wow, when they said DU was a 'big tent' forum...they werent kidding.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

Kucinich supporters and gun nuts on the same bandwith. So let me see a show of hands:

Did you support the ending of the AWB? If so, why?

and if not, why?

..i realize this is probably ancient history, but i'm trying to get a feel for the various forums here.

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Lord, I'm an idiot.

What's the AWB. The Assult Weapons' Ban? Did I get it right?

I all for gun ownership, so long as they are registered. I said guns, I'm not sure what assult rifles are used for. I have hunters in my family, and they don't uderstand what supressors and AK 47s are for, either.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

2. yes, its assault weapons ban. nt

[achtung_circus]

3. This

[Warpy]

8. Same here

That stuff is useless for any legal purpose.

Perhaps renting them at licensed gun clubs for a day of recreational shooting might be a good compromise.

[benEzra]

46. Useless for any legal purpose?

What is the use of that 15-round 9mm or .40S&W handgun your local police officer carries on her hip? That's the type of gun most affected by the ban.

Is a civilian self-loading rifle firing a cartridge similar to .30-30 Winchester (e.g., my SAR-1) "useless for any legal purpose" just because of its looks?

My wife's 15-round Glock and my two nontraditional-looking rifles are very useful for recreational target shooting and would potentially be useful for self-defense. We don't hunt, so the fact that you can't use a 9mm or .223 for deer hunting is irrelevant to us.

[benEzra]

17. Sound suppressors and military AK-47's weren't banned by the AWB

they were and are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which has been on the books for seventy years now).

The AWB banned the manufacture, but not the sale, of

(1) all guns holding over 10 rounds, with a few inconsequential exceptions (e.g., my wife's 15-round 9mm handgun was covered by the ban);

(2) all CIVILIAN (not military) firearms having two or more of a list of superficial features, thereby requiring that rifles with the stock shaped a certain way be sold with fake flash suppressors instead of real ones, and that muzzle brakes be pinned on instead of screwed on.

(3) listed 19 names that civilian guns could no longer be marketed under.

The result was to more than double the number of nontraditional-looking firearms in circulation; more AR-15 pattern rifles were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined. I personally bought my civilian AK-47 lookalike (a 2002 model, with the politically correct flat muzzle) in 2003. Note that this is NOT a real AK-47, but a civilian rifle (works just like a hunting rifle) that LOOKS like a military AK; real AK's are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

For that, the national party sacrificed the House, the Senate, and two Presidencies they otherwise would have won.

[Jack_DeLeon]

47. Registration is...

the first step torwards confiscation. Just ask Australia and England.

Or even Chicago or California.

[gater]

4. Any weapon that can create hamburger on the hoof is not for hunting.IMO

[benEzra]

21. "Hamburger on the hoof"?? Check out these figures:

.civilian Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)..................450 ft-lb
.AR-15...............................................1,275 ft-lb
.AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm).................1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle........................2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)......4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)........7,000 ft-lb

An ordinary .30-06 hunting rifle is twice as powerful as my "AK-47" lookalike and six to eight times as powerful as an "Uzi" lookalike. By and large, "assault weapons" fire cartridges that are among the least powerful of all centerfire rounds. An AR-15 is not powerful enough to hunt deer with in most states that allow hunting with rifles; my "AK-47" is just barely powerful enough to legally hunt deer with here in NC (it's even less powerful than a .30-30). FWIW, I'm not a hunter, but if I ever take up hunting it will be with the AK lookalike, 5-round hunting magazine, and 4x scope.

As far as rate of fire, please note that NONE of the guns affected by the AWB were automatic weapons; actual military Uzi's and AK-47's and such were and are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. All the guns affected by the AWB fire no faster than the handgun in your local police officer's holster.

[diatribal]

34. What about

The DPMS 308 LR chambered in 300 RSAUM?
The muzzle energy on that is 3410 ft/lbs with a 150 grain bullet.

I've been looking stuff up. As suggested.

