You know, I knew this would open a huge debate. Just like anything else. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Show me some good facts that "assault" weapons are any worse than any other firearm. I have never once seen a gun jump up and start shooting anyone. Ever! It's not the gun! Someone has to aim it and pull the trigger.
Don't like the second amendment? MOVE! Without the gun, we may never have been the USA. Did I mention FREEDOME!!!!!

Agreed.

Quote:

Don't like the second amendment? MOVE! Without the gun, we may never have been the USA. Did I mention FREEDOME!!!!!

I don't agree with this at all. If you don't like part of the Constitution, change it. There is a change process in the Constitution in Article V. which has been used 27 times between 1791 an 1992. If you truly believe that Amendment II is an anachronism, by all means call your elected representatives and advocate an amendment repealing it. However.......

Do not pretend that Amendment II doesn't mean exactly what it says, and that "The People" in Amendment II means something different than every other reference to "The People" in the Constitution.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS Report of the Constitution Subcommittee, Senate Judiciary comittee

US V Emerson, US Court of Appeals, 5th circuit

What is amazing is the spin and lies put on this by the gun ban crowd. In California there is a state ban, so this doesn't effect us, but every newscast has mentioned that people can just run over to Nevada and "buy these deadly guns". This is BS, of course, it would be a violation of both Federal and California law. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b

The spin is amazing. For example, the "open Letter to President Bush" from Sarah Brady, posted on the HCI Web page She is either a blatant liar, or simply delusional. Lets pick apart the highlights, and you decide;)

BZZZT. The ban only targeted specific minor cosmetic features, all of the banned firearms had legal "post-ban" versions that were readily available last week. Even if you believe the military scientists/maximum damage nonsense, it is irrelevant because They were never off the streets. The firearms made before the ban were still perfectly legal to buy/sell (in most states), and "post ban" versions without the minor cosmetic differences were available for sale immediately when the ban took effect. They aren't back, they never left.

Actually, that is somewhat misleading. The guns in question are used so rarely in crime, they never really were "on the streets" to begin with.

Ah, the good old "baby on the stick" argument. No matter how stupid something is, it is ok if you shriek that it is "for the children". :rolleyes: The reality is, the law did nothing. The National Institute of Justice study that Brady quotes to show it's success refers to gun traces, not all guns used in crimes. The same NIJ study clearly states that trace data is "a biased sample" because not all guns used in crimes are traced and that it is further skewed by the fact that "assault weapons are more likely to be submitted for tracing than are other confiscated firearms." The claims of how effective the law was is well picked apart Here.
A preview, it uses phrases like "rarely used" and "too small to detect" and "no clear effects".

See above. In reality, all it means is a rifle that was legal to sell last week can now have a bayonet lug. And we all know what a problem bayonettings are.:rolleyes:

Tom

One of my very favorites as well.

You know, I don't know anything about things in NZ. Therefore, I don't spend a lot of time telling people in NZ how they should live or what they should do. Perhaps you should do a little research before you jump on an innaccurate bandwagon.

First of all, you don't like my use of the word "them". So, what would you prefer I refer to a clay pidgeon as? Or a bowling pin, or a reactive steel target (all of which I shoot with my 308 and each needs multiple rounds from a "mouse gun" to "take care of" or would you be happier if I chose the word "score"?). You gun grabbers kill me (can I use that word in this context?). And yes you are.....for now, but I think everyone has potential for change.

You know, as far as needing "licensing", most states DO require it. You need to take hunters education classes and CCW (concealed carry) classes to be eligible for those activities.

On top of that there are so many rules and regulations about purchasing, transporting and using that most people (like you) aren't even aware of. Not everyone in this country is eligible to own a gun, for instance a convicted felon. That's a good thing you say? Even if you are convicted of a non violent felony (Martha Stewart for instance) before you know it, your RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) is forever gone. No rehabilitation here, no kind of paying off your "debt to society". Once a felon, always a felon, in the eyes of the law.

As far as your "different vehicles" claim, once again, do some research here. Weapons in this country are broken down into several different catagories; semi auto, fully auto (selectable fire), suppessed, and AOW (any other weapon). I will leave out the "destructive devices" catagory for now. Each one of these weapons requires different "licensing" if you will. AND they require a background check. Some more extensive than others.

Define "hard to get" for me. And for what? Just the ones, that "look" dangerous, or even worse "military"? What if they don't look "military"? How much trouble should those be? You see, you aren't basing your decisions on effectiveness or whether a weapon would be used by a criminal, but if it LOOKS like a criminal MIGHT use it. Bear in mind however that if you have your heart set on robbing a bank, the fact that your weapon was obtained illegally is going to be of little consequence to you.

Might I suggest you read "Guns, Freedom and Terorism" by Wayne LaPierre. It tells the truth about the situation, not the hysterics that you get from Pelosi, et al. I would be more than happy to send you my copy.

Pete

....handguns, longarms as well.

Hell I just wish I could get my Colt .32 semi-auto back. Nice vintage piece, nickel / stag. Made me feel like Bogie.

Full auto guns are dumb....the US military now have weapons that primarily fire in single or 3 round bursts....a spray is a waste. Accurate and directed fire is more effecient.

As to hand guns....a 9mm is a little small, the .45 a little big....

