PDA

View Full Version : Assault Weapons Ban?



Pages : [1] 2

hornluv
09-12-2004, 05:03 PM
How many people here are anxiously awaiting the impending expiration of the ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons?

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 05:16 PM
I'm not really anxious,but I would like to see it die.The local major metropolitan police cheif was crying and whining about it,but the numbers of weapons and crimes commited with them was never affected in the least by the ban and just cost the taxpayers money.

I also noticed that in the past ten years not a single arrest has occured involving an "assualt"weapon where the person wasn't already a convicted felon.Seems people who obey the law and have gun licenses don't commit crimes in the first place to which I say gee,whodda thunk it http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//rolleyes.gif

HTRN
09-12-2004, 05:18 PM
The so called "assault weapon" ban didn't do anything of the sort. It made certain features like flash suppressors and collapsable buttstocks illegal. Also it banned magazines over 10 rounds. The "assault weapon" is a misnomer anyway as true assault rifles are select fire, like the M16. What this means is that tuesday morning the phone is going to be ringing off the hook for me to unpin stocks and to thread barrels, for free. Wait till I tell them A) I do nothing for free, everthing else costs money. B) I don't hold an FFL, so I can't do it anyway!

HTRN

[This message has been edited by HTRN (edited 09-12-2004).]

Evan
09-12-2004, 05:21 PM
Just curious, did the ban take away your right to own anything you really need?

Joel
09-12-2004, 05:37 PM
Apparently, another bit of freedom.


“Really need” is a matter of opinion. I don’t really need the overwhelming majority of the things that I have, but I prefer not to be told what I can and can’t have so long as I cause no harm to others.

The last ban seemed to define assault weapons as ‘cool looking guns’, as near as I could figure. None of this affects me much, but it does seem pointless and silly.

darryl
09-12-2004, 05:39 PM
Does the gun, or knife, or pair of scissors, or pencil, have to be used against you before it earns the designation 'assault weapon'? What about fists, and penises? Assault weapons? How about politicians? Cars? I think the biggest assault weapon is the government regulations that prevent innocents from defending themselves without fear of repercussions. I mean, what if a burglar injures himself while breaking into your home. Guess who's responsible. I know this is a bigger issue, possibly leading to street gangs of law abiding citizens, but I would bet that the ban on assault weapons could be found to be more beneficial to criminals than a deterrant.

Evan
09-12-2004, 05:50 PM
Joel,

Freedom to do what?

BillH
09-12-2004, 06:02 PM
All that stupid law did was to give me a Neutered Ar15. No bayonet lug, no flash hider, no retractable buttstock, no new manufacturing of magazines of over 10 rnds.
Very stupid law, not needed.
Would you buy a ford mustang with a 4 cylinder?
What if they made it a law that you could only buy a Ford Mustang with a 4 cylinder, and if you ever try to put more horsepower into it, you go to prison for 20 years?
Thank god this worthless piece of legislation is going to die. Dont need the government interferring. Tommorow I should be able to buy high cap magazines for my pistol at normal prices again.
To say, "Do you really need any of it?"
The fact is, "I don't really need you or the government even thinking about what I need or want." 2nd Ammendment says freedom to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

[This message has been edited by BillH (edited 09-12-2004).]

hornluv
09-12-2004, 06:02 PM
"Just curious, did the ban take away your right to own anything you really need?"

Actually, I don't even own a gun. I was just curious. I figured people on the list would be intrigued by the inner workings of them.

Stuart

HTRN
09-12-2004, 06:05 PM
Evan, I hate the "need" argument, it's that kind of thinking that would keep me from owning machine tools. The yard nazi's would ask you "do you really need that milling machine?" The minute you let somebody else define what you "need" is the minute you lose control over your life. As for me, I don't own anything that is defined as an "assault rifle" because NYC says I don't "need" them - they have been banned here since the early 90's and nothing will change for me after tuesday. I would like an M1A super match, because I compete in NRA Highpower, but according to NYC, I don't have a "need". It doesn't matter anyway, I'm starting to get into 1000 yard benchrest and don't have money for another gun to just sit.