[benEzra]

36. Not affected by the AWB...

because they didn't exist prior to 1994. Any DPMS .308 manufactured between 1994 and 2004 was fully ban-compliant.

This would be an example of an AR-type rifle reengineered to take the stresses of a full-power hunting cartridge. 3410 ft-lb is way, way more powerful than the .223 AR, but it's middle-of-the-road compared to hunting calibers (somewhat more powerful than .30-06, less powerful than some others).

FWIW, as more gen-X'ers get into hunting, I suspect you'll be seeing more black plastic rifles in the woods. Most gen-X'ers I know (including myself) just aren't into the late-1800's aesthetic of traditional-looking hunting rifles.

[lastknowngood]

5. AWB was all posturing and no real action. I don't like gun control

however I don't want crazies or wife beaters armed. I see no real need for a 50 cal armor piercing rifle for "recreational" use. I wish they would stop talking to the gun nuts and anti gun nuts and talk to a few sane people like me. I'm a hunter and target shooter and have been all my life.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

6. fair enough.

I personally have no use for guns, and blame them for much of the violence in society.

[papau]

7. AMEN :-) You speak solid Truth on this topic.

But those that dislike guns in the home do make sense, if the gun owner refuses to use a gun safe - or at least a plastic gun lock.

And personal preference may mean a hate of guns - fine - whatever floats your boat.

But all gov regulation and control should be limited to minimum necessary - and in my opinion that means background checks, skills testing and safety testing for licence, and if ballistic or gun registration helps fight crime, that's fine too. Which I guess makes me a Dem since the NRA would never go that far.

I also fail to see the need for .50 unless we are going to have 10,000 foot target shooting ranges.

And as a hunter, the need for 15 shots in 5 seconds has never occurred to me as something I need.

[Tux]

9. Well

I agree on not allowing non-military citizens from getting hold of certain weapons as follows:

Explosives
RPGs
Anti-tank missiles
Anti-aircraft guns
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
Ammunition that can pierce body armour
and
50 calibur sniper rifles.

Weird list but it would prevent criminials getting powerful weapons to lay waste to police, communities, and society. Other than the above, I support. Once I get a job, I'm stockpiling guns aka buying one. Never had a reason till last election. But gun control should be stopped. Our Constitution allows us to be armed and armed we must be.

First step to tyranny is to ban guns.

[alwynsw]

37. A couple of thoughts.

Your list:
Explosives
RPGs
Anti-tank missiles
Anti-aircraft guns
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
Ammunition that can pierce body armour
and
50 calibur sniper rifles.

I have to agree with you for the most part. I would like to see a definition for explosives. We've used dynamite on the farm many times for stumps, rocks, etc. So Long as we can get a reasonable amount when we need it, I have no problem.

Ammunition that can pierce body armor: Almost any centerfire rifle cartridge will penetrate bullet resistant vests. A flat won't pierce provision eliminates even my old 30-30 - a round considered weak for most game the size of deer or larger.

.50 Caliber "sniper" rifles: Sorry, but you've bought the anti's tag to demonize the round. The .308 is by far the round most commonly used for that purpose. Bullet diameter, velocity, and energy make the .50 dandy for snipers, but they're just not the bugaboo the anti's would have us believe. I have one I'd use for moose or elk.

[Billy Ruffian]

53. Good point on the .50 BMG

The military uses that round in a bolt action and semi-auto for anti-materiel sniping. It uses the 7.62 NATO for sniper teams, and designated marksmen.

The 7.62 NATO (very similar to the .308 Winchester) is good for just about any distance you can see.

[MrSandman]

54. Is the .50 BMG for BVR work???nt

[Billy Ruffian]

55. Beyond Visual Range?

No.

But the 7.62 NATO has an effective range that's long enough to hit anyone shooting small arms at you.

IIRC, the effective range for the 7.62 NATO is about 1000 yds. For the .50 BMG, about 2500yds.

[MrSandman]

56. Forgot the sarcasm tag...

Everyone knows you would need a spotter.