So I like the .40 and 10mm guns in automatics with a .357 in a wheel gun. Even though there is some hatred of Smith and Wesson they make fine weapons.....my model 66 and the Sigma go everywhere when I travel.....

Since the ban is lifted....I can now get higher capacity mags....

Yeah? To the airport too?

Yup, I declare them and check them as baggage in externally locked cases. Clips and speed loaders are packed seperately....never a problem.

My favorite .40 auto is the Bren Ten.

http://www.thegunzone.com/brenx/images/brenx-jc.jpg

The trend in recent years of compact large bore handguns was a good thing imho. Anybody ever carry a large cap 9mm w/2 reloads in a concealed carry on day to day basis? A lot easier to slip that mouse gun in the coat pocket rather than carry something that might be useful in self defense. On a related note, Detonics USA is bringing out the original CM 45. Spearheaded by Jerry Ahern, this is good news for owners of older CM 45's who need parts nla.

I like guns, own a Glock 19, P-08 and pump shotgun now, plus miscellaneous .22s. Would like a FN-FAL someday, although nowadays my spare $$$ goes to the kids' school tuition :-(

At the same time, I'd like to see a sensible amount of gun control. Stringent training required for first-time gun buyers (too many gun deaths are accidental). Effective and quick background checks before a sale, including private party sales (too easy for low-lifes to bypass existing controls). Consistent registration of transfer of gun ownership (why are cars more closely registered and tracked than guns)?

You might or might not think the above is "sensible" - everyone has a point of view. My point, though, is that the whole gun control issue is so polarized - the NRA on one side, the anti-gunners on the other - that it is impossible to get sensible legislation passed. That's why you're seeing the anti-gunners resort to exaggeration and hyperbole (not that the NRA doesn't . . .) And the politicians aren't really trying to pass sensible laws, they're more interested in milking the issue and the one-issue voters for political support.

There is no substitute for bullet caliber, weight or velocity in a serious social situation.

...therefore making a social situation decidedly anti-social...

John,

I'm glad you like, guns, so maybe I can help you here. JK.

I don't want a "sensible" amount of any "control", I want people to be responsible for their actions. We have a set of laws that currently regulate our actions, but we refuse to actually prosecute the offenders properly. More "conrtrols" just affect the law abiding citizens NOT the criminal element.

I think a responsible person should be well trained in ANY endeavor they undertake whether its owning a gun or having a child. We want an instant gratification society where the responsibility is shouldered on someone else. When we start to encourage self responsibility, we can start to move forward. Too many automobile deaths are accidental too, where do you draw the line? When do we start mandating training prior to operating a lawn mower for example? This seems like an easy connection for the "anti-gunners", but it doesn't actually bring us any closer to solving the problem (maybe because it's not the solution?).

We currently have a background check available, and even private sales need to go through an FFL. I couldn't just sell you one of my FALs if you stop by. I don't have an FFL.

"Low lifes" can't for the most part legally own guns, under the current rules, they aren't being "bypassed", they are being "broken". There is a difference and more laws won't solve this problem, enforcement of the current laws might.

The only purpose registration can possibly serve is to bring us one step closer to confiscation. Don't believe me? Look around to other countries that have recently undergone total confiscation and then look at their crime rates (especially violent crime).

If you ever get in the market for an FAL, let me know, I might be able to hook you up, but you will still need the fixed 10 round magazine-yuck.

Pete

I didn't state what type of social situation but if you feel that strongly about your sig other......

Interesting related story. A while back I bought a handgun. To do that there is an application, background check and waiting period. I did the paper work and a week later I went to pick up my purchase. In Maryland the state police look at the application and determine if it is to be "disapproved" or "not disapproved." I guess the MD government doesn't want anything in writing stating that they "approved" the purchase of a gun.

Re: Gun control. Hey I agree that there should be background checks and that not everyone should be able to buy guns. My problem is that this becomes a slippery slope especially when it comes to keeping records and tracking purchases. In MD each gun is test fired and a shell caseing fingerprint is store on file. Also, guns have to have integrated locking mechanisms (which I always thought were the safety switch, but anyway) and you are required to buy a triggerlock with the gun. I'm fine with all of that but each year legislation is introduced to chip away at the 2nd amendment. The District of Columbia has a gun ban...yet people get shot in DC all of the time. Doesn't make sense to me.

For home use I like revolvers. Very simple and not confusing (is there one in the chamber? Is the safety on?) in the middle of the night.

I sold all of my Glock mags when they went through the roof a few years ago. I made enough money to buy a couple of nice cusotm 1911s.

Since the ban is gone, as a civilian, you can now legally buy any of the mags that had the post '94 date code stamped on them. Remember all of the LEO mags? There are an absolute ****load of them out there since every other agency in the country is issuing a glock 22 or 23. Civilians are now lining up to buy them legally at retail costs. This also means that there are a lot of post '94 black rifles that law abiding civilians now have access to. Pretty sweet. For a little while, anyway.

When the next ban is passed they will have to issue a new date code on any newly banned or re-banned items. Of course, thats if they dont just ban it all.

Glock on!

I think the onion says it best: "When we enacted this ban in 1994, it was an important step to protect our children. Now that our children are grown up and off at college, it's not such a pressing issue."