the ban on semi-automatic assualt rifles was lifted in 2004

[TakeAStepBack]

Im fine with the 94 "assault weapon" ban. It didn't do shit from any direction. Useless legislation is preferable to detrimental legislation.

 

[skipper]

If you think what you've posted is proof of anything that's pretty pathetic...

That's a hell of case you've made there...

One more time, we're all awaiting your input on this question: Tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

No doubt there will always be thugs and crazy people which is all the more reason not to give them easy access to assault weapons if at all possible... Why are you so against banning assault weapons?

They forget (or don't want to remember) that Reagan, their uber-conservative, helped push for two gun control bills in his post-presidency.

 

[Valerie]

That's a hell of case you've made there...

One more time, we're all awaiting your input on this question: Tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

No doubt there will always be thugs and crazy people which is all the more reason not to give them easy access to assault weapons if at all possible... Why are you so against banning assault weapons?

They forget (or don't want to remember) that Reagan, their uber-conservative, helped push for two gun control bills in his post-presidency.

Yep... Some people tend to get rather emotional over their precious guns.




http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ible-for-assault-weapons-ban.html#post6522098

 

[Bern80]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

You're really going to go with the 'you don't need it argument'? Okay, mind if I come over to your place and get rid of all the things I don't think you need? Need has zero to do with it.

As far as why people own guns, you couldn't be more wrong. Such an opinion is out of YOUR negative bias towards guns and has nothing to do with your made up notion that all gun owners are obsessed with their firearms. Get to know a typical gun owner sometime instead of making unfounded, stupid assumptions.

 

[Missourian]

Define assault weapons. Here we go again.

Indeed...

What features make a gun into an assault weapon?

Some assault weapon features, like pistol grips, second handgrips, or barrel shrouds, make the gun easier to hold with two hands. This allows the shooter to spray an area with bullets without taking careful aim, and to control the gun without getting burned as the barrel heats up. Others, like detachable magazines, make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire for an extended period of time. Still others, like flash suppressors, allow the shooter to conceal his position. These features, most of which were specifically designed for the military, are unnecessary for hunting or target shooting.



What is the federal assault weapon ban?

In 1994, after a string of mass killings committed by criminals with assault weapons, Congress passed a law banning certain assault weapons. The 1994 law named 19 specific models, and also banned "copies or duplicates" of those models. In addition, the law outlawed guns that have two or more specified assault weapon features. Guns that were legally possessed before the effective date of the law remain legal.



What is the "sunset clause"?

The 1994 assault weapons ban included a "sunset clause" providing that the law would be automatically repealed on September 13, 2004. President Bush professed support for renewing the ban, but refused to lobby Congress to pass new legislation. When Congress failed to act to extend the ban, assault weapons again became legal under the provisons of federal law.





During the time of the 1994-2004 ban, I heard that criminals were still able to commit crimes with assault weapons. How was that possible?

The 1994 law includes several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.

Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.

Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.

Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.

Assault Weapons FAQ - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

 

[tresbigdog]

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

maybe 2/3 of them...........

 

[eflatminor]

If you think what you've posted is proof of anything that's pretty pathetic...

That's a hell of case you've made there...

One more time, we're all awaiting your input on this question: Tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

No doubt there will always be thugs and crazy people which is all the more reason not to give them easy access to assault weapons if at all possible... Why are you so against banning assault weapons?

I'm pleased to see you admit there is no gun control law that will stop criminals from being criminals.

I am against outlawing harmful actions, not inanimate objects. I am against restricting my inalienable right to self defense. I am against laws that help to ensure the bad guys have an edge against law abiding citizens, And lastly, I'm against stupid laws that not only don't achieve their stated goals, but often have the exact opposite results.

Now tell us, exactly what should constitute a so called "assault weapon" and why would you seek to ban anything, especially after you've admitted it won't stop crazy and criminals from doing what they do?

 

[eflatminor]

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

maybe 2/3 of them...........

Bullshit. First, there is no reason in the world to believe a ban on magazine capacity would be adhered to by criminals and crazies. A magazine is nothing more than sheet metal and a spring, and there are millions and millions of them out there. There has been a 10 round mag limit in California for decades, yet if you go to a CA range, everyone has larger capacity magazines. Secondly, even if he had only 10 round magazines, explain exactly how "2/3" of those kids would not have died. It takes a fraction of a second to change a magazine. There was NOBODY around or in the school with the means to take this guy down. It would have made no damn difference and you damn well know it.

 

[Valerie]

Define assault weapons. Here we go again.

Indeed...

Assault Weapons FAQ - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

I've had this opinion about assault weapons long before those kids were slaughtered, so please try to wrap your mind around more than one thing at a time, huh? There is no lawful-purpose to owning assault weapons and there is no 2nd amendment right for average citizens to own them. The gun makers have been lying and scaring people.

 

[eflatminor]

Indeed...

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

I've had this opinion about assault weapons long before those kids were slaughtered, so please try to wrap your mind around more than one thing at a time, huh? There is no lawful-purpose to owning assault weapons and there is no 2nd amendment right for average citizens to own them. The gun makers have been lying and scaring people.

You don't even know what an "assault weapon" is and you claim there is no lawful purpose? How about protecting your home and family? How about hunting, such as for wild hogs or varmints, where an AR15 platform is the perfect weapon?

The SC disagrees with your assessment of the 2nd amendment too.

