The ban must stand

[1a2b3c]

As a Republican, I fear some in my party (and some Democrats) may soon betray that trust in a way that could result in the loss of life of law enforcement officers, innocent civilians or even our troops overseas.

This trust will be betrayed if Congress fails to renew the federal ban on semiautomatic assault-style weapons. The ban went into effect in 1994 and made it illegal to manufacture, transfer or possess 19 specific types of semiautomatic weapons. It also banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Before I am tarred and feathered, let me be clear about this: I am strongly in favor of Americans having the right to bear arms. I support the Second Amendment. What I don't support, and in fact what I find disgusting, is any attempt to weaken or let expire the ban on these weapons of mass death and mass misery.

Douglas MacKinnon, press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole, is a former White House and Pentagon official and a novelist.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-op.weapons08sep08,0,3006776.story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

[GAspnes]

1. here here!

I think you have drawn a sane and sensible line in the sand.

[iverglas]

8. heh heh

Since I don't imagine that many would start out a post here by saying "As a Republican, I ...", I assume that the entire content of the lead post was quoted from the site cited. Along with the title, "The ban must stand", or at least the sentiment it expresses.

Somebody needs to learn to use html, or find some other way of making it plain to the reader that the words used are not his/her own, it seems.

Not that I'm implying any plagiaristic intent -- my suspicion is that the poster in question here would not *want* to be associated with the sentiments expressed.

I think the poster's point was more along the lines of "look, you sorry excuses for Democrats, a Republican agrees with you!" My bet is that the poster in question doesn't agree at all.

.

[MrBenchley]

9. B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but....

What does public safety and sanity matter? Think of the near-orgasmic joy these "enthusiasts" are missing!

Notice that it doesn't bother these "enthusiasts" that they're pimping the position held by Tom DeLay , Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, etc...

But we're supposed to be abashed that some low-level former aide to Bob Dole has actually expressed a reasonable argument.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. You can't hunt with...

A Tec9. You can, but you will starve before you hit something you can eat. It's a shitty home-defense weapon. Shotguns are a lot better. So what are they good for? Pulling out from under your long duster and holding sideways while you empty the clip? </sarcasm>

[Romulus]

3. "shotgun best for home defense"

I keep hearing this mantra, but I don't see any basis for it. Sure, it's great for stepping out on the porch, chambering a round, and yelling "get off my land," but that's about it.

Can you imagine the sight of the average person lugging a three-foot-long piece of metal down their hallways and through doorways while checking out a strange noise in the night? And doing it proficiently while not having it snatched away from them as they come around a corner?

I guess a shotgun could also work if you "hole up" in the bedroom instead of venturing out to check on that noise. But then you won't be going to sleep anytime soon as you try to imagine what the noise was. And the police will sure love to come "check things out" for the millionth time if you call them for every suspicious noise you hear.

Just musing.

[Superfly]

4. The best firearm for home defense

Is the one you feel most comfortable and have the most confidence in shooting. For me, that's a S&W Model 27

[Spentastic]

5. And I have

a telephone

and a cricket bat.

[Superfly]

6. Hey, if they work for you, that's just great!

Personally, I like to be as equally (or more) armed as the bad-guys.

[Ergotron]

146. More is better

Never bring a knife to a gunfight. Never enter a fight with a handgun the caliber of which does not start with at least a 4.

[Spoonman]

13. I would recomend

having armored telephone wire installed, and keeping the "cricket bat" coated with Vaseline.:evilgrin:

[Township75]

16. I think I can out do you Spentastic...

because I have

1. a telephone

2. I could get a cricket bat, or baseball bat, or steel pipe, but why bother when there is #3?

3.




of course, if what you have works well for you, and you are happy with it, by all means stick with it...I know I am sticking with mine:)

[Ergotron]

113. telephone and cricket bat???

That'll scare someone, eh? Especially if there are two or more men intent on taking your money, your posessions, or your life.

[Ergotron]

114. One more thing for your home defense 'arsenal' Spentastic:

I recommend you post this on your front door, or perhaps on the lawn.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

7. For me

It is a AR-15 with a tele-stock, and an 11 inch barrel, It also has a handy surefire light.

Small, lightweight, easy to handle, and a rifle beats a pistol any day of the week. :)

[Ergotron]

112. Shotgun IS good for home defense

Specifically, a shotgun is great for the average homeowner. Someone without training can be relatively sure of hitting someone with a shotgun..not so with a pistol. Also, shotgun pellets are not likely to overpenetrate like a high velocity pistol round will. Added benefit: EVERY criminal knows the sound of a shotgun slide being racked, even in the dark. That sound let's 'em know they are in the home of someone able to defend themselves and perhaps they should move on.

[KS_44]

95. You can hunt with an AR15 though.

Took my first deer with one.

[1a2b3c]

96. What state is that?

Its illegal in most states.

[KS_44]

97. The best one

Texas

.223 is legal deer tender here.

[RoeBear]

10. You should really...

...use quote marks when including a cut-and-paste. I thought you were saying that you were a republican.

[1a2b3c]

60. Man i made up my own party in my time away from DU

Im in the Liberation Party, no connection with E.L.F.

[Liberal Classic]

11. Let the 94 AWB sunset

I wish that the Patriot Act had a sunset provision as well.

[MrBenchley]

12. "Lunatics and criminals need more firepower"

There's no reason on earth not to STRENGTHEN the ban...and the fact that Tom DeLay is pushing FOR it ought to persuade most sane people of that.

[Liberal Classic]

14. I politely disagree

If we're serious about reducing violence, then we need to approach the drug prohibition the same as the alcohol prohibition. The AWB treats the symptom but not the disease.

[MrBenchley]

15. So in other words

instead of a practical common sense step, we have to tackle two insoluble problems of human nature...

ho kay.

[Liberal Classic]

17. Again, I politely disagree

The alcohol prohibition by legislative fiat turned people from law abiding into criminals overnight. The alcohol prohibition created smuggling, it fostered crime, and generated violence. It is because of the alcohol prohibition that we have the mafia. Gun control was a response to the growing crime and violence comitted by the bootleggers. Early efforts at gun control were vain attempts to cure the violent symptoms of the diseases caused by prohibition, and unfortunately like prohibition they were a failure. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking just as early gun control didn't stop bootleggers from using arms. All it did was create a profit motive to crime and violence.

The gangs today may dress differently and have different nicknames than the bootleggers of old, but they're the same animal. Just as with alcohol prohibition, a great part of the violence and murder today is directly related to the drug trade.

Treat the disease instead of the symptom.

[CO Liberal]

18. Guns Are Part of the Disease

Violence in this country is caused by many factors - including the relative ease of obtaining firearms. Gun control is just a small part of what needs to be done - other steps need to be taken to address root factors such as poverty, lack of jobs, etc, etc, etc...........

[Liberal Classic]

19. True that prohibition is not the only cause

I substantially agree, violence is a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that gun control is about as effective as prohibition in stopping its intended ill, which is to say not very well. If the other factors are improved, such as gainful employment and stable home life those sorts of things, crime and violence drops. There will always be some crime and violence, it's difficult to prevent crimes of passion and suicide, but on the whole I agree that as the root causes of crime and violence are lessened the need for prohibition and gun control is likewise lessened. I think it's important not to confuse the means with the end. Gun control and prohibition are not ends, they are means to an end.

[MrBenchley]

22. Let's see....

"I am of the opinion that gun control is about as effective as prohibition in stopping its intended ill"
Really? Let us know when you see shooteasies popping up.

"There will always be some crime and violence"
So why not let the gun industry make a quick buck arming those folks, eh?

[Liberal Classic]

25. Well, it seems with you respect is thrown out the window

Perhaps you should read CO's post. I think he made quite a good point that there are many causes of violence, one which I happen to agree.

[MrBenchley]

34. Silliness gets what it deserves with me

"Perhaps you should read CO's post."
I try not to miss his posts, since he usually makes sense...

[Man_in_the_Moon]

20. Wow

Violence in this country is caused by many factors - including the relative ease of obtaining firearms.

Got any actual proof that 'the ease in obtaining firearms' actually CAUSES violence?

Do the guns 'talk' people into violence?

Or do they send out some sort of mind control wave to incite people into violence?

[CO Liberal]

21. Because The Guns Can Be Easily Obtained......

...use of a gun is seen as a viable course of action.

If it were harder to obtain a gun, many shootings would not take place. That's all I'm saying.

There are many reasons for violence. To deal with the problem, nothing can be taken off the table.

[Liberal Classic]

23. But it's a tool, not the cause

Carrying a knife is not a reason for violence, either.

[CO Liberal]

32. Having the Tool Available Make It a Cause For Violence

There would be no drive-by shootings without cars or guns - both are tools required to commit the act.

If you have a penchant to commit violence, carrying a knife OR a gun makes it easier. To reduce violence, limit the availability of tools, and reduce the other root caused for violence.

[MrBenchley]

39. Did you see this?

"My favorite Clark riposte is on guns. He grew up hunting, in a family that had more than a dozen hunting rifles. But he's pro-gun control. "If you want to fire an assault weapon," he has said, "join the army." The NRA can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it. "

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/08/kuttner-r-08-28.html

[Liberal Classic]

41. Re: Limit the tools and the availability of crime drops

Again, you've made a good point. Without cars and guns there would be no drive by shootings, a trusim like without liquor there would be no alcoholics.

My response would be that in these debates tools are often anthropomorthized. Tools are inanimate objects, cocaine and gunpowder have no will or moral sense on their own. It takes a person to misuse them.

Tools have both positive and negative uses. I believe that a citizen in good standing ought to have the right to own a firearm and go shooting for pleasure, the same as I believe the same person should be able to drink alcohol. I believe that people should be able to own guns, marijuana, large breed dogs, fast cars, loud stereo systems, and on and on. I believe people should have these things until they have been proved that they cannot behave themselves. Once this is done, I have little mercy for them and think they should be jailed away from the rest of us responsible people.