[Billy Ruffian]

57. Perhaps not everyone.

Military sniper teams are indeed two people, the sniper and a spotter (who is responsible for protecting the sniper, too.) The 'designated marksman' is one man (I think there's one per squad, or about 8 people). DMs carry an M-14 with a scope. The sniper rifle is most commonly a modified Remington 700 bolt action.

[MrSandman]

58. I mean the forward spotter...

For the BVR work.

The M24 is a beauty, if a tad heavy for hunting.

[Billy Ruffian]

59. I still don't think you could go BVR

with much effectiveness.

For actual BVR work at the platoon level, you need mortars. (Geez, I can't beleive I remember USMC squad tactics courses from NROTC)

[MrSandman]

60. I don't either...

But the Brady Bunch may suggest it.:evilgrin:

[Billy Ruffian]

61. Next they'll tell us that the .50 BMG is so deadly

that it will kill you if it even misses close, and if it doesn't, it will get you the next time it comes around the earth.

[MrSandman]

62. Sure, it will suck you into the vortex...nt

[aikoaiko]

10. the simple answer is that handgun is a better tool.....

....for defending yourself than a shotgun or rifle in some situations.

But your intuition is correct in that if you had to choose one and only one gun for all your firearms needs, then a 12 gauge shotgun is a very likely choice.

[BanzaiBonnie]

11. That has always been

what I've relied on.

I can stand inside my door and if anyone thinks they really want to come through, I'll be waiting.

[RoeBear]

52. Well...yeah....like

when you're walking down the street. But in your own home a shotgun is a very useful self-defense tool.

[VTMechEngr]

12. The AWB didn't really ban any weapons...

It just banned pistol mags over 10 rounds and cosmetic features on assault weapons without dealing with the actual weapons killing power.

Sure, it banned a 30 round mag for an AK made after 1994, but just buy one made in 1993 and its all legal.

The reality was that the law was a feel good measure that allowed politicians to go home and say, " I have made you safer" without actually doing a damned thing.

I never had a problem with it either way. My pistols are not capable of holding over 9 rounds anyhow.

[diatribal]

13. No kidding!

I just started looking around myself, and I was thinking the same thing.

No, I didnt support it ending. It was a step in the right direction.
I dont see any need for a mentally healthy person to have a gun.

I was truly surprised to see gun stuff have it's own forum.

Bye now!

[goju]

19. Clarify please

"No, I didnt support it ending. It was a step in the right direction."

What direction are you alluding to, or more specifically, what is the destination or goal of taking that direction?

"I dont see any need for a mentally healthy person to have a gun."

How bout cops?

[diatribal]

20. Clarification.

They need to all be melted into scrap iron.

And maybe some police can have them, but they would need to be specially trained policemen. I dont think a few weeks at the academy should give someone the right to carry a gun around wherever they want to. Once all the other guns have been destroyed, there will be less need for the police to have them.

There is no reason to keep them. People who want them can go find some other macho thing to do, like monster trucks, or pulling wings off flies. (This is not an endorsement of pulling wings off flies)
Get over it. They let people kill people easier. And that isnt very progressive.

[alwynsw]

22. Welcome to DU. Brace yourself.

There is no reason to keep them. People who want them can go find some other macho thing to do, like monster trucks, or pulling wings off flies. (This is not an endorsement of pulling wings off flies)
Get over it. They let people kill people easier. And that isnt very progressive.

I'm sane, better trained (Uncle Sam and several private civilian courses)than any cop I know (I know quite a few having been a corrections supervisor earlier in life), and I own a number of firearms.

Firearms are not a macho thing. While possibly not a necessity, they're a valuable tool for those of us who live on farms or in rural areas. It's tough to run off a pack of coyotes when they're busy killing livestock unless you have a gun. Dead coyotes don't kill livestock and pets. Forget trapping. Coyotes are nearly impossible to trap. Poisioning is out - there's too much danger for kids, pets, and livestock. There are also the proverbial foxes in the henhouses and any number of other varmints that pose a hazard to crops and stock.