HTRN

sandman2234
09-12-2004, 06:07 PM
How about Freedom to protect ourselves, our families, our property, and our ancestors. The ancestors part is to allow them to be able to purchase firearms to protect the same list. Uninformed people in this world of ours seem to think that a firearm kills people. They don't. None of mine have ever killed a single person. However, they have protected me and will continue to as long as I am able to own them.
One of my favorite pasttimes is to go to a farm south of here, and shoot skeet, targets, empty shotgun casings, and other targets, with various different firearms. Two of my favorites are a Ruger 10/22 and an AC-556. Two totally different guns, but neither is any fun if you have to load them one bullet at a time.
Forget gun control, how about criminal control?
David from jax

sandman2234
09-12-2004, 06:12 PM
Got so wound up in the previous post, I forgot to add the link I was going to post.

http://www.awbansunset.com/index.html

David from jax

bobodu
09-12-2004, 06:12 PM
Neighbors barned down this morning (saved the combine and the Oliver,Case was inside) and they found 21 long guns,15 handguns,3 "assualt weapons" and a M60 clearly marked "semi-automatic only".He is in possesion of a FFL.But the Sherrif was having a time.Called in the ATF.The TEC 9 had a silencer on it...didn't ask him if it was real and I hope it was a mockup.They were also interested in the belted ammo for the M60.What a difference a day could make.

spope14
09-12-2004, 06:14 PM
I do not know about the need for an assult weapon, gues this is in the eye of the beholder. I do not hunt, but would if I could...however, my wife and kid watched "Bambi" too many times, and alas, my freezer is but the top box of the home fridge, so why waste the meat.

But, talking to friends this weekend. Almost all hunters from around my camp. They could really care less about this ban, for as one said.."where's the skill in taking down a deer with a sub machine gun..."

I have a 1903 Springfield 30-06 WWI rifle. To each their own though, I never had a problem with these to begin with, for criminals will use illegal, stolen, or "back door" purchased weapons in the vast majority of instances....

I dunno, but would kind of liked an assult weapon last night....woke up to a heck of noise on my camp deck, shined a flash light, and about 6 inches off the wall of my camper, and me on the other side of 2 to 3 inches of camper wall....probably a 200 to 300 pound black bear (looked only to be about 2000 pounds when I first looked, fear you know)....We both scared each other pretty good though, bear knocked over my table, and part of my rail in his quick exit... Left me a souviner bit of hair

My wife, a bit groggy, and kid, a bit groggy in the small bedroom "what was that???"

"Big raccoons" I answered.....No need to scare them....

[This message has been edited by spope14 (edited 09-12-2004).]

bobodu
09-12-2004, 06:14 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobodu:
Whoops....I meant to say my neighbors barn burned down this morning.

[This message has been edited by bobodu (edited 09-12-2004).]

HTRN
09-12-2004, 06:35 PM
Some of you don't get it. "They" were trying to push through a greatly expanded version of the 94 act which would basically ban all semi automatic long arms. including things like Browning Auto-5(only been around 90 years!), Ruger 10-22's, Remington 740/7400, etc, etc, etc. As for those dumbasses who "couldn't care less" well guess what there going after "sniper rifles" which "they" are defining as any centerfire bolt action with a telescopic sight. Think those hunter friends might care about that? I mentioned that I'm getting into 1000 yard BR, well I have a "heavy" gun that will hit dinner plates at two thirds of a mile with sickening regularity. This freaks "them" out. From a legal standpoint it's the same as your 1903, so both will have to go from "their" standpoint. Oh, and here's one more thing to consider. My father always taught me that you can own many firearms but only one weapon: the 1400cc's of grey matter that sits between your ears. Taking away my guns doesn't make me any less dangerous if I have mayhem in mind, it simply alter's methodology.

HTRN

Evan
09-12-2004, 06:52 PM
My favorite weapon that I don't own (this is Canada) is my 10/22. I have five various arms and am against gun control. But, the framers of the constitution when enshrining the right to bear arms did not envision an Uzi. They did not envision semi automatic rifles. They did envision single shot black powder weapons and those only. How did this "right to bear arms" become extended to what would have been the equivalent of personal nuclear weapons back then?