If we go after the root causes of violence first, there will be less of a need for expensive and opressive government intiatives to keep people in line. Gun control and prohibition will be needed less if these other things aren't so bad.

[iverglas]

49. more on the false analogy

The purpose of alcohol and drug prohibition is to control access to the substances because of the harm that is intrinsic in the use of the substances.

NO ONE is suggesting that there is any harm intrinsic in firearms or in firearm use.

A firearm IS a tool, used for doing things.

Alcohol and drugs ARE NOT tools. They are not used for doing other things. They are used for themselves.

The aim of prohibition is to make it extremely difficult for people to use drugs and alcohol. NOT to decrease the harm that such people do by using drugs or alcohol as a tool. That's nonsense.

Certainly one can "use" alcohol to kill someone else, if one manages to pour enough of the stuff down the other person's throat (or cocaine, by injecting someone else with it). I really just don't think that preventing this scenario is the motivation behind prohibition. Do you?

Does "careless use" of alcohol by one person often harm someone else? There's many a slip twixt cup and lip, but few people are killed by flying drops of red wine spilled by someone else.

And certainly one can use alcohol *and* harm someone else. The alcohol just isn't what "causes" the harm, though, is it? Undeniably, a bullet CAUSES harm.

One doesn't drive alcohol into other people, or shoot alcohol at other people, or wave alcohol around to intimidate others into doing one's wishes. People didn't hold up banks by pointing bottles of vodka at tellers, they didn't kill their wives and children by spraying them with beer.

And the adverse effects of alcohol and drug prohibition stem almost entirely from the birth of the black market in alcohol or drugs. The black market arises because of people's desire to *use* alcohol and drugs, for the purpose for which they are used. Not for some secondary purpose, for something they can do *with* alcohol and drugs. Like hunt for dinner, or obtain money from other people without their consent, or terrorize the wife and kids.

A black market in firearms would arise because people wanted firearms for a secondary purpose. What might that be?

Hunting for dinner? In North America, how likely is it that possession of firearms for the purpose of hunting for dinner is going to be outlawed? How many people seriously suggest that it be outlawed? Do I? Nope.

Obtaining money from other people without their consent? Oh look -- we don't want people to do that. How wise it might be for us to make it more difficult and more expensive for people to obtain firearms for that purpose. YES, they might still be able to carry out that purpose without a firearm -- but not likely as many of them, and not likely as often.

Terrorizing the wife and kids, or the neighbours, or the boss? Again -- we don't want people to do that.

Just messing around with their firearms in a way that is dangerous to other people? Yup -- we don't want people to do that either.

Killing themselves? Well, we don't really want people to do that, so although we should not (and of course can't) make it impossible for them to do it, there's surely no reason why we should make it easy to do it out of impulse in a moment of lowered inhibitions.

The purpose of firearms control is to make it difficult for people to do things that they are able to do if they have firearms but less able to do if they don't have firearms, and that we don't want them to do. It simply is not "to make it difficult for people to have firearms".

"Having firearms" is not the problem. Doing bad things with them is. In the case of alcohol and drugs, the problem is the having of them; they are "had" for one "purpose" only, which is to consume them. If people had firearms only in order to consume them, I'd have no problem with them at all. In fact, I'd buy tickets to the event.

Are there other ways to prevent people from doing bad things with firearms, other than making access to firearms difficult? Reduce the number of people with the urge to do bad things? Sure. In the meantime? And all of them in all circumstances, ever?

Of course, my "bad things" include child suicides, and accidental shootings and shootings by people who get access to firearms who should not, or to firearms that others legally have, so I want rules and enforcement to reduce those those things too.

This notion of a black market in firearms causing an increase in firearms violence ... well, I just get cartoon images in my head. People carrying firearms to protect their firearms stash or to rip off other people with a stash of firearms for sale trying to horn in on their turf, slipping firearms to kids in schoolyards to get them hooked on firearms ... excuse me, but where did this big black market for firearms come from?

I mean, you can drink a 40 ouncer of gin a day if you work at it, but how many firearms will one person go through in a lifetime? Especially since the demand would apparently be coming from all those currently law-abiding citizens, the same law-abiding citizens who supplied the demand for all that illegal gin, most of whom are not rich gun collectors and presumably wouldn't need any more guns than they now have. How many more would it take to saturate that market, do you suppose? How price elastic is that demand? Would it rise significantly if the dealers started offering two-for-one deals? Would dealers be competing to offer the lowest prices? Where does would market equilibrium occur? The mind boggles.

No one is looking to prohibit the possession of firearms outright. Alcohol is no longer prohibited, but in fact there are still regulations relating to commerce in it (e.g. not to children), who is allowed to possess and use it (e.g. not people on the job as air traffic controllers or people driving cars, or people on parole), availability (e.g. licensed dealers with obligations to enforce the access rules) and use (not in public places or cars, e.g.). The rules that would be appropriate for firearms are different rules, but the aim of reducing harm that is common to the various rules we make would be the same. The rules that are advocated are not intended to prevent firearms possession and use, but to prevent the harm associated with it.

.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

50. I guess you hold the belief

That a vagina 'causes' someone to be a prostitute, and a penis 'causes' someone to be a rapist.

[CO Liberal]

51. And I Guess YOU Hold The Belief.......

....that no one can do any wrong with a gun in his or her hands.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

52. I never said that

You are the one who has repeatedly said that access to firearms causes violence, so I am only extrapolating that you must also believe that access to a penis causes rapes.

I have never said that no one can do any wrong with a gun. I have simply refused to blame the tool for the violence as you repeatedly have.

I have said that we need to look at fixing the violence problem in the United States by looking at the TRUE caused, and not the knee-jerk 'blame the tool' reaction that many anti-gun people have.

If you truly want to solve the problem you have to treat the cause, not the symptoms.

[CO Liberal]

53. But You Can't Absolve the Tool Completely, Either

Especially when you're dealing with a few people out there with unhealthy obsessions with guns.

[iverglas]

57. c'mon, CO

Don't fall into the trap.

You said you "blame" the tool. Of course you don't. You don't hold the tool responsible for what is done with it. What sense would that make?

The point is that harm can be done using certain tools that *cannot* and *would not* be done if there were no access to those tools.

Saying that is not "blaming the tool"; it simply makes no sense to say that you blame the tool.

All this USAmerican focus on *blaming*. Here's just another illustration of how silly it is.

If someone blamed firearms for firearms violence, s/he would logically be seeking to punish firearms. Again, makes no sense.

What makes sense is to recognize that access to firearms IS a causal factor in the harm done using firearms.

Access can very definitely make it possible to act on impulses that it would have been otherwise impossible or much more difficult to act on, or where there would otherwise have been factors to inhibit such action. (There are lots of reasons why people *would not* attempt something without a firearm that they *would* attempt with a firearm.)

Access can very definitely also make it more likely that the aim for which the action was taken will be achieved. (Firearms are much more likely to kill, or to intimidate others into doing what one wants them to do, than any other "tool" one might use for those purposes.)

Access can very definitely also prompt, or exacerbate, an impulse. Someone might have no impulse at all to harm or kill another person, or rob a bank, if s/he did not have access to a firearm. The underlying desire to hurt someone or make him/her go away, or the underlying desire to have money, might be there, but the impulse to do something to bring the thing desired about -- to cause the harm or steal the money -- might very well not arise at all if the means were not available.

If I have an impulse to eat a chocolate chip cookie, I won't be able to do it if there are no cookies in my office. If I am in my office feeling vaguely hungry, the impulse to eat a chocolate chip cookie isn't likely to overcome my reasons for not doing it (no time to go shopping for one ...) if there isn't one right here. But if somebody sticks a chocolate chip cookie under my nose and I am the least bit hungry, I'll definitely have an impulse to eat it.

These things are facts, and they are facts that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge. Their refusal to acknowledge them really doesn't make them disappear.

They want to pretend that they all come down to "guns are to blame for homicide, bank robbery and spousal abuse", and that this is what we are saying when we point out those facts.

They don't, and we aren't. Any more than I'd say that chocolate chip cookies are to blame for me being chubby. I'd simply say that I'd do well to keep chocolate chip cookies and me separated.

Just as we'd do well to keep people who are likely to use firearms to cause harm -- intentionally, negligently or accidentally -- separated from firearms.

Complete separation is not possible and not desirable; measures to make it more difficult to act on impulse, make it more likely that people who do act on impulse will cause less harm, and make it less likely that the impulse will be prompted or exacerbated by access to the means to carry it out, are possible and desirable.

.

[Ergotron]

118. Is it REALLY the tool...?

Men killed other men for THOUSANDS of years before the invention of firearms. Take away the guns and we'll still find ways of killing our fellow man. It's human nature...not right, but a fact of life.

[iverglas]

38. and seeing a chocolate chip cookie

is not the reason for me being chubby, either.

Keeping chocolate chip cookies out of my house might make it substantially less likely that I'll end up chubby though, doncha think?

Impulse and access. Very common factors in both chubbiness and firearms deaths and injuries.

First, impulse can exist without access to the means to act on it.

If I have the impulse to eat a chocolate chip cookie but don't have any handy, I may decide to get in the car and go buy some. Not likely, unless I really have a hunger for cookies on. I might eat nothing, or eat whatever was handy that was less chubbifying; celery.

If someone has the impulse to kill or harm someone else and doesn't have a firearm handy, s/he might indeed go looking for one. How wise it might be if firearms were harder to find than cookies.

S/he might, on the other hand, use whatever means happened to be handy: a knife, a fist, a rock. And just as my celery is less likely to have the same effect as a cookie, those are all less likely to have the same effect as a firearm. The lethality of the "tool" is far lower.

And so the impulse might not even be acted on, if the outcome was likely not to be achieved even if considerable effort is expended -- or if an undesirable outcome is entirely likely, even. If my aim is to get chubby, I should actually avoid eating celery; it apparently takes more calories to digest than it contains. If someone's aim is to kill someone else, s/he might decide not to bother trying it with a knife or a fist, since all that effort might be quite likely to result in his/her own death or injury instead.