Tell me, if you were forced to confront bad/crazy guys with an high capacity semi automatic platform, would you be okay with nothing more than a single shot weapon or maybe an old shotgun?

Again, if we know the bad guys are going to have them, why would you want to restrict the good guys ability to defend themselves. It makes zero sense.

 

[JKVegas]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

simply wanting a gun is reason enough

Some people WANT to be able to go out, get hammered and be able to drive home, to avoid the hassle of coming back when sober to get their car.

SHOULD they be able to?

Some people WANT to beat up gays.

SHOULD they be able to?

Last Friday, some demented kid WANTED to kill a bunch of people because he was mad at his mom.

SHOULD he have been able to?

Obviously, he WAS able to.

I've lived in this country all my life. My rights have NEVER felt infringed upon with regard to my own personal safety. Voting, that's another matter (Been able to vote, just not the way I feel it should work). I can say or post anything sane in public and the cops have come to my house .................... zero times.

 

[Valerie]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.





In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purchase. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purchases as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.



However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268296-wheres-the-well-regulated-militia.html#post6514525

 

[thanatos144]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA&feature=player_detailpage]Rahm Emanuel Says Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Missourian]

So this is what you are trying to convince us...

If this guy Lanza only had a gun with no pistol grip, no suppressor, and three 10 round magazines instead of a 30 round magazines...those defenseless 5 year olds would have been okay?

maybe 2/3 of them...........

BS.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_TTzulypI]Magazine Change Race - YouTube[/ame]

.7 seconds between magazine changes.

 

[Navy1960]

Just a thought here, for years this debate has gone on in this nation and each time someone is the victim of a crime as was the case in CT. which was tragic beyond measure as is the case with anyone who loses a loved one to violence, you have some low life who commits the crime. After which everyone seeks and answer as to why, and how to make sure it never happens again, and still from time to time it keeps on happening. Perhaps the focus here should not be on those that obey the laws of the land and perhaps better focus on those that seek to break it to cause harm to others. For example, as a gun owner, I have no problem at all with closing the so called " loop hole" for gun shows and for punishing those individuals who sell guns without a background check or do straw purchases on behalf of those who have no business having them . A good example on the "semi-automatic" debate would be advocating for laws that outlaw cars because of drunk drivers when the vast majority of drivers out there obey the law. The reforms that need to be made are reforms that make it it so hard for individuals that want to do this kinds of crimes and the punishments for those that do that in the future it will lower the number of innocent people hurt by these low life scum.

 

[JKVegas]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

You're really going to go with the 'you don't need it argument'? Okay, mind if I come over to your place and get rid of all the things I don't think you need? Need has zero to do with it.

As far as why people own guns, you couldn't be more wrong. Such an opinion is out of YOUR negative bias towards guns and has nothing to do with your made up notion that all gun owners are obsessed with their firearms. Get to know a typical gun owner sometime instead of making unfounded, stupid assumptions.

Their statements are obsessive, that's why I make that assumption.

Their is no logical reason to own any firearm unless you wish to use it for legalized hunting of animals who would simply starve themselves to death without population control. People like that don't tend to go on rampages, and I haven't heard ONE pro-regulation person wishing to take their guns away. Even environmentalists realize that we've destroyed all the natural predators, and need to assume their role.

Any other reason is a paranoid, emotional responce to a threat perceived to be 100 times larger than it actually is. Unless you actually ARE a courier of valuable items. Yea, then the threat would be real.

I own 5 guitars. Yea, I guess I could go all "El Kabong" and whack someone over the head with one. But I enjoy playing them too much to ever use one in such a manner.

My "obsessive" device won't be stolen and used to kill someone else. Unless the thief really HAS a Quickdraw McGraw thing going on.

THAT'S the difference.

I wonder about this site. Why is the top of the page always saying, "Check your arrest record!"

Curious .....................................

 

[Bern80]

I've had this opinion about assault weapons long before those kids were slaughtered, so please try to wrap your mind around more than one thing at a time, huh? There is no lawful-purpose to owning assault weapons and there is no 2nd amendment right for average citizens to own them. The gun makers have been lying and scaring people.

Same question to you: Are you fine with me entering your home and consfiscating that which I deem you don't need?

 

[eflatminor]

I have no problem at all with closing the so called " loop hole" for gun shows and for punishing those individuals who sell guns without a background check

This means you're telling someone they cannot sell their personal property. Think about it. If someone wanted to sell an old shotgun, closing to so-called (and misleading) "gun show loophole" would mean a normal, law abiding person couldn't sell his firearm, be it at a garage sale, to a friend, to family member, or at a gun show.

Any other legally possessed items you want to tell the American people they can't sell? People are killed in cars with great frequency. Should we restrict anyone from selling a car to another individual? The alternative is telling the people they can only sell their possessions to a licensed government agent. You really want to go down that path?

...or do straw purchases

Already illegal.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So self defense, sport and enjoyment are not logical reasons to own firearms? That's interesting.

 

[eflatminor]

Their is no logical reason to own any firearm unless you wish to use it for legalized hunting of animals who would simply starve themselves to death without population control.

You've lost the plot.

Defending yourself and your family has no logic? Hunting for food or varmint control has no logic? The shooting sports are illogical? The inalienable right of The People to stand against tyranny is illogical? The simple right of a person who harms no other to exist without your meddling is not logical?

I do not think you know what this word means.