Joel
09-12-2004, 06:59 PM
As I thought was relatively established; the freedom to own what I like and do as I please, so long as I create no tangible problems for others. As I stated, the “really need” argument just isn’t strong enough on its own. What that law specifically affected for me, was my ability to fire 50 rounds out of my 7mm rifle between reloads, and 18 as opposed to 10 with my 9mm handgun. I also find folding stocks and kickback (flash) suppressors useful. Is this a major and intolerable loss? Of course not, but it is an unnecessary one that seems to exist solely to pacify some people who view guns differently than I do (my tendency is to say “people who don’t understand guns”, but that is an oversimplification).

I wasn’t kidding about the “cool looking” gun remark. When my non-firearm savvy friends see my guns, they say that they look “dangerous”. My 50 round clips, kickback suppressor, bipod and such, increase the guns functionality or enjoyment to me. Yet these items seems to be what make the gun “evil” (no, MORE evil is probably more accurate) to the uneducated. I get the notion from the same group that they think this type of weapon is fully automatic by nature, which of course, it is not. The most uninspiring gun in the world can be used to kill someone just as dead as an AK-47. Laws such as this give every appearance of doing little toward actual firearm problems. Guns are clearly dangerous, but unless they are completely eliminated, I am not convinced that any of these mickey mouse laws are going to do very much.

I remember when Texas started to allow concealed handgun licenses. Many folks adamantly thought that all hell would surely break loose, and that crime and murder rates would skyrocket. The truth is that these laws generally have very little effect. Criminals will obviously do as they please regardless.

When things are approximately equal on either side of a given issue, I choose to go the route of less restriction, and greater freedoms.

Incidentally, unlike most posters on this board, I do not hunt. I sure would if I had to, but I don’t have to. I do enjoy hunting the dangerous ‘skeet’ and stealthy ‘tin-cans’ that so pervade and threaten in the woods nearby.

sandman2234
09-12-2004, 07:11 PM
Funny how Canada bans the 10/22, a simple rifle of marginal accuracy, low power, and limited range. Here in the U.S.A the gun is allowed, but magazines for it at limited to 10 rounds or less. One of the biggest bootlegging cases I have seen is where a U.S company exports the 30 round magazines to Canada, and they are sold back to individuals in the U.S.A after being modified to appear to be preban items. No law there against modifying them, but there is here, to keep people from removing the markings made for "export or law enforcement only"
Hopefully one group of persons in Canada is fixing to loose their employment.
David from jax

Evan
09-12-2004, 07:12 PM
I think it's a "blast" firing a full auto weapon, done it lots too. I don't miss it though. If I ever need to protect myself or family that way I will build a mortar, a rocket launcher and whatever related devices I NEED.

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 07:15 PM
The framers didn't say that we should forever be stuck with flintlocks either.It is a right and it is as simple as that.It was done so armed disobedience WOULD be possible in the event the government should begin to infringe on our rights.

In reality the assualt weapons ban was much to do about noting and was an example of mass media driven hysterics.

Some intresting reading-
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

HTRN
09-12-2004, 07:16 PM
Evan on the contrary, they did envision "assault weapons" I forget where it is(I think it's title 10 USC, if I'm wrong somebody please correct) Congress defined the militia as every free male between the ages of 16 and 65 and further mandated that said individual would supply his own Military rifle or have one supplied for him. Basically it says that I have to own an M-16! Your telling me that the men who came up with one of the most brilliant pieces of political document couldn't forsee advancement of longarm technology? Oh, and for those who argue that deterrent factor was a thing of the eighteenth century, it actually was a deterrent to the Japanese High command against an invasion of the west coast after Pearl harbor. They didn't want a guerilla war with half the population as one general put it.

HTRN

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 07:18 PM
Before anyone starts the tired old "malitia"argument,please remember a malitia is not same as a uniformed government sponsered army.It is a privately funded army made up of the locals who suppiled their own weaponry including swords and field artillery.

Interesting too gun violence is most previlent in inner city areas of the country which also happen to be the places where guns are banned.You very rarely ever see any in the suburbs,maybe its not the guns,maybe its the people.

[This message has been edited by wierdscience (edited 09-12-2004).]

Evan
09-12-2004, 07:18 PM
Huh, the 10/22 isn't banned in Canada. The AR15 is, the Ruger Mini 14 is.

