get their jollies firing bullets.

That's why they will gladly pay the 10-cent per pill tax on their Allegra to help fund efforts to treat the ER costs that stem from the abuse of crack cocaine.

[MrBenchley]

44. Go on up to GD

and see if you can get that to fly.

Lots of luck (snicker).

[RoeBear]

46. It's completely assine...

...care to hear why?

[1a2b3c]

47. I do I do

[RoeBear]

49. Thanks for asking!

Who does the 10 cent per round ammo tax punish?

Is it the gang banger who stole the gun and maybe shoplifted a box of ammo? Or is it the target shooter and hunter who might shoot thousands of rounds a year?

So the gang banger goes out and shoots a rival gang banger and you (benchley) want Joe Targetshooter to pay for the hospital bill. What a fair idea!

Gun owners and hunters vote and they'll vote enmass against Democrats if we're dumb enough to promote ideas that Benchley thinks are good ideas.

[MrBenchley]

50. Too too funny...

"the gang banger who stole the gun and maybe shoplifted a box of ammo?"
Yeah, those guns are real deterrents to crime, aren't they?

"Gun owners and hunters vote"
But only about a quarter of the hunters fall for this "gun rights horsecrap" according to the Field & Stream survey...and most of them are more concerned about environmental issues.

[RoeBear]

52. Try to stay on subject..

...your ideas (stupid ammo tax) will kill democrats at the polls.

Future ad put out by the Republicans:
"My opponent, John Smith and the Democratic Party, want to add $2.50
to each box of ammo that you buy to pay for some criminals misuse of a gun. I say make the criminal pay!"


You seem real excited about this question:

"15. Do you consider assault-style rifles to be legitimate sporting guns?
67% No
33% Yes

What do you think the no votes are saying? They are saying that assault style rifles are not sporting for the purpose of hunting. It says nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about whether they are for or against the ownership of assault style weapons.

[MrBenchley]

53. I'm staying right on the subject...

the gang banger who stole the gun and maybe shoplifted a box of ammo?"
Yeah, those guns are real deterrents to crime, aren't they?

""My opponent, John Smith and the Democratic Party, want to add $2.50 to each box of ammo that you buy"
and they want to take youur precious guns away, yadda yadda yadda....
And it will impress a bunch of yokels who weren't going to vote Democratic under any circumstances. EVER.


"You seem real excited about this question:
"15. Do you consider assault-style rifles to be legitimate sporting guns?
67% No
33% Yes
What do you think the no votes are saying?"
They're saying that all this gun rights crap seems like crap even to hunters. And they're right.

[RoeBear]

54. You couldn't be further...

...from the truth.

"My opponent, John Smith and the Democratic Party, want to add $2.50 to each box of ammo that you buy"

"and they want to take youur precious guns away, yadda yadda yadda....
And it will impress a bunch of yokels who weren't going to vote Democratic under any circumstances. EVER."

Around here unions are quite big (I used to belong to the UAW) and so is hunting. The Repubs have succesfully used hunting and gun issues to peel off otherwise democratic votes here. It's reality Benchley.

BTW- we aren't a bunch of yokels and we do vote for the democrat when he fully represents us.

[MrBenchley]

56. Yeah, surrrrrre....

So I'm a union worker, and the Republicans are trying to destroy my union....but I'm going to vote for rthem because I need my pwecious widdle gun?

Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

"BTW- we aren't a bunch of yokels"
Yeah, THAT really shows.

[RoeBear]

74. You're denial of reality...

...doesn't make it any less true.

Ask CoLib if a Democrat could win in Colorado if they suggested an ammo tax.

[MrBenchley]

81. Who are you trying to kid, Roe?

The entire RKBA crowd lives in denial of reality.

[RoeBear]

19. WOW! The support for renewal is a mile wide...

...and an inch deep.

[MrBenchley]

21. And the support for not renewing

is the nutcase fringe of the GOP and the corrupt gun industry.

Now be sure and whine to us how all those groups are "biased," roe.

[CO Liberal]

29. But to Hear Some of the More Radical Pro-Gunners Talk.....

...cop killing is part of the fight.

[MrBenchley]

31. Yup....

And of course contempt for law enforcement is rife in the RKBA crowd.

[Withergyld]

33. zzzzzzzzzzz

:boring:

[MrBenchley]

35. Not a lot of brain activity among the RKBA crowd

even when awake.....

[demsrule4life]

67. CO go to the source

I know several officers on this page.
Gunfire is the biggest killer of cops, and at least 1/4 of those shootings is done with the officers guns. Only problem as rifles go they dont say if assault or other type, but you will see several years where officers killed by own weapon out numbers rifles of any sort. Second biggets killer? their patrol cars.

[demsrule4life]

68. Sorry CO, here is the link

http://www.odmp.org

[MrBenchley]

7. That could be

Look how many were sticking up for the McLoony family and their armed resistance to the building inspector and sanitary code.

[Withergyld]

9. WTF

I nave no clue what you are referring to.
:wtf:

[MrBenchley]

14. Gee, you should have been around here

a few weeks ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=9332&mesg_id=9332

[Axman]

55. Dude, take a chill pill...

You're coming across as if you were foaming at the mouth. Your outright dismissal of the other side of the issue doesn't help your image and it hurts, even if by a little bit, those of us who want to accomplish something with reasonable gun control.

