Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

dude, we all need assault weapons. when Bush takes over and goes all Nazi, we need to be able to put up a resistance

At 7/15/04 05:01 PM, thekinman wrote: dude, we all need assault weapons. when Bush takes over and goes all Nazi, we need to be able to put up a resistance

Same goes for Kerry, or any other president for that matter. Besides, yet again the law is just COSMETIC. Thank you.

CNN POLL FROM MAY (to current):

59% IN FAVOR OF LIFTING THE BAN
41% IN FAVOR OF RENEWING

It's not a scientific poll, who knows how many pro-gun websites have linked to it, and how many have voted each day.

Another issue is what will happen when the Assault Weapons ban expires? I can give you a good idea: gun-related crimes will go up. Bank-robbers will use ak-47's rather than 9mm handguns when doing their business. The only "good" thing from the expiration of the ban is that it puts more money in the pockets of the CEO's of gun-companies. And that isn't really such a good thing. In fact, it's an absolutely bad thing, because then, gangs, bloods and crypts will be able to get their hands on these weapons and use them in violent crimes.

Uncle_Skunk (I think) please check your email. I have accepted your offer, and i just want to add that I am very, very excited at this opportunity.

At 7/17/04 02:09 AM, theburningliberal wrote: Bank-robbers will use ak-47's rather than 9mm handguns when doing their business.

In the CNN article that had the poll the previous guy posted (sorry, I should of posted the link now - it was first page of a google search "assault weapon ban cnn poll" I do believe) it was talking about a woman who's daughter was killed by a semiautomatic 9mm, with an illegal 30-clip.

The issue is primarily with the clips, as far as I understand. The definition of 'assault weapon' varies with the clip - longer clips are no-no's (and totally unnecesary while deer hunting).

Uncle_Skunk (I think) please check your email. I have accepted your offer, and i just want to add that I am very, very excited at this opportunity.

It was sent to Bakshi's address, but we're all over it. Pleased you decided to join, my e-mail is redskunk@gmail.com and in the meantime you can register at the site ( http://politics.bakshi.us )

Uncle_Skunk (I think) please check your email. I have accepted your offer, and i just want to add that I am very, very excited at this opportunity.

It was sent to Bakshi's address, but we're all over it. Pleased you decided to join, my e-mail is redskunk@gmail.com and in the meantime you can register at the site ( http://politics.bakshi.us )

Can you tell me how to post articles? Bakshi said that was what he wanted me to do, and I feel that the economy issue I just wrote for my newsletter would make a good addition to the site.

I think the ban on assault weapons inherintly started with a good intent behind it but in the end truly accomplished very little.
As the dear liberal did point out that when the ban ends that those people who wish to precipitate violent acts will have access to assault weapons.
The key here is they never STOPPED having the access to assault weapons. So whats point. Yeah, they're illegal, but how come 3 out of every 5 arrests that happened involving these weapons happened AFTER the act had been committed. Oh dear, I've just murdered these people, and assured myself life in prison or a psych ward...and they're gonna tack a few extra years for good measure...
The ban did nothing more than make the game a little more interesting for those who were looking, if they want it bad enough, they'll get it, end of story.
Banning something like that just make sit more inticing, and harder for those of us who are educated in firearms.

While it may be true that those who truly want the weapons can still get them, it prevents the casual criminal from having them. During the ban, you couldn't walk into Larry's Gun Shop and buy an AK-47, thus removing them from the range of weapons a casual criminal might have access to. The supporters of the law knew it wouldn't stop serious criminals, but they hoped to make some sort of impact on casual crimes involving assault weapons. And they did.

Also keep in mind, that while the black market / stolen weapons are one of the largest ways in which "criminals" get guns, the other (just about equal) source of firearms is borrowing from a friend or family-member. A ban keeps whatever qualifies as an assault weapon from these people.