Second, access, while it can exist in the absence of impulse, with the result that nothing happens, can *indeed* prompt the impulse where other conditions are conducive to the impulse.

I had no impulse to eat a chocolate chip cookie a minute ago. But now that you mention it, I'm a bit peckish. Put one of them in front of my face right now, and I will very undoubtedly eat it. My inhibitions against eating chubbifying things aren't real strong. Others' might be weaker or stronger.

Someone who had no impulse to kill someone else yesterday, but found him/herself in a situation in which the other person was severely annoying him/her and remove whatever inhibition might normally quell the impulse in that person or in others (sobriety, anger-management strategies, fear of consequences ...), put a firearm in the next room, and bingo. Impulse + access = dead person.

No one says that access to firearms is anyone's "reason for" killing anyone. Let's not be disingenuous.

Access to firearms *is* a link in the causal chain leading to deaths and injuries, and in many cases there is very strong reason to believe that it is a *necessary* link in that chain.

That is, access will not likely be a *sufficient* condition, but it may well be a *necessary* condition. It is plain old hooey to say that even a majority of the firearms deaths in the US would have happened in the absence of that access.

That in no way settles the argument concerning what is to be done. It's always just nice if the facts and logic we all bring to the argument aren't hooey to start with. Offering hooey, and demanding that others refute it, is just such a waste of time, to put it charitably.

.

[MrBenchley]

24. This gun control = prohibition analogy

might be about the silliest yet. Who can forget the stories about drive-by drinking binges, and innocent bystanders getting soused, that led to prohibition?

[Liberal Classic]

26. All manner of ills were associate with alcohol consumption

Sarcasm not withstanding. I suggest you read about the Volstead Act. It's quite interesting, and closely mirrors what's going on today.

[Township75]

29. Hi, LC! Welcome to the J/PS Forum...

do you not post in this forum much? I don't recognize your name.

Sincerely,
The Town!

[Liberal Classic]

37. No I don't post here much.

For reasons I believe are obvious I usually stay in the general discussion area. :)

[MrBenchley]

30. Teach your grandma to suck eggs

I know all about the Volstead Act...and the analogy is Mighty Joe Silly.

[Township75]

33. benchy, is Teach your grandma to suck eggs....

going to be a new standard reply from you?

It seems to me that cry me a river, what a pantload, peddle it somewhere else, and so forth haven't been used as much by you as they once were.

Can we expect a new series of Benchaphonics fairly soon?

[MrBenchley]

35. Town, go snivel to someone who cares....

"Can we expect a new series of Benchaphonics fairly soon?"
Same shit, different day from the RKBA crowd.....

[Liberal Classic]

43. Well, to me it doesn't seem you have

I believe you tend to antroporphize firearms to a degree that it makes it difficult to communiate rationally on this topic. Plus you're just plain rude. That doesn't help either.

[MrBenchley]

44. Well, I'm not the one trying to make the silly analogy

"yyou tend to antroporphize firearms to a degree that it makes it difficult to communiate"
I often regooglitate them as well, when I'm not eflemerizing the mantication.

"Plus you're just plain rude."
I'm for plain speaking and clear understanding. And trying to pretend that gun control is like prohibition is ludicrous in the extreme.

[Liberal Classic]

47. I make analogy between prohibition and drug war

I didn't draw an analogy between gun control and prohibition. I said that prohibition and gun control are alike because they are not as effective as we might think. The analogy I drew was between the alcohol prohibition and the current drug war. This is the analogy I made so you're arguing a straw man, as usual.

You are not plain speaking at all, rather you're both insulting and evasive.

[MrBenchley]

54. Hellooooooo?

"I didn't draw an analogy between gun control and prohibition. I said that prohibition and gun control are alike"

Ho kay.....

[Liberal Classic]

67. More dervish-like whirling

Certianly any educated person including yourself knows the difference between making a comparison and drawing an analogy. I drew an analogy between the alcohol prohibition and the current drug war. I think that this analogy substantially holds when looking at prohibitions effects on crime, violence, and the legal system. I believe that it is important because the root causes of crime are important when talking about public policies such as firearm regulation.

However, I say something about the alcohol prohibition, the drug war, and gun control not being particularly effective and you latch on it as if it were my main and only point. There's not much point with trying to counter your posts because you do not debate, you flame.

Blegh. This is one of the reasons I don't often post in Justice/Public Safety. Frankly, what I would like to see is more posts on the drug war, I think it's a much more important issue than gun control in the grand scheme of things. The prohibition touches on so much more than firearm policy, but civil rights, the rights of the accused, search and seziure and the 4th amendment, self incrimination and the 5th amendment, police department funding, prison and jail funding, health policy and benefits, employment policy and benefits and so many other things that I could continue on at some length.

Gun control is a minor issue compared to prohibition. I'd like to see more threads on the prohibition (and maybe some about pirate radio or microradio but that's for another day) so maybe I'll try to post some.

[nn2004]

28. Your logic fails in this case

Condoms are easier to obtain than guns but there are still AIDs cases. That's all I'm saying.

The acts of an individual can't be blamed on a tool.

[CO Liberal]

42. And a Tool Cannot Be Absolved of All Blame

They're intertwined.

[Township75]

46. So should we put the tools in jail?

If they share the blame, then why not?

[CO Liberal]

48. Of Couse Not

But you cannot ignore the role that guns play in shooting deaths.

[iverglas]

45. phew

"Condoms are easier to obtain than guns but there are still AIDs cases. That's all I'm saying."

That may be a wise decision. Who knows what other silly things you could say if you put your mind to it?

Do people "commit" AIDS by using condoms? Are condoms the "tools" used to transmit AIDS? News to me. But if that were the case, your statement might begin to make some sense.

I won't say "your logic fails". I'd have to find some, first.

"The acts of an individual can't be blamed on a tool."

Ah, such wisdom. If only there were some discernable reason for wanting to pass it on.

.

[MrBenchley]

56. Sounds like Bob Boudelang, doesn't it?

"And yet LIEberal socialists and other moderates want kids to have condoms and not guns. Say la vee, unless that means something else..."

[shatoga]

69. "best" 9mm submachine gun BATF displayed was prison made

A 9mm blowback operated hesitation-locked machine gun
Made in a prison using water pipe.


Availability of guns is past history.

There are uncounted millions of guns available.

The problem is to prevent their use in crime.

I support laws such as the "caught with a gun-go to jail" laws for convicted felons.
I support the mandatory minimum 5 years for having a gun while committing any crime.
I support background checks and waiting periods.

But the idea that a rifle with a handgrip is more lethal than one with a thumbhole stock.

Stupid!

COLiberal,
You are smarter than that and your posts show it.

Reasonable anti-crime laws make sense.

anti-gun laws make no sense.

Running over a pedestrian with your car is illegal.
More people are killed every year by cars than by guns.
Outlaw cars to reduce highway deaths?
Stupid.

Outlaw criminal use of guns, cars, kitchen knives, baseball bats,
etc.

The tool used to commit a crime requires a human hand to wield it.

No gun ever jumped up and shot anyone spontaneously.

Takes a human hand to use a gun to commit a crime.

IS a ban on kitchen knives next?
Stay tuned!

[Ergotron]

117. It's the culture, NOT the guns.

Point of fact: Switzerland has MORE guns per capita than ANY OTHER COUNTRY...even the U.S. The difference is they are not killing each other at the rate we are. Why not? Well, I'm glad you asked...it's simple really. All Swiss men (women too???) are required to receive military training as one of their citizenship duties. They are all trained in the safe, proper use of firearms. They then return to their homes, with their assualt weapons (real ones, too), and live in relative peace with their neighbors. Why don't they attack/kill each other like all to many of our fellow countrymen do? It's because nobody is gonna break into a house or assault a guy who they KNOW owns an assault rifle. Even if they don't respect the person they respect the rifle. Kinda like detente, eh comrade?

[iverglas]

120. drivel

"Why don't they attack/kill each other like all to many of our fellow countrymen do? It's because nobody is gonna break into a house or assault a guy who they KNOW owns an assault rifle. Even if they don't respect the person they respect the rifle. Kinda like detente, eh comrade?"

Have you ever actually met a Swiss?


You say "it's the culture, not the guns" ... and then merrily go off and project YOUR culture onto SOMEONE ELSE's.

Maybe there really are people on earth who are less prone to shooting one another and burglarizing one another's homes because they are, on average, far more likely to have the kind of social and economic opportunity that makes people more likely to feel membership in their societies, and adhere to the values of those societies.

Maybe they are less prone to shooting one another and burlarizing one another's homes because they're just nicer people.

Considered any of those possibilities?

Got any foundation for your assertion that the reason for the phenomenon in question is "because nobody is gonna break into a house or assault a guy who they KNOW owns an assault rifle"?

I didn't think so.

Just more ethnocentrism.

.

[iverglas]

27. symptoms and diseases

Let us say that you and I both have broken feet.

Mine was broken as a result of a very badly constructed driveway at my sister's house, plus my own innate clumsiness. If the driveway hadn't been built with a beveled edge 3" higher than the adjacent lawn, so that my foot twisted when I stood on the edge, my foot wouldn't have been broken. (It was, in June.)

Yours was broken as a result of somebody stomping on it during a game of football.

*My* broken foot could have been prevented if the driveway had been constructed safely. If contractors won't construct driveways safely of their own volition, we can make rules about the construction of driveways, and enforce them the way we enforce all the other construction rules we make: by having the construction of buildings inspected before they're used.

Could *your* broken foot have been prevented if a building contractor had done its job with goodwill and skill, or if a building code had been in place and enforced? (And could *my* broken foot have been prevented if we relied only on the goodwill and skill of contractors and didn't make and enforce rules as well?)

*Some* firearms deaths and injuries would very undoubtedly be prevented if drug possession was decriminalized. That is one of the reasons I, personally, oppose the use of the criminal law to achieve the nonetheless desirable goal of reducing drug use. (A whole lot of other crimes, including property crimes, would obviously also be prevented by doing that, and a lot of other beneficial side-effects would also result.)