A piece of advice, don't quote VPC. They are as loonie on the left as the NRA is loonie on the right. They are not a credible source anymore no matter how much we may want to think they are.

[MrBenchley]

57. Yeah, surrrrrrrre......

"They are not a credible source anymore "
Yeah? Sez who?

[Withergyld]

58. I don't believe

That the VPC is credible. I have already show where their rhetoric is misleading.

[MrBenchley]

59. And I'll take the source

under advisement....

"I have already show where their rhetoric is misleading."
And their facts were absolutely correct.....and your "impartial source" made an excellent case for their connclusion.

[Withergyld]

61. This is from my impartial source

They preface thier findings as follows:
"The ban’s impact on lethal gun violence is unclear because the
short period since the enabling legislation’s passage created
methodological difficulties for researchers. The National Institute
of Justice is funding a followup study by the authors that is expected
to be released in 2000. It will assess the longer term impacts
of the ban and the effects of the other firearms provisions of Title XI. The long-term impacts of the ban could differ substantially from the short-term impacts."

I have been trying to find the follow up study and will post a link if/when I find it

[MrBenchley]

63. Gee, you don't suppose NRA life member AshKKKroft

is sitting on it because it doesn't back up his "gun rights" horseshit, do you?

[Withergyld]

64. I think the anti gun

people need to loosen their tin foil hats. It is cutting off the blood circulation in their brains. They go to great lengths to claim how paranoid the RKBA crowd is, but it would appear the gun grabbers suffers from similar delusions and conspiracy theories.
:tinfoilhat:

[MrBenchley]

65. Who are you trying to kid?

"it would appear the gun grabbers suffers from similar delusions and conspiracy theories."
Guess it's far out to suppose that John AshKKKroft might EVER do anything underhanded.......

[Withergyld]

66. The distrust

and paranoia shown by anti gunners is just amazing.
:cry: :nopity: :cry:

[MrBenchley]

69. So you TRUST John AshKKKroft?

[Axman]

60. I attended a hearing in 1998...

Janet Reno was mentioning some information on guns and stuff. One of the attendees asked why her numbers didn't fit with VPC. Her response was that VPC had skewed data which was deemed unreliable.

Somewhere on the web is a DOJ report concerning the accuracy of NRA, VPC, HCI, and other sites with statistical information. I don't have time to search for the link now but if you run across it, you'll be surprised at just how off VPC is.

[MrBenchley]

62. Yeah,, surrrrrre....

"I don't have time to search for the link "
Well, I guess that's more plausible than "the dog ate it.."

[a2birdcage]

48. Actually handguns..............

would be included in that 20% as well. When you say assault weapon the first thing that comes to a lot of peoples minds in assault rifle. The VPC and other gun prohibitionists define a gun as an assault weapon if it has a magazine capacity of more than ten rounds. So for example if a police officer was killed by a preban Glock 17 that had a 17 round magazine capacity then that would fit into the 1 in 5 stat because to them it's an assault weapon. On the other hand if the officer was killed by a post ban version of the same weapon that only holds 10 rounds or less then that wouldn't be considered an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is they are the same gun with different magazine capacities. Also please keep in mind that a post ban Glock 17 will accept preban standard capacity (17 rounds) magazines along with postban low cap (10 round) magazines. As you can clearly see it makes perfect sense.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Assault weapons are illegal

Enacting more criminal sanctions to ban something already illegal is a waste of time and won't make anyone any safer.

[Character Assassin]

20. Shhhhh! The pro-ban loonies don't understand that

And it's fun to watch them squirm when trying to be intellectually consistent.

[idadem]

28. Do ANY of you...

...even know what an assault weapon IS? I still cannot find a post by anyone that demonstrates a familiarity with the definition as outlined by congress.

[CO Liberal]

45. It's Been Discussed On This Board Ad Nauseum

[idadem]

51. Then how come...

...some posters here are adamantly against assault weapons yet
have no problem with rifles which are functionally-exact copies of these weapons.

For instance, Mr. Benchley posted the following last month;
'I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning rifles and shotguns for legitimate purposes...'
'...shotguns and rifles also have legitimate uses for "sportsmen" or self defense...'

Yet, a Colt MT6700 which is not an assault weapon, is functionally the SAME as a Colt R6700, an assault weapon. The R6700 tips the 'danger scales' by the inclusion of some threads on the end of the barrel? Oooooooo! Threads! Scaaaaarrrry!
A tiny piece of metal near the barrel called a bayo lug would render a rifle too dangerous to allow?
Hell, Colt could produce a new MT6700 today and sell it to non-LEOs because it is not an AW, but if they merely mill the letters 'AR15' on the side of the receiver, it's NOW an assault weapon? Good grief.

If assault weapon definitions were factually discussed ad nauseum, then there would be a lot less duplicity and a lot more consistency in opinions.

[1a2b3c]

73. I would like to see your responce on this CO

Why would someone want to renew a ban that only takes some threads, a bayonet lug, and some letters off of a barrel? Are those letters making the gun more dangerous?