What about those of us who hunt for meat? I'd rather have a healthy, lean deer on the table than sledgehammered, drug enhanced beef.

Rather than ramble on and become a boor, I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Last item: Several here already know about my affair with an intruder in my home (my apologies to them for the repetition). Short version: I challenged, he shot, I shot back. He's dead. I'm not - nor is my wife or son.

[diatribal]

25. Those points are pretty much invalid.

Why dont you call animal control, or some sort of forest ranger about your coyotes? And the healthy meat you get from hunting can easliy be replaced with free range chicken, natural raised beef, and other healthier alternatives.

Maybe if you spent your time lobbying for better food quality and more effective animal control, you could eliminate the "need" (yes, in quotes, I think it's more want) to own something that contributes to so much violence.

It's all just a smokescreen. Some people just get off on being the big person with a gun.

[slackmaster]

29. PMFJI but as a taxpayer I'm glad he takes care of his own varmints

And the healthy meat you get from hunting can easliy be replaced with free range chicken, natural raised beef, and other healthier alternatives.

I'm happy to have him shoot all the deer he wants as long as he shares the meat with me.

Maybe if you spent your time lobbying for better food quality and more effective animal control, you could eliminate the "need" (yes, in quotes, I think it's more want) to own something that contributes to so much violence.

The Great Disconnect. Please explain how HIS hunting rifles or MY collection of old firearms locked up in a 1250 pound safe have any connection with violent crime.

It's all just a smokescreen. Some people just get off on being the big person with a gun.

I think if you came to my house and I showed you my collection you would not conclude that my motivation for owning them has anything to do with some kind of ego boost. The perceived anonymity of these forums makes it all too easy to dehumanize our fellow contributors, to paint them with a broad brush dipped in our simplistic assumptions about what's going on inside of their heads.

[alwynsw]

31. Come right on over and make the calls. See what happens.

Animal control? What's that? It's non-esistant in my county. We have a dog catcher who takes strays to another county to be housed.

Forest Ranger? I don't live on Federal or state land. Last time I checked those were the only places rangers worked.

Here it comes again. Here in KY, as in many other states, the deer population is out of control. The overpopulation is leading to increased deer - vehicle accidents, many of which are fatal to the deer, some of which are fatal to the vehicle occupant(s) and the starvation of many of the deer in question. (I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a quick death by gunshot or bow to slow starvation and I think the deer would as well if they could reason.) Hunting is still the best and most cost effective method of controlling the population. As an added benefit, the hunter and the beneficiaries of his/her food gifts get healthier meat. I also get hides that become clothing and antlers that become useful items because of my wife's scrimshaving.

Free range chickens? Natural beef? Do you truly have any idea what you're referring to, aside from propaganda pushed by the health police? Try farming, then get back to me on those items. The cost of such production, leading to much higher retail makes those options virtually unobtainable for the average person. I've got it! we'll force all farmers to grow everything organically. While chicken goes to $15.00 per pound, the farmers will go bankrupt, thus leaving the door open for corporate agribusiness to swoop dwon and acquire even more land for their operations. Meanwhile, the farmer and his family go to work at McDonalds retailing the corporate produce from what once was their family farm.

You're obviously an urban dweller with very little clue about rural life. I can overlook the ignorance. I have great difficulty overlooking your attempt to force your values on me and others who don't share your views on firearms.

Go read another magazine instead of actually learning about things.

[slackmaster]

23. All of your remarks have to do with reasons and need

i.e. YOUR assessment of what OTHER PEOPLE need and do not need.

My preference is to allow others to make up their own minds about what to own, say, or do as long as they don't cause harm. I wouldn't want to accept the responsibility for saying that an individual has no need for a weapon, then turn out to have been mistaken.

I cannot accept that nobody needs weapons until society has figured out how to provide complete protection against crazies and criminals and zombies and such; and I haven't envisioned any society with complete round-the-clock protection that I would actually want to live in.