Evan
09-12-2004, 07:21 PM
HTRN,

No, they did not forsee the advancement of technology beyond the flintlock. Their concept of a military rifle was a flintlock, plain and simple. The right to bear arms was primarily for defense against "savages" and to hunt. Would you like to predict what weapons we will have 100 years from now?

gvasale
09-12-2004, 07:28 PM
The whole assault weapons fiasco originated from what I've read in "LaLa" land where many local government and state bodies run amock with firearms ownership, much as New York and Massachusetts, supposedly the "birthplace" of the Amierican Revolution, where the right of the people were to be held in a totaly new form when compared to the rest of the world. Look into what is in your own state and local laws, what kind of laws each nation has enacted to "enslave" its citizens, or subjects as it is. I didn't say it first, but there are three really good quotes, to which I cannot offer an attribution without a lengthy search

"Better to have a gun and not need one than to need a gun and not have one."

"Trust no government that doesn't trust you."

"There is nothing in the Second Amendment about Duck Hunting." (In other words, defining any type of firearms owenership by the "sporting purposes" qualification is a violation of the Second Amendment to the US constitution. But when government acts mostly to expand its grip on the people and swell its ranks of bureaucrats, what do you think the chances of the individual are?)

And a bonus quote regarding the Acts of Congress:" The illegal we do right away; The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger
[This message has been edited by gvasale (edited 09-12-2004).]

[This message has been edited by gvasale (edited 09-13-2004).]

Guero
09-12-2004, 07:28 PM
The 2nd Amendment was not written for hunters, nor was it intended strictly for home or self defense. It was written so that the citizens could revolt against a government which had become tyrannical, just as our Founding Fathers rose up against King George. For that reason I believe that I, as a law-abiding United States citizen, should be entitled to own any weapon used by our military - that includes tanks, fighter jets, missiles, etc. Read the Federalist Papers if you want to see some of the arguments concerning the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers knew that it is the very nature of governments to become tyrannical - some would say our government has already reached that point, especially in respects to income tax, EPA, Civil Rights, "Hate Crimes", Affirmative Action, etc. ad infinitum. It is not by accident that certain groups have been trying to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms and it has nothing to do with crime or "keeping the children safe"; it has to do with preventing the citizens from ever being able to rise up in righteous rebellion against tyranny. An armed populace is a free populace and this goes back to antiquity.

HTRN
09-12-2004, 07:28 PM
It doesn't matter anyway whether we argue about the matter. The Ban is dead, there's no way they can get through both houses by midnight tommorrow even if they could get the votes. I do feel sorry for all those schlubs that paid four figures for preban guns - now they're nothing special. I have the feeling that by the end of the year you'll see AR's at the shows for $500USD, used..

HTRN

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 07:34 PM
The founding fathers were not stupid,they had witnessed the progression of fire arms in Europe over the three previous centuries,you can't possibly be saying that they didn't expect the technology would improve,it did in the past and it did in thier tim, why wouldn't it in the future.

It is a RIGHT meant to keep the government in check,till this day we do not have a king and are not the subject of another king across the ocean.

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 07:44 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Guero:
An armed populace is a free populace and this goes back to antiquity.</font>

Excellent point,historical fact,the first thing the Romans did after conquering a country was to ban swords.

On a futher note,as an example of how illogical some people can get on this subject,remember after 9/11 there was talk of arming pilots?We still haven't done it,why,becasue of people like Nancy Peloesi who said "are we sure that we can trust the pilot with that kind of resposibility"? Does anyone else realise just how stupid a statement that is?

x39
09-12-2004, 07:48 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
HTRN,

No, they did not forsee the advancement of technology beyond the flintlock. </font>

I think you're mistaken. When the words "well regulated" were used in the Second Ammendment, I believe they were used in the context of "adjusting to a state of constancy". The modern usage of the word "regulated" when applied to the Second Ammmendment, makes the first half negate the second, and I'm certain the framers of our Constitution were brighter than that.

Guero
09-12-2004, 07:51 PM
Wierd, I have no doubt our Founding Fathers knew technology would improve firearms and this is why they used the words "shall not be infringed". In other words, a citizen will be entitled to own and bear whatever is available in the way of firearms (or weapons in general). The irony is that our Founding Fathers also gave unrestricted freedom of the press - but today almost all of the mainstream media (ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, Time/Warner/Disney, etc. etc.) is owned by about seven people. Thank God for the internet; it has become a way to get news and information outside of the controlled mainstream box. Our Founding Fathers knew that a free press was necessary for a free people, however, they didn't envision our Congress allowing it to become a megalithic monopoly. Whenever mainstream media presents the "gun control" issue it invariably has to do with crime control or safethy issues.... never a word about preventing a tyrannical government, which was the primary reason it was included in the Bill of Rights.