[MrBenchley]

75. What I'd like to see

is an RKBA "enthusiast" explain why, if all that the ban covers is "some threads, a bayonet lug, and some letters off of a barrel" that the courrupt gun industry is spending millions trying to keep it from being renewed. Or why the entire RKBA crowd is howling in unison that the ban MUST be overturned.

[1a2b3c]

76. sure

First off like its been mentioned, the ban is stupid and only blocks cosmetics of the gun.

Second some of us want bayonet lugs on our guns. You can use the lug to hold a tripod. We want collapable stocks that can be fitted for small or large shooters. We want cool looking flash suppressors and threaded lugs to add extas like flash lights or laser sites.

The ban does nothing to crime. It change a guns features because some dumbass anti gunner, who knew nothing about guns, thought it would somehow mean that the gun manufactures couldnt produce the exact same gun without the features.

[RoeBear]

77. Who was the dumb ass...

...that wrote that law?

[MrBenchley]

82. Hahahahahahahaha!!

Yeah, that certainly is plausible....

"some of us want bayonet lugs on our guns"
Yeah, and there's people in hell that want ice water....

"The ban does nothing to crime. "
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[idadem]

78. fish in a barrel!

With a little education regarding firearm terms and functions, both supporters and opponents of the current AW ban would agree that the current law is a badly written, poorly-contrived pile of horseshit.
It bans cosmetic features and names. Looks do not kill. Names do not hurt.

The current AW ban WILL go away. It will either expire or be rewritten as a bill which will (listen closely) define assault weapons by their FUNCTIONAL FEATURES AND CHARACTERISTICS.

The firearms industry knows this and spends millions to prevent new legislation that would ban actual classes of semi-automatic guns that are not currently considered assault weapons today by law (eg. Colt MT6700.)
The current AWB didn't really do away with anything. Magazines are as plentiful as ever. Renamed AR15s are produced and sold every day to the public.
You could say that both sides are taking advantage of the total confusion and ignorance that most people have regarding the definition of an assault weapon.

[MrBenchley]

83. Who are you trying to kid?

The corrupt gun industry is spending millions trying to keep the ban from being renewed and strengthened.

[CO Liberal]

79. If That's All The Difference There Is........

...why are you pro-gunners so upset over the ban? By your own admission, you can get the same firepower (or more) from non-banned weapons.

[idadem]

80. I just answered your question.

Read my 'fish in a barrel' post.
When those who support today's AW ban discover that it does
nothing, they will rewrite it and ban guns that they originally intended to go after (which are still produced, sold today.)

The firearms industry is being proactive to future bans, NOT reactive to the present ban. Got it?

[1a2b3c]

84. See post 76

and 78 was a good one too.

edit to add; why do you support renewing it? Is it just for a gun control victory? The ban is a waste of space in gun laws. If i was anti-gun, which i obviously aint, i would support getting rid of the retarded AWB and rewrite it to where it might ban the weapon i was trying to ban. Everytime i think of the AWB it makes me laugh. There really was a couple of anti gun dumbshits who thought that taking away a couple features and some letters would ban a rifle. :eyes:

[a2birdcage]

85. But why.......

keep a law on the books that does nothing to curb crime? It seems like a waste of time and money to me. I mean why make a criminal out of somebody over something that is for the most part cosmetic? How many times have you heard of someone attaching a bayonet to his or her rifle and spearing someone to death with it? How many times have you heard that the only reason that the shooter could not be located was because of the flash suppressor on his or her weapon (the Maryland snipers used a postban version that didn't incorporate the flash suppressor and they were still never located at the seen of any of their crimes)? How many times have you heard if the shooter hadn't used a telescoping/folding stock he would have never made it into the building with that rifle? We have to be honest with ourselves and come to grips that these forms of weapons never have and currently are not a major threat to our society. 99% of the people that own them use them for target shooting and plinking because something that has military similarities is far more interesting to shoot and handle. Just like a military fighter jet is more interesting than a Cessna. I, like millions of others, have never used my so called "assault weapons" for anything but legal activities. Why shouldn't we get pissed off that just because one guy out of hundreds of thousands decides to kill someone with his we should have to give up ours? Far more people are murdered with shotguns each year than "assault weapons". I don't hear anyone saying we should ban shotguns. And if you still think an "assault weapon" is more deadly than a shotgun let me know and I'll email you some pictures of people who have been shot with shotguns (it's not pretty). It really is just a matter of simple logic. You just have to be willing to except that maybe what you thought you knew isn't really how things are.

[Withergyld]

70. I'd like to

see where they can get an AK47 for $169 like their movie shows.

[1a2b3c]

71. add $130

and i will ship one to your signed FFL in the morning. :-)

[a2birdcage]

72. I saw that too.

Last time I checked the least expensive AK variant you could buy was the SAR-1. I believe they wanted $300 for it or just under. It's just more of the usually "back on the street" shit. It always cracks me up that this stuff was never really on the street in any great number in the first place but all of a sudden if the AWB expires it's like opening the floodgates of the "assault weapon's" reservoir.