[diatribal]

27. Zombies.

It's supposed to be best to behead zombies. Use a sword.

I agree with individual decisions in most cases. The problem I have with an individual wanting a gun is that they can kill me on a whim without even having to walk closer to me. I'd like to think I had an "individual right" to not be killed by somebody I cant even see.

So, your shopping list should be:
Sword.
Flies. (though i'd rather you used plastic ones)

[slackmaster]

30. Thanks for your honesty

The problem I have with an individual wanting a gun is that they can kill me on a whim without even having to walk closer to me.

It seems the whole basis of your issue is fear.

I'd like to think I had an "individual right" to not be killed by somebody I cant even see.

You DO have that right. You have the right to BE safe.

You do not have a right to FEEL any particular way.

If my gun collection scares you I'm very sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my liberty just so you can sleep better. My collection in no way jeopardizes your right to be safe.

[diatribal]

35. I'm thinking we have differing experiences.

You, and folks you might associate with see firearms as an enjoyable activity.

Myself, and folks I associate with see firearms as something that far too many of us get shot with. Or threatened with.

[slackmaster]

38. I see no nexus between my pursuit of happiness and your safety

If all of my guns were melted into scrap iron you would not be any less likely to be shot or threatened with a gun. They're too large to exhibit bizarre quantum mechanical effects, like suddenly showing up in the hands of someone who intends to do you harm.

[jody]

39. Now Slackmaster, some video games have such bizzare effects and

everyone knows video games are real -- don't they?
:hi:

[iverglas]

41. wow, jody, that wouldn't be an

ever so subtle allegation that the person to whom slackmaster addressed his remarks has difficulty distinguishing between reality and unreality -- would it?

typo fixed

[goju]

26. Thanks

The next time one of our anti gun posters suggests that no one here is advocating the complete confiscation of weapons, I will refer them to you. Too often those same posters are not willing to admit that complete confiscation is a goal of the anti gun crowd. They say things like "reasonable regulation" or "common sense" gun control in lieu of confiscation and destruction. I had suspected that those terms were code word for confiscation but its difficult to get anyone to be honest about their agenda, aside from you, and most of us on the pro Rights side.

[diatribal]

28. You're welcome.

I dont see the point in beating around the bush.

It's something I think makes a lot of sense.

[Pert]

14. Just because you hate guns doesn't mean they're evil.

I voted for the elf, and I'm against the AWB. Not like he stood much of a chance losing.

"I all for gun ownership, so long as they are registered. I said guns, I'm not sure what assult rifles are used for. I have hunters in my family, and they don't uderstand what suppressors and AK 47s are for, either."

What registration? Why should the government know what weapons I own? There is no good reason for registration.
Suppressors (in the AWB): So that you don't completely blind yourself during night shooting, and some help improve your accuracy.
Suppressors (non-AWB): Reduce the db of the gunshot. Hard to acquire the proper credentials for.
AK47s: Hunting (smaller animals), sport, Bush decides he has a "mandate" to stay in office for life, etc.

"Perhaps renting them at licensed gun clubs for a day of recreational shooting might be a good compromise." Why should I have to pay more to use a rifle I can buy...only with a bayonet lug?

"I see no real need for a 50 cal armor piercing rifle for "recreational" use." Just because you don't doesn't mean that others don't. And define "armor piercing."

"and in my opinion that means background checks" Have them.
"skills testing and safety testing for licence" Need to take a course for the Ohio CCW Permit.
"and if ballistic or gun registration helps fight crime" It doesn't.

"I also fail to see the need for .50 unless we are going to have 10,000 foot target shooting ranges." Learn something about the capabilities of the .50. But wait, which .50 are you talking about? .50 is a popular muzzle-loading caliber.

"And as a hunter, the need for 15 shots in 5 seconds has never occurred to me as something I need." I think you're confusing the AWB with the NFA.