Other firearms deaths and injuries are not remotely connected to drug use or the drug trade. What will decriminalizing drug possession do to prevent those deaths and injuries?

About as much as making and enforcing building codes will do to prevent injuries that occur during football games.

Are there other ways to prevent injuries from occurring during football games that might be usefully considered? I imagine so. They won't prevent *all* such injuries, but they might prevent a number of them while leaving it possible to play football at some, but a reduced, risk.

You ever heard the tale of the abuse and ridicule that the first NHL goaltender to wear a mask endured? A lot of goaltenders' teeth and bones are now intact, after masks became mandatory, that wouldn't otherwise have been, at no great loss to the game of hockey.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/portraits/docs/men/ea164700.htm

Jacques <Plante> had to fight a fierce battle with the managers of the Canadiens and against public opinion, because he wished to wear a protective mask during games. He was criticised for being afraid of the puck, and it was claimed that a mask limited his field of vision. It was only when Jacques almost had his nose torn off by a puck one night that Coach Toe Blake allowed him to wear a mask for the rest of the game. Jacques never came back on the ice without his mask. Subsequently, with the help of his advice and the efforts of specialists, and after some experimenting, suppliers managed to make a mask that was comfortable for the wearer, and protected him without limiting his field of vision. Jacques Plante's prowess was evidence that with a mask he played better than ever.

Gee ... some of that sounds like what gets said about people who want the "mask" of gun control, to protect themselves and others. They're afraid, they want to spoil everybody's fun ... .

It's always possible that if we had that mask -- as well as some of the other things we need, like decriminalization of drug possession and an end to the war on the victims of the drug trade in the US and abroad -- we might find that life, like hockey, is even more fun than it was before. The way things tend to be when you don't life in fear of your face getting smashed up, or actually get it smashed up. Yup, firearms control may affect other people more than Plante's mask did. That there's a relevant distinction. I of course argue that it is not significant enough to rule out the reasonable controls that I support.

In the meantime, Jacques Plante would likely have wanted his mask even if the rules of hockey still, say, allowed other players to trip each other and allowed them to collect financial rewards for doing it. If our societies are going to allow people to engage in the drug trade and allow financial rewards for doing it (which is what we do by denying legal supply and restricting illegal supply), I still want protection for myself and others from deaths and injuries caused using firearms which have nothing to do with the drug trade. Just like I'd want want protection from deaths and injuries due to football rules that increased the likelihood of them happening, which has noting to do with faulty construction practices.

By the way, here's a treat for you. I just got chilly sitting here in my office, so I closed the window and dredged up a Tshirt out of the corner to put on under my shirt. For some reason, it's the one that my former co-vivant, who kissed the ground every morning he found himself here and not in Dallas and whose possession of the Tshirt was as a joke, left behind:

THE ORIGINATORS
<swastika, iron cross>
OF GUN CONTROL.

Enjoy the image before I button up the shirt.

.

[MrBenchley]

31. In fact, regarding symptoms and diseases

millions of Americans "cure" the common cold by taking emdicines that eradicate the symptoms and letting the disease run its natural course....

[Liberal Classic]

36. You're right, not all can be prevented

And I never say that ending drug prohibition is a panacea. If the violence associated with the drug trade can be lessened, I believe this is something worth doing. Personally, I don't believe that prohibtion and gun control aren't especially effective as public policies. While they may seem to be effective on the surface I tend to believe there are some unintended consequences to having them.

I don't believe that all crime will be ended. I really don't believe in utopia, and even the total eradication of drugs, alcohol, and firearms would not end crime. Suicide is another tragedy that is hard to prevent, and while often guns are used, they are certianly not the only method. Death due to accidental discharge is something that is difficult to prevent without going a long way to end all private ownership of weapons. Half measure such as mandatory locks are bound to be ignored unless there is some way to enforce it.

Let me say for the record that I've lost a family member to shooting suicide. I wish this fate on no one, and I wish it could have been prevented. However, it is likely she would have taken her own life in one way or another. This sort of determiniation is difficult to defeat.

I believe that we should be changing government policy to something that is doable. I believe prohibition to be a great failure, and even doing more harm than good in terms of public liberty and crime control. I am not sure that further gun control measure than what we have now are doable, in fact I believe they're uninforcable.

What we can do is take anyone convicted of a violent crime and keep them in jail. This is the sort of thing the government should do. It seems that some drug offenses carry longer sentences than those of violent crimes, and this is backwards.

[MrBenchley]

40. Here's an image for you

Courtesy of one of those "Democratic" sites...

[iverglas]

65. Wah

No image for me. Just the little broken box thingy, and when I try to go to the source page it's not there. Got another source?

I tried to find a picture of my Tshirt, or the slogan, at google-images, but no luck.

Tough for those ignorers, eh? Not only do they make it patently obvious that they aren't here to listen to what anybody else has to say, let alone respond coherently and civilly to it ... they miss out on the mental pic of me sitting at my keyboard in a rabid gun-nut Tshirt gagging for a chocolate chip cookie. I'd 'a thought that would've made anybody's day.

:P

[MrBenchley]

66. RATS!

Try this one instead...

[iverglas]

68. okay

Not tea bag.

And here's one for you -- a word picture. While trying again at google-images for my Tshirt slogan, I found a lovely picture of a pink house I liked very much. I already have two original paintings of pink houses -- pure coincidence, they're winter landscapes, an oil and a watercolour, by Canadian artists I like that happen to have pink houses in them -- so I thought I'd check it out. And I found myself at someone's blog (where the link to the pink house pick is dead), and this:

http://www.keithryan.com/generic.html?pid=69

March 16, 2001
Newspaper article:

After just viewing a movie, a guy and his girlfriend are accosted and mugged by two guys, when suddenly, the girlfriend steps back and whips a pistol out of her handbag, unfortunately grabbing it by the trigger and accidentally shooting her boyfriend, a guy she would have probably married had she not just killed him. All three of the survivors look at the dead guy on the ground, then at each other, then at the smoking gun in her hand. Does she:
1.) Start screaming?
2.) Shoot the muggers?
3.) Hold the muggers at bay with her gun until the police arrive?
4.) Shoot the muggers and put the gun in their hands before screaming and calling for help?
5.) Run away in a different direction than the way the muggers are running?
6.) Run away in the same direction as the muggers?
7.) Run away with the muggers and join their little band of criminals?
8.) Stand there in shock watching the muggers run away?
9.) As the muggers run away, drop the gun, drop to her knees and cry over the slain boyfriend?
10.) Turn the gun on herself and pull the trigger?

Actually, it was none of the above, although it's kind of close to #10. What really happened was so unbelievable. Ok, she shoots her boyfriend. She and the muggers stare at each other. Then the gun. She sees the gun in her hand, recognizes what has happened, and flings it away, where it strikes against the side of the brick building and fires off a shot that hits her and kills her. Whomp. She crumples to the street. The muggers are now really shocked. That's a new twist on Romeo and Juliet. The police arrive. The muggers run down the alley. The squad car chases them until it runs over the gun, which ejects another bullet into the bottom of the squad car, into the bottom of the policeman driving it. The car, now out of control, barrels down the alley where it runs over BOTH muggers and kills them! And that's not all! The cop that was driving? He was the father of the girlfriend! So really, he got to avenge his daughter's death! Lord, how weird is all that?

Question: if all the protagonists are dead, who was left to tell the story?

Well it seems the projectionist of the movie theater was two stories up, leaning out a small window overlooking the alley, smoking a cigarette. He was the one who dialed the police when he saw the original mugging taking place. Then he just sat there, smoked, and watched it all go down. He told his story to the newspaper, where I read about it and told it to you. And that's not all! The movie that was playing at the theater, that the boyfriend and girlfriend had just seen? Why, Romeo and Juliet, of course.

I knoooow ... I should ask Snopes ...

[MrBenchley]

70. Reminded of Buddy Hackett in Concert on HBO

some years ago...he was spouting dirty words, and one lady at ringside was embarassed...so he told her he'd prove "hand" was a worse word than "ass."

"Guy jumps out of an alley in front of you late at night, face covered with scars, and he has a pistol in his hand and yells "Don't move or you're dead!" Terrible, right?
"Same night, same alley, same guy, and he jumps out and yells "I've got a pistol up my ass!""

[iverglas]

71. your delivery needs work

...so he told her he'd prove "hand" was a worse word than "ass."

"Guy jumps out of an alley in front of you late at night, face covered with scars, and he has a pistol in his hand and yells 'Don't move or you're dead!' Terrible, right?
"Same night, same alley, same guy, and he jumps out and yells 'I've got a pistol up my ass!'"

I was curious; surely Buddy Hackett didn't screw up his set-up so!

A version in which the point actually gets made :P --

He'd say, 'Ass isn't a dirty word. Hand is a dirty word. You read in the paper that somebody robs a gas station with a gun in his hand. You never read that a guy held up a gas station with a gun in his ass.'"

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-01-Tue-2003/news/21640858.html

But Barbutti said Hackett used language in context and was prophetic: "People would say, 'Why is your act obscene?' He said, 'My act is not obscene. Sending someone to war to die is obscene.'"

[MrBenchley]

75. Ah well.....

This is why I'm only an amateur comedian...for now.

Barbutti himself is a stitch.

By the way, did you ever see Al Franken's situation comedy about a "Nightline" type show about 4-5 years ago?...the funniest was an episode where Al was dispatched to the rural South to interview laid-off factory workers (At dinner, the paterfamilias passes Al a dish and asks politely "Pig snoot?"). Just as they hit the air, there's a report that Buddy Hackett has died...Robert Reich and Dick Gephardt begin reminiscing about Hackett (the 5' Reich remembers that his parents took him to see Hackett when he was small, and Gephardt does a great double take) and by the time they get to Al and his factory workers, they're dancing around merrily singing "Shipoopi!"

The punchline was that they received a phone call from Buddy, who began shouting at the anchorman, "I'm gonna sue you, ya bastard! I'm gonna sue everybody connected with your show! I'm going to come to your house and kill your cat!"