At 7/17/04 02:37 AM, uncle_skunk wrote: Also keep in mind, that while the black market / stolen weapons are one of the largest ways in which "criminals" get guns, the other (just about equal) source of firearms is borrowing from a friend or family-member. A ban keeps whatever qualifies as an assault weapon from these people.

Yes. That is another good reason why we should extend the ban. The more people who don't have casual access to assault weapons (through their family, friends or Larry's Gun Shop down the street), the better for American neighborhoods.

Uncle_Skunk, can you tell me how to post articles on The Progressive Voice? The email I got gave me the impression he wanted me to write for the site, and I feel that the economy issue I just wrote for my newsletter would make a good addition to the site.

I sent a PM at the site. If you didn't get it, or it doesn't fully answer, plz email

Yet again... Look... I understand where some of you people are coming from, but you need to understand. This law does nothing. Walking into a bank with an AK-47?... So like I said earlier... What is the difference between these two standard models? (SAR-1 preban and SAR-1 postban)

Same stocks.
Same actions.
Same magazines.
Same triggers.
Same barrels.
Same weight.
Same capacity.
Same sights.
Same firing rate.
Same range.
Same leathality.

So.... I ask again, what is the difference? And on the turn side how many liberal forums have linked to that site as well?

And besides didn't the LA, bank robber shootout happen in 1997?

Let's see...

One of the most heavily regulated states.
One robber was using an AK-47 (A true one, FULL auto)
This happened 3 years after the ASB.

So they will just pick up AK's that will line the self instead of using 9mms.... Truth is, if you read my earlier posts on what the law entailed, you can go to the store and buy the same gun that was availible PRE BAN with a different stock. It is a cosmetic based law... Even a wonderful elected official in CA said something about, if it looks scary we'll ban it?

At 7/17/04 02:09 AM, theburningliberal wrote: Another issue is what will happen when the Assault Weapons ban expires?

nothing, the law diddent ban anything, it only banned production.

At 7/15/04 09:06 PM, Spookshow wrote:

Same goes for Kerry, or any other president for that matter. Besides, yet again the law is just COSMETIC. Thank you.

Right, cause I mean, if it's government it just HAS to be bad. We've got problems, but I really don't think putting more guns into people's hands, or having anarchy is going to solve any of them, the law dosen't always work, but most times it does. It's just that there's no interest or story in reporting about the times it does, but there's a hell of a lot when it dosen't.

FOR THE LAST TIME THESE ARE NOT (I REPEAT NOT) AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, READ MY EARLIER POSTS BEFORE YOU MENTION "SPRAYING A ROOM". AUTO'S HAVE BEEN HEAVILY REGULATED SINCE 1934!!! (NFA ACT) Please read my earlier posts before commenting.

At 7/17/04 10:21 PM, Spookshow wrote: FOR THE LAST TIME THESE ARE NOT (I REPEAT NOT) AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, READ MY EARLIER POSTS BEFORE YOU MENTION "SPRAYING A ROOM". AUTO'S HAVE BEEN HEAVILY REGULATED SINCE 1934!!! (NFA ACT) Please read my earlier posts before commenting.

Why do you keep debating this? Since page 1 people have been pointing to the numerous studies which conclude in one way or another how people are dangerous enough with regular hand guns without adding any type of assault weapon to the mix, me in general? I'm against guns period, a gun is something designed to harm or injure another living thing, period. I can appreciate that we need to be able to have weapons to be ready for war and such, but beyond that, they don't need to be on the streets.

I can appreciate that we need to be able to have weapons to be ready for war and such, but beyond that, they don't need to be on the streets.

You can't have it one way and not the other. Either you take the ultimate stance and ban all firearms except for military and law enforcement personnel, and in the process start a backslide into a Totalitarian Regime, or you produce legislature and education that assures the right people get their hands on firearms. I know that is a rather large statement open for interpretation, who is to say that one person is right and one isn't...but I believe that we can limit those people who shouldn't have firearms (i.e. Convicted felons etc.) and still assure that law abiding citizens can still maintain their 2nd amendment right.