"I dont see any need for a mentally healthy person to have a gun." Oddly enough, it helps keep me sane(r). Shooting is very relaxing to me. And when I go out to a range in the country, it helps me to relax. Concentrating on hitting the target (especially the breathing control) allows me to shut out whatever may be bothering me. Or maybe it's the fumes from Hoppes No. 9. Basically, it's a good way for me to deal with stress.

[benEzra]

15. Yes, glad the ban on 11-round handguns and black plastic stocks

is ended.

The ban did NOT ban any military weapons, contrary to media misunderstandings, since military AK-47's and Uzi's were and are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, NOT the AWB.

The AWB DID ban new production of over-10-round magazines for all civilian firearms, meaning my wife had to pay $100 for a 15-round magazine for her 9mm handgun in the mid-1990's. (Prices of full-capacity rifle magazines weren't significantly affected.)

[Township75]

16. Good Riddance to the AWB!

What a waste of legislation, and Democractic house/senate seats!

AWs are not more deadly than other guns. First off, try and conceal one like a handgun, you will find it isn't too easy. Secondy, more murders are committed with handguns than AWs, so if one is really concerned with saving lives, why not start there? I guess they felt it was easier to scare people with "assualt weapons."

Personally, I consider hunting rifles to have more potential to be deadly than an AK-rip off. With a scope on it and the better range when compared to an Tec9 or some other AW, the hunting rifle could take people out from much further away. It would have a better chance of hitting someone, and it would be easier to conceal oneself because of the distance factor.

There are tons of things that have no legal/practical/needful purpose. At least AWs can be used in shooting competitions, which are legal and practical. Do you know how many people who can't drive for sh!t have oversized SUVS, or cars with ridicously sized engines in them? If you have ever witnessed such an person, remember, they are licensed (should be at least) and that car is registered (should be too); some help that was. Those things are legal and practical too (I guess). What do you think is more likely to happen to you, you get shot by someone using an AW, or you are involved in an accident with someone using an oversized/overpowered automobile.

[skippythwndrdog]

18. The AWB was ineffective and retarded and it costs us elections.

Generally, the assault weapons ban did what I have below, the technical aspects are greater, but below is what was practically banned:

Banned the new manufacture of detachable box magazines holding more than ten rounds. (Arbitrary limit)

Banned the addition of screw threads to the end of rifle muzzles.(wow, screw threads sure are evil)

Banned the addition of flash reducing devices that prevent fireballs from ejecting out the muzzle (Flash reducing devices are great, why would you want to ban them? They lower the risk of fire when shooting prone)

Banned bayonet/bipod lugs from rifles. (Yup, wouldn't want to have a drive by bayoneting or an evil bipod)

Banned adjustable or folding stocks. (Yup, it was discriminatory too. It prevented me from adjusting the stock shorter so that my niece could use it.)

Basically, the AWB was a failed piece of legislation that banned cosmetic features that didn't have an effect on the functionality of a firearm. Anybody who thinks it had anything to do with crime is sorely misinformed, and any politician who supports it is anti-gun and likely to be on my shit list. Why do we keep losing? Maybe it is because Senator Kerry co-sponsored a bill that would ban the most popular semi-auto hunting shotgun in the world as being an "Assault Weapon". Maybe it is because Senator Kennedy sponsored an amendment that would ban most center-fire rifle hunting ammunition. Maybe it is because the politicians on the coasts are trying to impose their anti-gun agendas on the middle of the country. There are well over a MILLION gun owners in my adopted home state of Ohio. I am one of only three I know of who voted for Senator Kerry. The other two are a lesbian couple who said that if it weren't for the gay issue, they "would have voted for Bush because Kerry is anti-gun". People around here vote their guns, and we will never get those votes as long as we keep trying to restrict their freedoms. The Assault Weapons Ban was one of the most retarded pieces of legislation in history. All it did was alienate gun owners and inconvenience them. I am an amateur gun-smith. I hand-build AR15 rifles and carbines. As soon as the ban expired, I started gettting ready to properly outfit my AR15 rifles. I put on the adjustable stocks, I took the barrels to a machinist to have them threaded, I screwed flash suppressors onto those threads, and ordered up new front sight bases so that I could add the proper bayonet lugs. I, for one, am sick and tired of my party being the party of the gun-grabbers, the authoritarians who want to take away my gun freedoms. There is a reason that I will never live in California, or Massachusetts, or New York, or Maryland, or New Jersey, or Illinois, or any of the other states that don't respect the Second Amendment. How did the Democratic Party, the party of Freedom become also the party that has most of those opposed to gun rights? We are lousy with them. I will work tirelessly to change this. Why do we lose the rust belt states? The Democratic Party has left the voters it once counted on.