[Ergotron]

116. The ban is on cosmetics only...

Newsflash..the lunatics and criminals already have all the firepower they need. This ban simply has nothing to do with stopping gun violence, but everything to do with 'appearing' to be tough on gun violence. The ban is on cosmetic items only, nothing functional is affected.

[1a2b3c]

61. It does

On most parts of it. You dont think the republicans want to hand that kind of power over to the Democrats when they take over office do you? They have some clauses set to sunset in 05 i think.

[saigon68]

93. BUMP

BUMP

[Ergotron]

149. The Patriot Act is more of a threat than the AWB

I agree with those who contend the AWB merely banned the 19 specified weapons, and that those were banned based mainly for cosmetic reasons.

The Patriot Act is far more nefarious and dangerous to our liberties. If this "patriot" act were brought before Congress today it would never pass.

[KS_44]

55. What does the assault weapon ban do?

“This trust will be betrayed if Congress fails to renew the federal ban on semiautomatic assault-style weapons. The ban went into effect in 1994 and made it illegal to manufacture, transfer or possess 19 specific types of semiautomatic weapons. It also banned ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

I ask all honestly, what did this ban do? In effect, it has banned nothing. It is unenforceable, and saves no lives. It is primarily a ban on aesthetics, not a class of weapons. One can still purchase an AK47 that is in total compliance with the ban for around $300 dollars. The features this piece of legislation banned are moot in regards to their functionality on a weapon.

Lets run down some examples of what this legislation banned.

1. Bayonet Lug: not often do I hear of a drive by bayoneting, nor murders with a bayoneted rifle. In the new assault weapons bans that are being introduced, the bayonet lug is no longer an illegal feature as it is not a primary factor in a weapons overall effectiveness. Took them a long time to figure out that if a perpetrator is going to use an assault weapon, he will most likely be pulling the trigger, not stabbing.

2. Flash suppressor. This feature does not eliminate the weapons muzzle blast as is so commonly misconceived. It merely suppresses it (makes sense no?) In a situation where it is dark, the perpetrator will still be clearly visible both audibly and visually due to the fact that his gunfire is still quite visible with the suppressor. Why then is the suppressor used? When firing at night, one wants to retain some degree of night vision (i.e. Night Eyes) the use of the flash suppressor helps to a degree, to retain those night eyes. The only way to make the gun visually disappear at night is to use a suppressor (AKA a CAN) to mask both the sound (to a degree) and eliminate muzzle flash. To obtain a can, one must submit a $200 dollar tax stamp complete with an extensive background check. ID, fingerprints, photo ID, ect. The suppressor does not suppress the sound of the weapons action, or the sound of the bullet breaking the speed of sound, thus special ammunition must also be used.

3. Pistol grip: commonly said to aid in firing from the hip, this is utter phooey created by too much Rambo movies. Compare and contrast a ruger mini-14 with an still legal AR15.
I can hold both at the hip and fire easily, and both can hold thirty rounds of ammunition.
Why one would want to fire from the hip I don’t know, something about hosing down the area. Well, I for one would rather be shot at from the hip than aimed at and shot at. There is no military doctrine for shooting from the hip, as it is a waste of ammunition, and results in poor accuracy. Furthermore, the pistol grip has no effect upon the rifles “hip friendliness”



Both fit on hips just fine...


4. Folding/collapsible stock: One can buy an AR15 with a stock as short as a fully retracted banned stock, so the point of “handiness/ concealability” is moot. For weapons that use a folding stock (AK47) the weapon in effect does become smaller, but still retains its 8 lb weight. Despite all that Neo taught us in the Matrix, trenchchoats are still not very good at hiding bulky, large 8lb weapons.

5. Detachable magazine/ hi capacity magazines: the only thing the ban got right, well… sort of. Then again… not really. Well… No sir, not at all. It banned the manufacture of new Hi Capacity magazines. Phew. Little do people know is that those old hi capacity magazines are still around and in abundance. Right now, AR15 30 rounders can be had for 14.95 plus tax. 30 round AK-47 magazines can be had for 9.95. UZI 30 rounders? Check. 7.95. To top it off, we can still import legally old 30 rounders from other countries. The amount hi cap magazines floating around are endless right now. The ban has not ceased the flow of HiCaps.

Lets examine what is in comliance.

This is legal and can be had for around $300


^^Looks like an AK-47 to me.^^
Total ban compliance

This is legal


^^Looks like an assault weapon to me.^^
Total ban compliance

If one wanted to make a new ILLEGAL assault weapon by adding a third feature (or more) they can do so quite easily. Take the rifle above, if you were to buy a folding stock and install it on that rifle, it would be classified as an assault weapon. Whoopty do. You can still buy folding stocks at the gunshop, but they can only be put on a pre-ban rifle. Wait, whats that? There is no one to stop you from putting it on your gun? Who will know? Totally unenforceable. I have witnessed a police officer chat with a private gun owner about his illegally configured AR15. The officer went on to say that the ban was pointless. Needless to say he didn’t arrest the individual, or submit his name to the ATF. He still shoots at the range occasionally with his illegal toy. ONE year from today, September 9 2003, his rifle will be legal. The ban is set to sunset, and it will. Im not taking a position on weather or not these rifles should be on the streets, as no one really needs them. Then again, this is not a needs based society. I prefer to stay nutral at this time. As for as this ban in particular, worthless. What did it ban again?

Waste of $$, waste of time, no influence on crime. Ultimatly a stupid idea…

[MrBenchley]

58. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

"I ask all honestly, what did this ban do? In effect, it has banned nothing. It is unenforceable, and saves no lives."
Gee, you'd think then that the RKBA crowd wouldn't give a crap. But in fact the corrupt gun industry has spent a fortune trying to keep it from being renewed....and the internet is clogged with "enthusiasts" wailing and weeping about it.

[KS_44]

59. Why?

Oh we do give a crap. We want our folding stocks and bayonet lugs back.
>=)

"If the horrific memory of those days does not make a decision clear on renewing the ban on assault weapons, then sadly nothing will." This is in reference to the D.C. sniper.

^On further examination of the article, I came across this.^

The weapon used by the D.C. sniper was in compliance with all AWB regulations. The ban does nothing, and his weapon was still just deadly, even without his trusty bayonet lug.

Mr Benchly, do you agree that the ban in its current form is innefective legislation? Do you think the RKBA crowd wants it to die because its going to make our guns deadlier? The RKBA crowd wants this to die based on the principal of the ban,(over my dead body and all that hooah) and the fact that it doesent affect crime or the effectivness of an assault weapon.

It needs to be built up into a real door to door collecting weapons ban. Currently, its drivel and will remain drivel if extended.

Uzis are going for $600 at a local pawnshop. Banned my hiney.

I know this information based on a college project last year exploring the 1994 weapons ban. The conclusion was in accordance with the governments own research that the benifits preached by the 1994 ban had not come to fruition two years after it had been passed. It was an interesting project, walking into a gunshop to see firsthand whats still on the shelf and whats not. Whats banned and whats not.

After doing the research and looking around, I purchased a rifle to play around with. Fun hobby, kinda expensive and troublesome though.

[MrBenchley]

62. To answer your questions...

"Mr Benchly, do you agree that the ban in its current form is innefective legislation?"
I'll agree it could be expanded,, and should be. But I wouldn't call it ineffective at all.

"Do you think the RKBA crowd wants it to die because its going to make our guns deadlier?"
In a word, yes.

"The RKBA crowd wants this to die based on the principal"
Yeah, we can tell by its dedication to principles like honesty...(snicker)

"Uzis are going for $600 at a local pawnshop."
And this, by you, is a GOOD idea? Gee, that sure convinces me to fight harder for an expanded ban.

[1a2b3c]

63. Sounds like we need to play name that assault rifle again

You remember the game. I post a few pictures and you say banned or not banned. Its no fun if only the gun huggers play though.

[MrBenchley]

64. Sounds more like

the RKBA crowd has run out of hysteria and horseshit on the issue...

[KS_44]

72. To me

"And this, by you, is a GOOD idea? Gee, that sure convinces me to fight harder for an expanded ban."

No, this to me seems like the current ban does not keep assault weapons off the street. They changed the model name, gave it six US parts, and now its legal again. I would think the current ban does nothing at all to hinder the ability of someone to own an assault weapon. If you think a pistol grip makes the weapon more deadly, then you need to stop listening to Sarah Brady / and or watching so much Cammando.

[MrBenchley]

76. And you're okay with THAT...

"They changed the model name, gave it six US parts, and now its legal again."
Wow....and yet everytime I day "corrupt gun industry" there are howls from the RKBA crowd.

"I would think the current ban does nothing at all to hinder the ability of someone to own an assault weapon."
And yet the gun industry has spent millions trying to kill it.....

[KS_44]

77. Yea.. it has done so much.

"They changed the model name, gave it six US parts, and now its legal again." Wow....and yet everytime I day "corrupt gun industry" there are howls from the RKBA crowd.

Well, I just expect a business to just fire all its employees and close its doors instead of taking advantage of a loophole.
LOL. That same gun industry supplies guns to law enforcement officers. Two way street is it not?

"I would think the current ban does nothing at all to hinder the ability of someone to own an assault weapon."
And yet the gun industry has spent millions trying to kill it.....

Because of principal and customer demands. People want folding stocks... its all about the $$$, they're a business. Furthermore if you walked into a gunshop looking to buy an AK47 you could easily do so as long as your background check cleared. Banned what? Who? Off the streets? My it still seems to be there... Wait! It has been on the streets for the past 9 years! What about the fact that any of the banned features can still be manufactured for pre-ban rifles and can still be purchased and installed on new assault rifles? Who will know? The ATF? Some poeple still dont know the ban exists and modify their post ban rifles how they see fit, and are now felons. The ban is to buggy, to full of holes, and too useless to be an effective AW deterent. It still gets me that any 18 year old can buy an 100 round belt fed machine gun, as belt fed rifles are not banned but thirty rounders are. They still flow like wine too, those (pre) banned thirty rounders. Have four myself.