Evan
09-12-2004, 08:11 PM
So, we should all be allowed to possess personal nukes? What happens in the next one hundred years? Single shot nukeguns? Semi auto antimatter weapons? Blackhole implosion weapons? The line must be drawn somewhere.

Tell me where that line is.

Guero
09-12-2004, 08:12 PM
One last comment and then I have to run. What really makes me believe the Founding Fathers knew that technology would advance is that in their wording of the 2nd Amendment they used the word "arms" - not "firearms". I believe they used that word to encompass any and every foreseeable weapon which would be necessary for the maintenance of a "free citizenry".

Guero
09-12-2004, 08:20 PM
The line would be common sense. If only the government can possess weapons, guess who gets to be slaves. I know a whole lot of private citizens whom I would trust more than I do my own government when it comes to the use and mis-use of weapons - be it nukes or depleted uranium rounds. Now I really got to get going.

BillH
09-12-2004, 08:24 PM
Speaking of Tyranical, this is actually taking place in America.
http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm
Apparently Mayor Daley wasn't satisfied enough with bulldozing Miegs field, now he wants everyones guns as well.
He is the worst Tyrant of all in public office.
Oh, Gee, he is a democrat too, what a surprise!

wierdscience
09-12-2004, 08:26 PM
The fact is assualt weapons make up less than 3% of the total numbers of firearms in the US.And they are not the weapon of choice for most crimminals,they use pistols and shotguns more often than not.
Much of this whole debate is centered around the media confussing the masses.We see images of people taking one gun and one clip and killing 200 people in a movie.Assualt rifles look scary so they must be bad right?

Frankly if given the choice to face down a man with an assualt rifle,deer rifle,pistol or shotgun,I'll take the assualt rifle,becasue he's the one most likely to miss me.
Heres that link again incase anybody wants to read it-
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

rmatel
09-12-2004, 08:33 PM
Evan,
I think we need a ban on the private ownership of telescopes. No private individual really needs one and they can be used to invade the neighbor's privacy, etc.
Bob

scooter
09-12-2004, 08:33 PM
Well...

Firearms (guns) are on the whole very inefficient weapons.

The insurgents (terrorist) in Iraq know this full well, as did Mcveigh and Nichols.

They use improvised munitions and if they could get their hands on them, they would certainly use WMD's.

Not to say a well placed .223 in someones grape won't affect change, it just that if you take away firearms, some will find really nasty, much more efficient ways to make their point.

I just don't like playing on an uneven field.

BillH
09-12-2004, 08:39 PM
Even, Another thing to think about, when the Fore Fathers wrote the 2nd ammendment, Civillians could own the same firepower as did the millitary in terms of firearms. Imagine if that was true today? Apparently We've been letting Tyrants get away with murder far too long already.

Evan
09-12-2004, 08:44 PM
Well, let's see. The only answer so far is "common sense". What does that mean?

I think that we can agree that we should not be selling stingers at Walmart. I do intend to keep my weapons and will not give them up willingly. But, where is the line?

Ideas?


rmatel,

I absolutely refuse to register my telescopes with the government. Over my cold and dead body!

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-12-2004).]

BillH
09-12-2004, 08:51 PM
The people who are oppossed to the sunset will have you believe that the sunset will put those weapons into our hands, Heh, I wish.

ibewgypsie
09-12-2004, 08:58 PM
Dc sniper.. they sued and won against the gun dealer, the Firearms manufacturer.. Bushmaster.

Not fair. Thou if the gun dealer broke the law he was liable that way.

I like sniper style target rifles with magazines. I had one rifle, illegal by "ban" but preban manufacture.. it would pass 20 rounds through a dime sized hole.

I really like weapons like that. Not many people do. Not many people can afford them or like poking paper.

By the way, I can still vote, and do.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

jfsmith
09-12-2004, 08:59 PM
During this last ban mess that is going to die on Tuesday, the local city regulated things that seemed to be stupid.

