New Assault weapon Ban

SAU wrote:Bet you didn't read this far because you know your arguments are weak

You lose!!

pvolcko wrote:You really are the master of the straw-man argument, aren't you? Depleted uranium ammo? Tax exemption? Ranges shooting across a highway? For someone supposedly wanting to discuss "common sense" gun control laws you sure like to throw a lot of non-sense argument points out there.

Exaggeration is a good way of "highlighting" one's disagreement with a position. It is not nonsense, it is done on purpose to make an argument easy to understand.

pvolcko wrote:If I wanted to break the law I could probably get a handgun inside of an hour, definitely in one day. If I were willing to steal from a family member I could have one in 15 minutes. No background check, no waiting period, probably at relatively low cost, and "untraceable" in that my name isn't going to be attached to the gun in any way.

So why are speed limits posted? Obviously we can't prevent everyone from breaking the law (by speeding in this case), but we can get most people to comply with laws by just making & trying to enforce them. That lowers the level of danger we all face.

pvolcko wrote:To do it legally in this state and county takes between 3 and 6 months, and that permit will likely only allow sporting use or on premises use of the gun, not concealed carry. To get a new handgun once the permit is granted takes at least two trips to the gun shop and one to the licensing office, basically half a day of running back and forth.

I would consider those times unreasonable & work to get them lessened.

pvolcko wrote:Increasing gun control laws is not going to make it easier for criminals to get guns or ammo or make anyone "more safe" from criminals, it only makes it harder for law abiding people to get these things and thus makes those people less safe. Reducing gun control laws also doesn't make it any easier for the criminal to acquire, but it does help the law abiding.

I'm coming at the problem more from a "Colombine" type fear than a pure criminal one Paul. As a society, I think we have more to fear from mentally ill people getting their hands on firearms than a pure criminal, who's intent is usually not to kill people, but to steal money & the use of a firearm is merely a way to "Motivate" victims to comply.
If you look at the worst gun related violence in this country in the last 10 years, where numbers of people were shot, I can't think of any that were not perpetrated by wackos, not normal criminals. Reduction of the availabilty of guns is a deterrent to these wackos.

pvolcko wrote:I do not understand them to be that. I said they are that "in part", not "in total". They do represent gun owners on constitutional issues.

They do so out of an underlying desire to help the firearms industry's sales Paul, not because they are a group of Constitutional scholars intent on keeping us free! (if you disagree, then, since it's an opinion, we'll just have to agree to disagree )

pvolcko wrote:They aren't a perfect organization and certainly they do lobby in part for things that benefit the gun industry, but much of those issues are equally beneficial to the people and the general membership.

I'm not saying that some of the things they do is not beneficial to society, just like most lobby's perform some civic functions as part of their "Image" creation. What I AM saying is their reason for existing is & always has been to promote the gun industry, both in Congress & in the public mind. They are not the Red Cross!

pvolcko wrote:I do believe the NRA is mainly interested in protecting gun owners, hunters, and shooting sports.

and I simply believe you are wrong here. It's a matter of opinion.....IMO , the NRA is MAINLY interested in protecting the firearms industry &, if that also helps gun owners, fine.

djackman wrote:These conceptual questions are avoiding the subject which is further restrictions on currently legal to purchase/own firearms. If it's legal to privately own and make operational a 88mm canon then so be it. Again, I don't view the "hardware" as a threat but rather the person behind it. If you own a large bulldozer, should you be prohibited from buying steel plate and tubing since you could armor plate it and make a cannon? Jeeze

I think we are arguing in circles here Paul. I've already explained my thinking in terms of weighing a dangerous item's benefit vs danger to our society as a reasonable way of deciding it's legality to be available. Sure......a large bulldozer can be a danger but it's benefit to us is way more than it's danger. Now, apply the same test to a German Tiger tank with operating armament.......In what way is the potential danger it represents balanced by a benefit to our society??

I have several .22 single shots. In my younger days these were all I had and used them on a regular basis to hunt and plink with. I have shot these weapons more than all of my others combined. I also have several .22 manual operated repeating arms that I suppose could be considerd assault weapons (by some people) as they have a high capicity especially if using .22 shorts.
I would not hesitate to use these guns to defend myself using the .22 shorts. They are extremely quiet, accurate, and very deadly.
So, does anyone think these should be classified as assault weapons?

Don't laugh Super, nothing would surprise me anymore.

I would ask when, since the AWB sunsetted was last time you heard of a crime commited with a firearm listed as an assault weapon? That's right they can't.

In case someone wants to bring up the Minnesota hunting murders, don't bother, the moung used an SKS, which was not NOT listed as an assault rifle since it dosen't have a pistol grip. It shoots the same 7.62x39mm as an AK-47 so it has the same ballistics and yet.....it's not a "Black Gun" and threfore not on the list. I'm sure it will be on the new list, but still.

No, I'm not laughing. The .22 would be simple to use in many ways as comapered to the SKS (which I am familiar with). The .22 is light, almost silent when using the .22 short, and very accuarate. I could fit thousands of rounds in a very small space and be almost non-detectable with regards to my position.

The original "assault" weapon, which I have had the pleasure of handling and shooting

SuperBeetle wrote:So, does anyone think these should be classified as assault weapons?

No. They don't fit the definition of an assault weapon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_We ... ult_weapon
under the 1994 The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA; law.

Ya think maybe this is why people are buying guns?


"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

http://www.morebans.org/

SuperBeetle wrote:"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

--Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

http://www.morebans.org/

I don't believe Obama spoke those words. That site has an agenda & I don't trust it. Can you provide an independent link where I can "hear" him say those words? If not....I discount the whole story............& so should you.

(sounds like "Swiftboaters" up to their usual lies!)

No I can not show him speaking those words. I was not there and neither were you. As far as whether I believe it............yes, I do.

Do you believe this?

Urban policy agenda of President-elect Obama

Shortly after the November 4, 2008 election, Change.gov, the website of the office of President-elect Barack Obama, listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. Although its details were subsequently purged from the website, a cache of Change.gov made by Google shows that the administration's agenda includes "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets".

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFO6COA ... re=related

Along with Schumer, Biden ( who penned the orignal version and is proud to say it) Feinstein, Pelosi and Reid.....you Betcha! Uncle Barry is going to come down hard with lot's of support from his all powerful congress to rubber stamp it.
I will continue to buy up all I can, along with a few hermetically sealable containers for safe storage.

I guess this is fiction too

http://www.ontheissues.ohttp://rg/2008/ ... ontrol.htm