The awb banned nothing but rifle features, some of them pointless in regards to a weapons lethality. Since you dont shoot I would not expect you to know that a pistol grip means nothing on a rifle, however I expect you to beleive whatever Sarah Brady presents to you. I would then gawk as some swollow it whole and ask for seconds. Perhaps you should go to the army or a tactical shooting school and ask them to teach you about hosing an area down with your pistol griped M16 held at the hip. I imagine their expression would be the following: 0.o then followed by hysterical luaghing. How about telling them to show you how you become invisible with a flash supressor at night? Go shoot a rifle and investigate what feature does what and see if all the brady bunchs claims are true.

The AW ban also caused people who would not ordinarily buy an assault rifle to buy one. I believe bushmaster firearms sales increased over %700 percent since the ban. Heck, it got me to buy one after doing research about it.

[MrBenchley]

79. So in other words the gun industry is corrupt

and you're all for that....

"The awb banned nothing but rifle features"
And the industry is spending millions trying to put them back on the market, although an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want these weapons on the street.

[1a2b3c]

78. I will let you in on a little secret

The cooler and more commando the gun looks, the better it sells. Thats why the industry fights it. The rest of us fight it because its 1)a stupid ban that does nothing to hinder crime one way or the other and 2)we want our cool looking fun shooting rifles.

[MrBenchley]

80. In other words

It's meant to make nutcases cream their jeans.....

[KS_44]

81. Have you read anything?

Can you spew anything but your trite responses?

How about adding something valuable to this discussion that does not come from VPC. I type up all this stuff and all you can do is default to your usual bentlyic. Bring up some ammunition, counter my first post with facts instead of nothing at all. Show us it has been effective and is inforcible.

[MrBenchley]

82. Hey, I've read all of the RKBA hysteria and horseshit

And I've wasted as much time as I need to showing what a pantload the "It's a law that does nothing" hooey is.

According to the RKBA crowd's lies, there's no such thing as an assault weapon and the ban on them does nothing...and yet the gun industry is spending millions trying to get rid of it. Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

[LastDemInIdaho]

83. The constitution is not for hanging on a hatrack

The RKBA is in the constitution and is part of what makes America great.

[iverglas]

84. well hell

"The RKBA is in the constitution and is part of what makes America great."

Slavery is part of what made the US of America great too. (I mean, if we accept the assertion that the US is "great" ...)

That one's obvious. And yeah, I can see how the fact of private individuals carrying and using firearms has also done that. People did and do hunt for food, for instance, and certainly people feeding themselves and their families is a prerequisite to greatness. And I'd think that it sure helped get rid of those pesky indigenous people whose land the private individuals were occupying by force ...

Of course, there are many things that are not in constitutions that make nations great ... and the fact that something is in a constitution by no means means that it is a contributor to any greatness there might be.

.

[MrBenchley]

86. Of course if it comes to that

the vast majority of Americans have always been fed with agriculture....not wild game.

Furthermore, what is in the constitution is that we have the right to well-regulated militias, for the defense of our free state.

[MrBenchley]

85. What a pantload

The second amendment, which says that states can have a well-regulated militia, is in the Constitution. The idea that crazies ought to have a high powered killing machine so that a corrupt industry can make more money is not.

[KS_44]

87. ??

"The second amendment, which says that states can have a well-regulated militia, is in the Constitution. The idea that crazies ought to have a high powered killing machine so that a corrupt industry can make more money is not"

Our "killing Machines" are the epitome of the modern rifle. Its an evolution, the best of the best, the most versatile weapon available to average joe consumer.

You bend the truth Bently, is says: A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It has that "pesky" other half you left out. I dont leave out either half in an attempt to sway it. You should post the whole deal as well from this point on.

Are you ever going to bring me up any documents stating why pistol grips are so deadly? What about a paper examine the use of bayonets in crime or the amount of bayonettings before and after the ban? How about the collapsible stock making the gun pocket sized?

What about how ENFORCABLE this bill is?

What about the fact that HI CAPS are still under $20 bucks?

What about the fact that AK-47s are STILL ON THE STREET and can still be purchased legally and ilegally? Still manufactured? Yup.

Last time I braught this up, you reverted to "and this is ok with you?" Im asking you. What the heck did this ban do, why are AK-47s ar15s and Uzis still on the shelf of my local gunshop starting at $300? (here it comes: "because of the corrupt gun industry") Well gee, didnt see that comming. So if the corrupt gun industry can get keep them on the shelf... then it seems that ban didnt ban them regardless of how they got their. The essence of the post ban assault rifle is still there. It is no less deadly, it functions exactly the same before and after. Lets not forget you cannot find a guy in his basement who installed a folding stock on his rifle. The ATFs spy satellites cant read your mind yet.

Uninforcible rubbish.

[MrBenchley]

88. I didn't leave out anything

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "
Yup...that's exactly what I said..."The second amendment, which says that states can have a well-regulated militia, is in the Constitution."

The ATFs spy satellites cant read your mind yet.

Ho-kay....

[Java]

89. Mr. Benchley, you are both Right and Wrong when speaking of the Militia

For example..the Militia Act of 1792, Section I
(see: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm, scroll about half way down the page)

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,..."

This clause defines what the Militia is..basically any White Male Citizen under 45 years of age. This is similar to the Swiss Citizen Army..

Furthermore such individuals were required to present themselves with weapons and accessories that were suitable for military usage..

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service..."

The definition of the what the Militia is, has been further refined..in 1956 Congress passed an Militia Act which specified that there were TWO types of Militia

(see: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html)

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Please note subsection (2) the unorganized militia..meaning all able-bodied males between 17 - 45 who are Citizens or declared their intent to become Citizens..who are NOT members of the National Guard..

In light of this..the second Amendment is meant to allow Gun Owners possess Military Small Arms and equipment suitable for Military purposes..

The Current standard Service Rifle is the M16...
The current standard Service Handgun is the Beretta M9
Both firearms use Hi Capacity magazines.

As for the second half of the Second Amendment.."...the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed."

I believe that the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear. That not only is this Right an Individual Right, but under no circumstances is this Right to be curtailed under any circumstances.

As for Weaponry: from the original 1792 Militia Act it is pretty clear that the Framer's original intent was that "Arms" meant suitable Military Small Arms (but not Weapons of Mass Destruction such as Cannon)

This would mean that Small Arms would be things like
Light Machine Guns,
SubMachine Guns
Select Fire Assault Rifles
Semi Automatic Pistols

All of which take hi capacity magazines.

However Explosives, WMD's, Missiles, etc. would be prohibited from personal ownership.

--------

Disturbing, isn't it?

As for the Constitution being a Living Document..I believe that the Framers meant it to be changed through the Amendment process, and not by means of Judicial Precedent (which all too frequently represents whatever is politically popular)

The Framers of the Constitution were all too aware of how easy it was for the British Parliment to dilute the 1689 English Bill of Rights by legislative Fiat.

[MrBenchley]

90. You're not going to be anotherr one of these guys

trying to pretend that "well regulated" and "unorganized" are synonymous, are you?

"I believe that the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear. That not only is this Right an Individual Right, but under no circumstances is this Right to be curtailed under any circumstances."
Gee, and yet the courts and the Founding Fathers said different.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[RoeBear]

73. Me thinks...

...the writer of this article has a bunch of pre-ban guns and ammo magazines that he doesn't want to see the value go down on.

[KS_44]

74. Might be true

LOL!

I want the ban to expire so I can put a collapsible stock on my AR15 (only gun I own)

These assault rifles are the most versatile weapons in the gun world.
They can do it all. In my mind, I got one because it can do so much. Since I wanted to try out shooting/hunting/target practice and stuff, I decided to get an AR15... since it can just about do it all. It also goes with me camping for anti-animal defense.

My assault rifle has done it all
It has legally killed a deer in one shot.
It has been great at target practice (most accurate type of semi-auto rifle in the world)
It is a great home defense weapon.
It is a great plinker.
It is ergonomic, light, and durable.
Recently, a woman one a national target match at 1000 yards with one.
Spare parts and upgrades are readily available.

Why wouldnt you want one?

If it is renewed or streangthened I wont worry too much, as 1) I like shooting but it is not my primary hobby, and 2) if a new ban passes my rifle will be grandfathered and I will get to keep it. I have enough spare parts to make it last till the second comming.

If they come door to door to take them up, I will be really mad.

[TheYellowDog]

91. Anyone who knows anything about guns

wouldn't suggest renewing the assault weapons ban. It bans certain rifles but does not ban exact clones of some of them, made by other manufacturers. Then Rep. Charles Schumer(and now one of my Senators) decided to help craft this ban back in 1994, and he doesn't know anything about guns either. I remember watching a debate with him against a gun rights person, and Schumer got his ass kicked. Schumer should stick to things he knows about, like health care.

[MrBenchley]

92. It's fucking amazing

Listen to the RKBA crowd and you'd ALMOST come to believe that this law does nothing and that there ARE no assault rifles...

Of course, then you think about how many millions the gun industry is spending trying to keep the ban from being renewed and strengthened and you realize what a pantload all that actually is..

[KS_44]

94. Show me it does something. Show me it banned rifles.

"Listen to the RKBA crowd and you'd ALMOST come to believe that this law does nothing and that there ARE no assault rifles..."

Mr. Benchly: I ask you (if you beleive your own phooey) to write down what the ban has done to curb access to assault style rifles.

You wont do it.

Why?

Because it banned features, not rifles. The few rifles it banned were banned in NAME only, and when the name was changed... poof, there back on the market. If you have done any amount of research on this bill, and its effects on the gun industry you would realize this. Its clear you are just preaching to yourself and are in denial. You are ignorant in regards to what this bill has done, and swollow whatever Sarah Brady tells you. I can pull up facts and dispell myths, you just spew forth ever onward with your rhetoric.