At 7/18/04 12:22 AM, PaladinMachina wrote:

You can't have it one way and not the other. Either you take the ultimate stance and ban all firearms except for military and law enforcement personnel, and in the process start a backslide into a Totalitarian Regime, or you produce legislature and education that assures the right people get their hands on firearms. I know that is a rather large statement open for interpretation, who is to say that one person is right and one isn't...but I believe that we can limit those people who shouldn't have firearms (i.e. Convicted felons etc.) and still assure that law abiding citizens can still maintain their 2nd amendment right.

You make a really good point, and I renig my earlier statement and I stand behind what you just said. I think you can find the right way, registration, and psychological testing, because with all the statistics that show how dangerous people can be with firearms, it does seem obvious to me we should be looking a little harder into ways to make it safer.

Yes we do need to make things safer. :) The reason I am debating the assualt weapons ban is ther is no difference between them and alot of weapons people currently own, except for some cosmetic features. That and people keep thinking these are select fire, which they are not.

I saw a bunch of posts debating the auto fire and the fact that all manufactured weapons are only semi auto. While that's true, it is possible to modify them to full auto. In any case, a law banning them is all but useless; there are already so many out there. And the root cause of violence is the real problem anyhow. A really upset person unable to find rifles would just use other means

The machining involved in converting a semi auto rifle to full is both dangerous and stupid. It carries at least a 10 year )+$250,000 fine) if memory serves...

Maybe if it wasn't possible for every revolutionary, criminal, and crazy crackpot to get a hold of an assault rifle, I think this ban wouldn't have much support at all. But as long as they can be sold to anyone who will pay (through gun shows) people will be opposed to them in general.

1. True assualt rifles are by definition FULL-auto.
2. Assualt rifles are no different from regular ones.
3. I can still buy almost the EXACT same gun, in almost any gun shop.
Read the other threads concerning the differences.

There are many good reasons to own a semi auto rifle. Look them up in my previous posts. :)

I don't think the issue is whether or not fully automatic weapons should be banned anymore. I think the true issue at hand is where does it stop?
The government bans assault weapons due to a rash of crimes involving them. Weapons are banned, violent derilicts who wish to commit these acts find other means, which are later banned as well, and so on and so forth.
I don't care if a gun can fire one round at a time or has a cyclic rate of 200 a second, a gun is a gun, and our right to keep them is the ultimate question.
Im not saying the government is an all controlling, evil entity here...just that how far is this going to go before the bans become ridiculous?

Funny thing is... The current regulations and procedures work. The ONLY, I repeat ONLY time a legal automatic weapon (Class III with full licenses) were used was 2x. From 1934 (NFA) to 2005... Only two times... BOTH times by police officers...

No respectable hunter uses an assault rifle... a .300 grain Magnum is better than any AK47 and a hunter knows that.

No hunters don't need assault weapons. Assault weapons are an issue because the only people using them are criminals. Drive bys and gang warfare rocking poor neighborhoods. All a ban on those guns does is give prosecutors the ability to tack on a few extra years to keep murderers behind bars, and I'll never fight against that.

Assault rifles are for killing people, and that's what they do... a lot of people, and if they are banned, we'll hopefully not see more mass murders or workplace shooting sprees

Look at the crimes rates. 5% TOPS of people using "assualt weapons". Besides my main point is that you can still get the SAME guns, just cosmetically different today. Almost no difference. Also, I like my semi auto. I cannot afford a left handed bolt. SAR $290 LHBA $800. There are many other reasons why to own one. One more thing, you are pursuing the wrong laws. I think it's sad when you can rape a woman and get 2 years but I put a folding stock on my rifle and I get 10 WTF??? Also the majority of people arrested have commited NO violent crime. Look at one gun shop owner who had ONE "assualt rifle" as defined by the ATF. He lost his whole store.