I have a really nice M1 Carbine, a Ruger Mini 30 and a few other weapons, that really are more dangerous that many weapons on the list.

The next time some body says the 22 LR type of rifle is weak, etc, etc, volunteer to get shoot with one. A friend of mine who is a government contractor in Chile got shoot by a kid with a bolt action 22 in 1975. Messed up his hip really bad. During WW II German kids with 22s would shoot at American soldiers.

The 22 is one caliber that is special, just about any cab make a 22 pistol with very little in the way of materials. You can build a silencer for a 22 without a great deal expense. The ammo is cheap, the variety of types of projectiles is great.

Box of Palma Match .308 for my M1A Ultra Match vs the cost of match grade 22 ammo, why not check them out.


Jerry

jfsmith
09-12-2004, 09:04 PM
Dave,
What is your weapon of choice for sniping? I am partial to the Remington 40X in 300 Mag.
My M1A is close in accuracy, but not close enough. All of my friends in the hills, and out in the country believe in gun control, which is using both hands. :D

Jerry

Evan
09-12-2004, 09:06 PM
Heard someone shooting in our valley yesterday. Counted nine shots from a high powered rifle. Did I call 911? Of course not. Hunting season is coming up soon. If I called the RCMP and reported "shots fired" they would snicker. If however I reported a 30 round clip being emptied in 2.5 seconds (M16) that would be another story.

Evan
09-12-2004, 09:07 PM
jfsmith

SNIPING WHAT?

BillH
09-12-2004, 09:16 PM
Ibew, read Bushmasters statement on that, they didnt actually win, Bushmaster used insurance money to go to the families of the victims because they wanted to help the families. Brady will have you believe otherwise.
Bushmaster makes about the finest Ar15 you can buy. I plan on getting a Post Postban M4 with 16" barrel, Oh man, cant wait, Bayo lug, retractable stock, flash hider, Its a dream come true.
****, thats right, I cant afford one. Damn.

tonydacrow
09-12-2004, 09:19 PM
Look guys,

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is right there in the amendment itself.

"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."

They were concerned about the tyrany of the federal government. The 2nd amendment was established to assure that the people populating the states would have the same arms available to them as any standing army the federal government attempted to establish.

Don't forget the historical context of the constitution. The fledgling government knew the harm that occurs when a centralized government (the brits in that instance) can ban the ability of individuals to possess firearms capable of armed insurrection against a tyranical government (i.e., the revolutionary war) and where necessary to secure freedom and liberty.

It isn't about duck hunting. Its about an armed citizenry possessing the same infantry tools the government possesses so that the government will never attempt to rule without the consent of the ruled. It really is that simple.

Oh, BTW, the founders did realize that weapons would progress. Don't forget the industrial revolution was occurring at about the same time. The mechanism installed to modify anything later determined to be out of date is the system of constitutional amendment. If you dont' like the idea of someone possessing some new-fangled weapon, amend the constitution. If it isn't so dangerous that 2/3 of the states are willing to go along with a ban, then the right to possess the item remains. Brilliant!

[This message has been edited by tonydacrow (edited 09-12-2004).]

Techtchr
09-12-2004, 09:32 PM
When I told my 100 year old Grandmother we had bought some ferrets for pets she said oh yea, my father and brother use to hunt with them. I understand this is illegal now also. They must have been assualt weapons?

I don't hunt in a typical sence. Rabies is a very popular disease in this area. I use the shot gun to kill the occasional raccoon that shows up in my driveway and sits for hours. Probably would use an assault weapon if I had one. The Ban won't affect me but it may affect my best friend who collects guns. I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to collect what ever he wants.
Matt

jlh28
09-12-2004, 09:45 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
HTRN,

No, they did not forsee the advancement of technology beyond the flintlock. Their concept of a military rifle was a flintlock, plain and simple. The right to bear arms was primarily for defense against "savages" and to hunt. Would you like to predict what weapons we will have 100 years from now? </font>

Where do you get this idea? Defense yes, but not from savages. The idea of an armed militia was to be able to counter the gvnmt if it ever became like that which we declared independence from.

mpbush
09-12-2004, 10:28 PM
Evan,

When the framers wrote the constitution, civilians owned more lethal firearms than the military at the time had. The government troops had smoothbore muskets that were limited in accuracy to 100 yards or less. Many civilians had long guns with rifled bores, thus the moniker "rifles", their range was more than double the government issue weapons.