No rifles were banned in the making of this bill. It only stopped importation of some, but with every day that passes we see more manufactures make those same rifles in the US. Lets see, AK-47 banned from import. Hrm... Wait! They make those in the U.S. now, still on the market! Imports? Still around! If we install 6 US made parts in an import, it counts as a domestically produced rifle. TADA! Evil gun industry found loopholes. Evil guns still on the market. Good ban didnt ban anything but features.

I own an assault rifle manufactured to be compliant with this ban. It has two allowable "evil" features, an pistol grip and detachable magazine. It is the black rifle, the AR15. Funny, I thought an assault weapon ban would get rid of those pesky things.

Please, mr. bently... get your facts straight. The gun industry wants to open up its market again for other "evil" features. I will be buying and installing a folding stock when this ban dies, thus they will be making more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Others will do the same thing I will do as well. Its about the $$.

and...

Have you ever thought for a second that if it is streanghtened that many rifle companies might be shut down? DUH, I wonder WHY they are trying to keep it from being streangthened. Businesses are usually trying to stay alive and make money, not waste $$ and then get shut down. Your logic is foolish and myopic.

Here comes the usuall trite response / recording.

[MrBenchley]

101. Yeah, surrrrrrrrre....

THAT's why the gun industry is spending millions on this issue....

"Have you ever thought for a second that if it is streanghtened that many rifle companies might be shut down?"
Yeah? Name two....and be sure and tell us who OWNS those companies and who they give big bucks to.

[KS_44]

102. Lets make a request that someone cant fulfill! Yay!

Here we go

Bushmaster: Specializes in AR15s almost exclusivly
DPMS: As above
Olympic Arms: as above
Century International: Large US supplier of imported assault rifles
DSA ARMS: Premier american manufacturer of new FAL style semiautomatic rifles
Arsenal Incorperated: Manufactures US made AK-47s only
Robinson Armament: Makes the Stoner rifle and Saiga Ak-47 rifles
Knights Armament: Another AR15 only company
Armalite: AR15s and one .50 cal model
Colt: Large supplier of civilian AR15s
Sig Saur: Will open up market for the Sig550 when the assault weapon ban dies with a new US factory.

Thats just off the top of my head.

Most of those co's are not branched or sister companies, their independant rifle manufacturers. In fact, all of them are I beleive...
I can really pull up data about who and when one of those companies donates $$. Lets make requests that cant be fulfilled alright? Oops I made that mistake myself, I asked you to show me how the ban is successful at taking them off the street. You still have not done it.

I will be arogant here for a second, based on my posts that deal with facts in relation to your usual rhetoric, I will go so far as to say... You sir, are losing this argument.

So you compensate with your recorded messages. Your blind.

[MrBenchley]

124. Need help answering? Seems so....

Remember, the question wasn't just name the scummy companies that make assault rifles, but also tell us who owns them...and who they give big bucks to...

Here, I'll help by starting you off with one...

"Just three weeks ago, the manufacturer of the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle found in the van of accused killer Buford Furrow resigned suddenly and unexpectedly as presidential candidate George W. Bush's chief Maine fund-raiser.
Richard E. Dyke, the 65-year-old owner of Bushmaster Firearms in Windham, Maine, had given the Texas governor the maximum individual contribution allowed by law, $1,000, and had raised tens of thousands more for his campaign. And more was to come.
That was the plan, anyway, until July 21, when a reporter called the Bush 2000 campaign to ask about Dyke's role in Bush's road to the White House. Within a day, Dyke had resigned from the campaign. "I just don't want to be any baggage," Dyke told the Associated Press. "Young Bush doesn't have to justify why I was trying to help him." "

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/11/gun/index.html

"I can really pull up data about who and when one of those companies donates $$. Lets make requests that cant be fulfilled alright?"
Gee, it's not so hard...here's a website to help....

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp

I'm sure all of us Democrats will be interested in the results.

[TheYellowDog]

104. Benchley doesn't know anything about guns

So he isn't an authority on this subject. Most of the anti-gun crowd has never shot one.

[MrBenchley]

122. I know how RKBA enthusiasts lie about them

though.

[Rhiannon12866]

98. Sorry, but I was confused, as well! LOL!

For a moment I wondered if someone had posted another of those pesky Free Republic threads! Anyway, I agree with what I believe your post is about. There is no need, whatsoever, for the public to have access to automatic weapons.:-(

My late freeper congressman, Gerald Solomon, tried unsuccessfully, to make a case for this. I remember feeling mortified as he engaged Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) in an angry, spitting, shouting match on the subject. He insisted that his poor wife, left alone while he was in Washington, needed automatic weapons to defend herself! I live in Upstate New York and know Soloman's neighborhood well. It is very upscale, but he tried to make it sound as if this was the wild west, with renegade Indians on the loose looking for scalps. A clip of this argument even made it to Jay Leno. Very embarrassing.:-(

[Cicero]

99. Who's talking about automatic weapons?

Rhiannon12866 sez: "There is no need, whatsoever, for the public to have access to automatic weapons.:-("

I thought this thread was about the Assault Weapons Ban. The only weapons targeted by it were semi-automatics, that can only fire one shot per trigger pull. Full automatics have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. The AWB had nothing to do with full automatic weapons (except using images of them to scare people into supporting the bill).

Later,

[Ergotron]

132. Guns are evil, must ban all guns!

Knee jerk, knee jerk...ban the guns, ban the guns! Hey Mr., your gun looks bad, so it must be evil! Surrender it at once and no one gets harmed!

[MrBenchley]

100. The ban should be strengthened

There's no reason to let assault weapons on the street.

[KS_44]

103. Give them to me

All this talk has gotten me riled up, so I just got that AK-47 at the gunshow for 350 out the door. My background check cleared, imagine that. =)

Now the only two guns I own are an AR15 and AK47. I feel soo PC! =)
One day these puppies might be worth some $$$$$ if they are ever grandfathered.

[MrBenchley]

110. You're needed in Michigan

You can help the McLoony family shoot the building inspector.

[Java]

106. For that matter...

There is no reason to allow illiterate and semi-illiterate people to vote.

After all..having millions of ignorant illiterate people voting on issues that are beyond their comprehension or their ability to comprehend them in print, is very dangerous to our society.

[MrBenchley]

109. Good to see

the RKBA crowd showing their TRUE colors....

[Java]

163. Benchley..you are too much

I was using SARCASM!

[Ergotron]

125. How will you prevent the criminals from obtaining assualt weapons?

Assuming that assualt weapons are banned, how do you propose getting them out of the hands of criminals?

[MrBenchley]

127. Two different questions

both mindlessly silly....

[Ergotron]

129. You have lots of ideas about the problems...

I'm asking you to offer up a solution.

[MrBenchley]

136. Been there, done that.

[Ergotron]

133. I'll make it simple for you then...one question

Do YOU support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms? Only response require of you is either 'yes' or 'no'.

[MrBenchley]

137. Tell you what

if you go to the far north of Alaska, you will find a little town called Atqasuk...

And a few miles out of town there's a deserted cabin once used by prospectors who had come to the godforsaken land in hopes of finding riches...

And if you took out a magnifying glass, and examined the dirt on the cabin floor, you might find something even smaller than my interest in answering hooey-laden questions from RKBA "enthusiasts" like you.

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

107. This ban was so effective

I just received my newest purchase in the mail - 15 new in wrap USGI 30 round M-16 magazines. Manufactured before the ban by Labelle Industries, green follower and teflon coated. Pretty much the best of the best as far as pre-ban USGI magazines go. My AR-15 loves them.

I paid $20 each for them.Ususally I would expect them to go for $30-$35.

What does this mean? It means that just after NINE YEARS of the ban being in effect, one can still buy new in the wrapper, USGI, best ever mad pre-ban magazines. The supply of pre-ban gear is just THAT BIG.

This just reminded me that I need to order a dozen or two AK-47 30 round mags for $8 a pop. Those are still around in plentiful supply as well.

[Ergotron]

111. You confuse the label "assault weapon" with the reality of them

For those who have not been following the debate closely, the issue at hand is whether the 1994 ban on the manufacture or sale of "assualt weapons" should be allowed to expire next year, or should it be renewed.

This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.

It is important to note that all but one of these characteristics are purely cosmetic and of these characteristics, only one actually makes any difference in the lethality of the weapon: the grenade launcher! Of course grenade launchers were already illegal to own so one has to wonder why this was added. The only explanation I come up with is it is an impact item, meant to catch the readers attention and make the bill seem more serious. It is MY opinion that this ban was instituted by a Congress intent on making itself appear tough on crime. I wonder how many criminals have surrendered their cosmetically altered weapons since 1994? I bet you can guess.

For those who wish to become more educated on the facts of the AWB check out this link. You have to click one of the two links to get to the whole site. This site is a simple, non-political site explaining in plain English what the facts of the assault weapons ban are.

As for the statement that (allowing the ban to expire) ...could result in the loss of life of law enforcement officers, innocent civilians or even our troops overseas this is utterly rediculous. Weapons that are legal now are no less deadly than their pre-1994 counterparts. Same bullet, same lethality. Criminals can still shoot just as many people with a post-ban weapon as they could with a pre-ban one. There is NO diffrence in the lethality of the weapons. NONE!, only cosmetic differences. (If you don't believe me, just ask the victims of the D.C. area "sniper" attacks. They were killed with a cosmetically correct rifle. Good thing that guy didn't have a bayonet or a high-capacity magazine, eh?) As for our troops overseas, they have REAL assault weapons and are fully capable of defending themselves from their attackers.

Remember, the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution NOT to protect the right of people to hunt a deer or a duck (that's another topic for another day), but to give the citizens of the United States the right to defend themselves and their families against criminals AND the excesses of a centralized government.

Oh, by the way, California Senator Diane Feinstein, a major advocate of draconian gun control laws and a major supporter of the AWB, is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. I suppose gun control is ok for us but should not apply to those who make the laws, eh?

[MrBenchley]

115. Who'd have guessed it?

"California Senator Diane Feinstein, a major advocate of draconian gun control laws and a major supporter of the AWB, is licensed to carry a concealed handgun."
So I guess all that ccrap about her being anti-gun is revealed as the horseshit it always was.

