|
Post by booley on Apr 6, 2009 2:52:05 GMT -5
well first this would seem to confirm what I was saying about the "perception" being manufactored. However I would also point out that this is one rumor and done only recently The claim that Democrats are all out to grab guns with gun control as it's pretense is far older by decades at least. In fact, I seem to recall that you've made this claim on a number of occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Apr 6, 2009 7:48:57 GMT -5
However as far as I can tell, Obama has never said anything about taking away anyone's guns. Not a single word. He likely meant the time Eric Holder said: With a quote like that from the Attorney General of the USA, I can why fear of a gun ban has skyrocketed.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 6, 2009 8:34:03 GMT -5
Yes, the democrats will take away your guns, make you have an abortion and oh yeah turn you gay. Goddamn fear mongering assholes....
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 6, 2009 9:32:29 GMT -5
However as far as I can tell, Obama has never said anything about taking away anyone's guns. Not a single word. He likely meant the time Eric Holder said: With a quote like that from the Attorney General of the USA, I can why fear of a gun ban has skyrocketed. Ironically, the assault weapons ban was useless in the first place. The authors who wrote the ban fingered specific cosmetic elements, such as bayonet mounts and folding stocks. All manufacturers had to do was remove those elements from the design of any weapon for commercial sale. Not only that, but the ban only applied to weapons made after a certain date; weapons made before that date were still legal. Congress let it die not because of any political pandering but because it failed to deliver as advertised.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 6, 2009 9:36:37 GMT -5
Most of the elements banned made weapons more dangerous. And since Constitutionally, there are ex post facto issues, of course you will have pre-ban weaponry.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 6, 2009 9:47:58 GMT -5
Once again Sky, [citation needed].
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 6, 2009 10:13:22 GMT -5
Most of the elements banned made weapons more dangerous. And since Constitutionally, there are ex post facto issues, of course you will have pre-ban weaponry. Well, honestly, I'd like to know how black stocks, bayonet lugs and pistol grips make a gun more deadly than it is already? Given the time, range, and actions of pretty much all gun violence, how do night sights aid in stopping that? Sky is right in that it was pretty much useless. The weapons listed on the ban could not be imported, but, the same already here could still be sold and used. Not only that but the ban list singled out weapons that were very very rarely used in crimes (North Hollywood shootout being the only I can remember, which were already illegal with full auto) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_BanIt was a feel good move, and that is why I think many gun owners fear any legislation that comes out. Most is done without any knowledge except "This seems bad, let's ban". A simple stroke of a pen can turn thousands of lawful gun owners into criminals. Hell, I laugh at California. They have a regulation that grenade launching adapters must be taken off Yugo SKS rifles and replaced with things like muzzle brakes and welded in place. Why? How many crimes are committed in the US with grenades?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 6, 2009 10:27:08 GMT -5
It's again a question of access and the scope of the damage. If we're looking at questions like "How many crimes are committed in the US with grenades" as a serious test of what things to ban, then the guns you use most often are most definitely in danger. If we're looking at what weapon is most often used in crime, then by that logic, we should get rid of the most popular guns that owners often have. I would rather not have grenades/guns with grenade launchers in the general public just for the simple fact that one crazy person can do even more damage than he could with a gun.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 6, 2009 11:55:57 GMT -5
It's again a question of access and the scope of the damage. If we're looking at questions like "How many crimes are committed in the US with grenades" as a serious test of what things to ban, then the guns you use most often are most definitely in danger. If we're looking at what weapon is most often used in crime, then by that logic, we should get rid of the most popular guns that owners often have. I would rather not have grenades/guns with grenade launchers in the general public just for the simple fact that one crazy person can do even more damage than he could with a gun. You do realize what a grenade launcher is? it's just a piece of steel on the end of a barrel. You need to find/manufacture your own adapter, aquire blanks to fire it, know what you're doing so you don't wreck the gas system, and even then aquire something to use as the grenade. Anything further than 30 meters it's gonna be really inaccurate, anything less it might not even work since the grenade has to seperate from the device that allows it to be launched off the gun. it's not a great idea to use them against the shoulder either from the kick. Even then if you have a grenade, you're violating law, and, where the hell are ya gonna launch it to that you just can't throw it?
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 6, 2009 12:25:29 GMT -5
Rush Limbaugh's cavernous navel?
I say that only because I know I wouldn't want to get close enough to just throw it.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 6, 2009 13:17:38 GMT -5
I know what it is, and I know the difference. The real question is, why does a person need one? Why does a person need grenades? Are you now arguing that somehow proximity to target and "usefulness" of the weapon should determine whether we should ban a weapon or not? It is a question of scope of damage, not how close you have to be to fire it and get it to work.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 6, 2009 14:01:04 GMT -5
I know what it is, and I know the difference. The real question is, why does a person need one? Why does a person need grenades? Are you now arguing that somehow proximity to target and "usefulness" of the weapon should determine whether we should ban a weapon or not? It is a question of scope of damage, not how close you have to be to fire it and get it to work. Not at all, I'm saying what's the possible sense in laws like that when they make no sense? What is the scope of the damage since anything that could be used is pretty much unattainable? I don't have a problem controlling guns, but, I'd like the laws to be thought out and make sense, not this "Oooh, it looks bad" crap that's been going on. If anything replacing it with a muzzle brake makes it even more deadly because the gun will be easier to control
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on Apr 6, 2009 14:11:04 GMT -5
This is the kind of mentally unstable nut case that should never have been trusted with a water pistol, let alone the AK-47 he was shooting up cops with.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 6, 2009 14:48:11 GMT -5
I agree that laws should make sense, and I also agree that gun laws are sometimes "feel-good" and cosmetic in nature, which is not helpful at all. I don't see the need for grenades or anything that assists in launching them (however accurate or inaccurate), though. To approve something that launches grenades, however faulty and inaccurate the launch, is to give de facto approval for things that launch grenades, and that is the point of the legislation against it. It doesn't matter how accurate it is or isn't, rather what matters is the statement on what the accessory is designed to do--whether it manages to do it well or not is beside the point.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 6, 2009 14:50:23 GMT -5
*Holding grenade-launcher* Oh, you'll see....you'll see...
|
|