If you want to limit it to what the state of the art was at the time, are you suggesting that welimit free speech to unamplified voice and printing to movable type?

The Bill of Rights enshrines the rights needed by the people to keep and maintain their freedom. The very order of the rights was argued over. The right of free speech is great as long as the government allows it. The second amendment is there for when the government goes too far.

What it enshrines is the right of the people to keep the sort of weapons they might need to prevent a police state. Nuclear weapons are not among those.

While you might wish to debate the "value" of that right, it is quite clear what the framers meant when the wrote it.

As for "assualt weapons" themselves, they are vastly less lethal than Elmer Fuds hunting rifle and shotgun. The ammunition used by assualt weapons has smaller lighter bullets often traveling at slower velocities than hunting ammunition. The bullets are not designed to expand like a hollow point and in fact, the ammunition used by the M16 is dissalowed in some states for hunting deer because it isn't lethal enough.

For urban combat the average pump shotgun is vastly more lethal than an m16 or AK. I could go on but I hope you can see that the info you have been fed is BS.

I am posting this as a proud liberal with a vegan girlfriend who is even more liberal than I am.

[This message has been edited by mpbush (edited 09-13-2004).]

jfsmith
09-12-2004, 11:22 PM
I snipe at ground hogs on a farm north of Columbus. The Taliban Ground Hogs are multiplying this year.

Gun Control Is Hitting The Target.


Jerry

jfsmith
09-12-2004, 11:31 PM
You do not need a nuke to bring down a government, you just need an idea. That idea must be acted upon. Then you must assure that the cause for that idea and the following action will never be allowed again.

The song Me and Bobby McGee said it the way that the government wants it:

"Freedom's just another word
For nothin' left to lose"

These words were written by a man who turned down a long career and gave up, at the time, the youngest appointee to be a Professor of Military Science. Captain Kris Kristofferson, United States Army.


Jerry

x39
09-13-2004, 12:02 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
So, we should all be allowed to possess personal nukes?.... Tell me where that line is.</font>
The line should be drawn at a weapon's capability to be used precisely. A nuclear weapon or even a bomb for that matter is an indiscriminate weapon. Either will destroy anything that happens to be within it's effective range, whether it was the intended target or not.

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 12:25 AM
Cars are more dangerous than most weapons.

Drunk Driving, reckless driving kills more than guns. Cars and driving is taken for granted thou. A liberty so they say for all who can afford it. They'll give a license to anyone who can pass the test. Mental stability untested. No insanity questions on that test, like there is gun purchase batf forms.

A car moving 45mph can do more damage to a body than a 45 slug moving at 900 fps.

My favorite is a 223 flat top Ar15. Olyimpic (spelling:?) arms Ultra-Match w set trigger.

I had a M1A built by Glen Nelson, *Marine armorer. I sold it.. I wish I had it back.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

x39
09-13-2004, 12:35 AM
ibewgypsie- I don't recall who said it, but I always liked this quote:
"The only interesting rifles are accurate rifles."

BillH
09-13-2004, 12:59 AM
The FAT LADY HAS SUNG!!!!
http://home.comcast.net/~billh308/fatladysings3.jpg
YEHAAAAAAA

[This message has been edited by BillH (edited 09-13-2004).]

BillH
09-13-2004, 01:06 AM
http://members.cox.net/themacallan/Goodbye/GoodbyeAWB_Start.htm

MY BRother In Arms and Metal Working, WE NEED TO CELEBRATE!!!!!!!!!!

BillH
09-13-2004, 01:16 AM
http://home.comcast.net/~billh308/fatladysings3.jpg

CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW AS OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
RELATING TO
SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS (SAWs)

AND

LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES (LCAFDs)

GENERAL

As of September 13, 2004, the provisions of Public Law 103-322, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, covering semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are no longer in effect. The regulations implementing these provisions also are no longer in effect.

Specifically, there is no longer a Federal prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

There are no longer any marking requirements for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Existing markings on firearms and magazines relating to law enforcement or government use may be disregarded.