"I suppose gun control is ok for us but should not apply to those who make the laws"
Especially when they get the death threats from right wing loonies that she does. But hey, what's a few more dead Democrats, eh?

[Ergotron]

119. You misunderstand my point Mr. Benchley

Senator Feinstein, and many others in Congress make a living getting reelected. That is their primary occupation. If one is attempting to get reelected in California one has to pander to the voters of California. In this instance being seen as a strong supporter of gun banning is a good way to collect votes. Probably wouldn't play too well in Arizona or Texas though.

I am personally unaware of any death threats against the Senator but I support her right to carry a gun for self defense. I hold her up as an example of the hypocrisy in our governemnt that will allow the Senator to carry a firearm while pushing to take that right away from you and me.

[MrBenchley]

121. I got the point perfectly well...

such as it was.....

"If one is attempting to get reelected in California one has to pander to the voters of California."
It's sometimes called a representative democracy by sane people. Are you trying to tell us voters don't want this ban strengthened? Because they most assuredly DO. Hence the desperate struggle by the corrupt gun industry and GOP nutcases like Delay and Frist to keep the extention bottled up in committee.

"I hold her up as an example of the hypocrisy in our governemnt that will allow the Senator to carry a firearm while pushing to take that right away from you and me."
Gee, and I see that more as a sane reaction to the right wing extremist frame of mind that sent anthrax to Leahy and Daschle. You know, the sort of loonies who inhabit gun shows and swallow NRA propaganda whole.

[Ergotron]

123. Couple of question for Mr. Benchley...

1)Do you support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense?

2)Do you believe the police will be able to protect you at all times from someone intent on doing you or your family bodily harm?

3)Do you now, or have you ever, owned a firearm?

[MrBenchley]

126. And what do they have to do with the subject under discussion

Or is this just a launching point for more RKBA rhetorical horseshit?

[Ergotron]

128. They have everything to do with the discussion

I'm attempting to establish a baseline position for your arguments as well as understand your apparent deep-seated animosity towards firearms.

[MrBenchley]

130. In other words, nothing to do with it

Peddle it to someone who gives a shit. The "baseline" is that the ban should be renewed and strengthened, as a majority of Americans wish.

[Ergotron]

131. You're lack of ability to debate speaks volumes about your character

You seem to want to argue with people but never seem to have any suggestions for solutions to back up your arguments.

What FACTS can you present to back your supposition that "the majority of Americans" want to see a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban?

Don't tell me about your beliefs, give me some facts.

[MrBenchley]

134. Gee, I'm not the one

referring to American democracy as "pandering."

Next ask me what I think about the "character" of someone who would do so...

"According to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:
* In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
* By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and
* By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

http://www.moderatevoters.org/issues2.asp

"While Congress debates the capacity of imported clips and the legal age of ownership for assault weapons, for instance, eight in 10 Americans say such guns should be banned. Sentiment was the same five years ago."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll990518.html

[iverglas]

153. goodness me

"What FACTS can you present to back your supposition that "the majority of Americans" want to see a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban?

Don't tell me about your beliefs, give me some facts."

You waited all of 10 minutes before posting your post # 135, setting out your ... conclusions ... about Benchley's "character".

Right at the same time (2:35, by my chronometer) as Benchley was responding to that question up above.

Facts, sources ... and I'm just not seeing any of that "adult discussion" of 'em that you've been clamouring for in this case, either.

Since I'm not seeing your responses to said facts, perhaps you can direct me to some facts about something -- actually, I'll be happy with reasoned argument -- that you've posted yourself, in among the pronouncements about other people's "character" and other clutter.

.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

138. Wow...

"Mr. Benchley, is interested in merely arguing."
Gee, and ergotron seems to be resoltuely uninterested in anything but asking hooey-laden questions and spouting rhetoric.

The plain fact is that American voters want the Assault Weapons Ban strengthehed and renewed.....and the scum of the earth, like Tom DeLay and John Ashcroft, are opposed.

"I, for one, am no longer interested in playing his game."
In other words, "Mr Benchley refuses to get sidetracked into any of my chidlish rhetorical traps."

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

142. Hey....no loss to me.

It's not like I haven't heard the standard RKBA pantload before....

[Ergotron]

143. I see your lips moving...

But all I'm hearing is blah, blah, blah, accompanied by a loud whooshing noise as you remove your head from your southern end.

[iverglas]

140. my, my

Someone seems to have reached a "conclusion" awfully quickly -- for someone with a grand total of 33 posts under his/her belt as of this hour.

Been lurking and reading for a long time before posting, have ya?

"The rest of you may, of course, continue as you see fit. Perhaps I will lurk around an be entertained."

I'd see that as inconsistent with prior lurking, and more consistent with recent (...?) arrival ... but that's just me.

.

[Ergotron]

141. I'm actually rather embarassed it took me this long...

I usually don't waste my time with pointless arguments, but I thought, being new to this particular forum, I'd attempt to engage someone in rational, reasoned debate. I found a few here willing to discuss things in an adult manner, and shortly thereafter came to the conclusion that Mr. Benchley was not one of them.

My limited number of postings has no bearing on my ability to participate in a discussion. I hope you are not one of those that feel that 'newbies' have no place discussing topics and only when they have attained a status deemed acceptable to you can they participate. Pretty darned intolerant position, don't ya think?

[CO Liberal]

145. You Seem a Tad Intolerant Yourself

Intolerant of those who disagree with you.

[Ergotron]

147. Not intolerant at all.

I just don't feel the need to attempt reasoned debate with someone intent on simply arguing. Is someone is interested in adult discussion I'm more than willing to play along.

[iverglas]

151. why, here's an amazing thing

"I just don't feel the need to attempt reasoned debate with someone intent on simply arguing. <If> someone is interested in adult discussion I'm more than willing to play along."


Over in the "Right to carry" thread, you asked Benchley a question.

He answered.

(Hell, I even responded to your theorizing about why Switzerland is such a nice peaceable law-abiding country.)

I just don't see you playing along, engaging in adult discussion, attempting reasoned debate ...

I see you hanging out here being annoying.

.

[MrBenchley]

152. Here's another example...

You will notice that immediately after I posted this:

"According to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:
* In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
* By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and
* By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

http://www.moderatevoters.org/issues2.asp

"While Congress debates the capacity of imported clips and the legal age of ownership for assault weapons, for instance, eight in 10 Americans say such guns should be banned. Sentiment was the same five years ago."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll990518.html

SOMEBODY began huffing and puffing..."while many of us are interested in informed, reasoned discussion a certain poster, namely Mr. Benchley, is interested in merely arguing. I have yet to see any fact based discussion points, reasoned debate, or anything worthy of serious consideration. His best efforts so far seem to be, at best, on the level of the time honored "I know you are but what am I" elementary school playground defense. "

Makes one realize ever more how little debate or disccussion is really warranted with the RKBA crowd...

[iverglas]

154. ah ... I just gave benefit of doubt ;)

More simultaneous posting. I saw his and yours, the two you refer to, as having been simultaneous. But he seemed to have allowed you 10 minutes for your reply, so I thought that the nearly half-hour I'd allowed for his in this case was quite reasonable.

;)

[MrBenchley]

155. Well

we can use the interval to speculate upon "character" issues (VBG)

[Ergotron]

156. I have gotten off of the main topic

Here is my opinion on the AWB...it is silly overlegislation that was created to give the appearance that politicians were tough on crime. Does anybody really dispute the fact that the ban actually does little to stop gun violence? Doesn't it really just change the name/style of the gun the criminals are using?

We can play "my study can beat up your study" all day, but the fact is that anyone can conduct a study and come up with numbers to support their position. The fact remains that regardless of the look of the weapon if someone with bad intentions is going to use it to commit a crime they are going to use it...doesn't matter if it's illegal or not.

The real solution will require addressing the underlying causes of gun violence, not restricting a few types of guns based on some cosmetic features.

[iverglas]

150. why do you ask?

"I hope you are not one of those that feel that 'newbies' have no place discussing topics and only when they have attained a status deemed acceptable to you can they participate. Pretty darned intolerant position, don't ya think?"

Did something I said provide some basis for an inference that I am "one of those"? If not, why would you ask me such a question?

If so, perhaps you could point it out to me.

Otherwise, you might try looking for something else that could more readily be inferred from what I did say. It ain't that hard for those who actually look.

.

[Ergotron]

157. Your posting sounded like "one of those"..

...for someone with a grand total of 33 posts under his/her belt as of this hour.Been lurking and reading for a long time before posting, have ya?.

It sounded a bit condesending at first glance.

[MrBenchley]

144. For someone being "entertained"

he sure seems to be throwing a pissy little snit....

Of course some people might think this is ANOTHER fake "democrat" from highroadrage.com....

[Ergotron]

148. Actually not a "democrat" at all...

Nor am I a Republican...I vote the issues, not the party. Besides, the real line between republican and democratic parties seem to be getting more and more blurry these days. Seems all the politicians want to do is get reelected in order to pay back all of the favors they racked up on the way to getting ellected in the first place.

[Romulus]

158. can this discussion be put to bed?

I think we've yet again dragged a thread out to the bitter end of "says so- says not!" Time for a new topic.

[Ergotron]

159. It's dead Jim!

Ok,your turn...pick a new topic.

[CO Liberal]

160. I Agree, Romulus

I just alerted the moderators to see if they agree as well.

[MrBenchley]

161. In other words...

the RKBA crowd has no facts....

"According to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:
* In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
* By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and
* By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

http://www.moderatevoters.org/issues2.asp

"While Congress debates the capacity of imported clips and the legal age of ownership for assault weapons, for instance, eight in 10 Americans say such guns should be banned. Sentiment was the same five years ago."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_poll990518.html

[Terran]

162. Locking

I think everybody's had their say on this subject, and I'm sure this thread has become a burden to load for dial-up users, so it's going bye-bye. If anyone wishes to continue with another thread, please feel free.

Dirk - DU Moderator