[slackmaster]

24. As of yesterday the AW ban has been gone for five months

No sign of the predicted blood bath, no sudden surge of crimes in which a formerly banned weapon was used to super-lethal effect.

The AWB did no good and had some curious unintended consequences including fostering interest in semiautomatic civilian versions of military pattern weapons. More people are using AR-15 type rifles for hunting and competitive target shooting than ever before, with far more variations and accessories than were available in 1994 when the moratorium took effect. The options for configuring them expanded only slightly when the "ban" expired - It went out with a whimper.

Death of an ill-conceived law that utterly failed to achieve its stated purpose is always a good thing, but the AWB had a silver lining that should serve as a model for future restrictions on personal liberty: All restrictive laws should be subject to automatic sunset like the AWB. If there had been an obvious reason to continue it, even a Republican Congress would have done so.

[aikoaiko]

33. I've been waiting for someone to use the Kingston, NY shooting ...

... as evidence for a new AWB. geeeesh. I guess no one here is that silly. Some of my faith in DU is being restored.

Police arrest lone gunman in Kingston mall shooting

Kingston - A lone gunman with an assault rifle opened fire in the crowded Hudson Valley Mall in Lake Katrine today, sending shoppers and employees fleeing for their lives.
The 24-year-old gunman went into a Best Buy store and started firing. When he ran out of ammunition, he was tackled and subdued by mall employees, police said. He was dragged from the mall and is being held by
authorities.
Police did not identify the suspect or the type of weapon he used. The shooter's motives were unclear, police said.

<snip>

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/02/13/mallsiege.htm

[Dolomite]

40. The expiration of the AWB has been fairly lethal

to my credit cards I can tell you that much.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[skippythwndrdog]

44. If you went door to door smashing windows and whatnot,

don't you think that some of those gun owners would open fire? I know I would. If a rampaging mob comes to my house, you better believe that I'll open up on them if I feel my life is in danger.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[anonymous44]

43. lol

[slackmaster]

48. I sent in an application for a Curio & Relic FFL two weeks ago

THAT is going to be a credit card killer, just like the CMP M1 Garand and two cases of World War II vintage ammo I ordered.

:nuke:

[jody]

49. WWII ammo probably will probably go poof when you squeeze the trigger.

The good news is ball and dummy practice is a wonderful cure for one's flinch. :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

50. I've had good luck with it

Depends on how it was stored, I suppose.

[Lucid Dreamer]

63. Go w/ the CMP ammo

... and buy more than you think you will need. They occasionally go out of stock and it is rough holding your breath wondering if it will ever be restocked .

I've run thru over 700 rounds of the ball w/o any misfires or problems.

[aikoaiko]

32. As others have said....

...the AWB was one of the most useless gun control laws that ended up costing Democrats dearly.

[yorgatron]

51. "Kucinich supporters and gun nuts on the same bandwith"

i voted for dennis in my state primary,AND i own guns.he's a vegan (or vegetarian) and i'm carnivorous.he's on the left side of the spectrum and so am I.

[Mairead]

64. "Kucinich supporters and gun nuts on the same bandwith"

And I voted for him too, also donated money.

And I'm a vegetarian and support the ENTIRE Bill Of Rights.