There is no longer any Federal requirement for Federal firearms licensees to obtain certain documentation before transferring semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to government agencies or law enforcement officers. However, any records obtained prior to September 13, 1994, pertaining to the sale or transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons must still be retained for a period of 5 years. See 27 CFR § 478.129(f). Moreover, records of importation and manufacture must be maintained permanently and licensees must maintain all other acquisition and disposition records for 20 years.

Licensees who provided letters of future intent to sell semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to law enforcement agencies and other qualified customers are no longer obligated to comply with such letters.

Anyone who illegally possessed, manufactured, or transferred semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices before the bans sunset still have violated the law since their possession, manufacture, or transfer was illegal at the time.

IMPORTATION

The prohibition on the importation of non-sporting firearms under 18 U.S.C. section 922(l) and 925(d)(3) still applies.

Importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices still is covered under the Arms Export Control Act. Therefore an approved permit still is required to import large capacity magazines.

Temporary importation of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines is now lawful under the provisions of 27 CFR § 478.115(d) because temporary importations are not subject to the sporting purpose test.

Any importer who has a valid approved Form 6 import permit with a restriction related to the assault weapon ban should comply with the restriction because the weapons most likely are non-sporting.

Any importer who has a valid approved Form 6 import permit with a restriction related to large capacity ammunition feeding devices may disregard the restriction. Importers may apply for a new permit if they prefer.

ASSEMBLY OF NON-SPORTING SHOTGUNS AND SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES FROM IMPORTED PARTS

The prohibition on assembly of non-sporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts as provided under 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) and 27 CFR § 478.39 still applies.

SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS

The sentencing enhancements for using semiautomatic assault weapons in a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime no longer are in effect. Similarly, the sentencing enhancements for semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines no longer are in effect.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS

Law enforcement officers and police departments who obtained semiautomatic assault weapons are no longer required to use such firearms only for official use.

Law enforcement officers and police departments may now sell or transfer semiautomatic assault weapons to persons who are not prohibited from receiving firearms.

Law enforcement officers and police departments may now sell or transfer large capacity ammunition feeding devices to anybody.

Signed statements that semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices will be used for official use are no longer required to be provided to Federal firearms licensees.

RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Federal law does not prohibit retiring law enforcement officers from keeping semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Former law enforcement officers who received semiautomatic assault weapons on retirement may now transfer those firearms to persons who are not prohibited from receiving firearms. Transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices is no longer restricted.

NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT

All provisions of the National Firearms Act relating to registration and transfer of machineguns, short barreled rifles, weapons made from rifles, short barreled shotguns, weapons made from shotguns, any other weapons as defined in Title 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e), silencers, and destructive devices still apply.

Registered silencers can now be attached to semiautomatic rifles and pistols without creating a prohibited semiautomatic assault weapon.

USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.

EFFECT ON STATE LAW

Expiration of the Federal law will not change any provisions of State law or local ordinances. Questions concerning State assault weapons restrictions should be referred to State and local authorities.

[This message has been edited by BillH (edited 09-13-2004).]

BillH
09-13-2004, 01:30 AM
YESSSS!!
gotta check state laws though.

Wayne02
09-13-2004, 01:30 AM
I just want to know if I can put a grenade launcher on my glock pistol yet???? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//wink.gif

Wayne

Wayne02
09-13-2004, 01:40 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ibewgypsie:
[B]Dc sniper.. they sued and won against the gun dealer, the Firearms manufacturer.. Bushmaster.

Not fair. Thou if the gun dealer broke the law he was liable that way.
</font>
Lots of discussion in my area about this issue over the last several days, as that gun shop is local. Who's responsible, the dealer, the manufacturer etc...

While I agree that the gun shop should be prosecuted for any illegal activity with regards to business dealings. What people seem to forget (or not want to admit), is there are only two people ultimately responsible for those killings.

Neither the manufacturer nor the gun dealer pulled the trigger on that rifle.

Wayne

pete913
09-13-2004, 08:02 AM
I agree. Sueing the manufacturers because some idiot decided to look down the barrel of a loaded gun and pull the trigger, or point it at his buddy and pull the trigger, well lets just say they should maybe start sueing consumers for being stupid. The assault weapons ban means nothing to me, whether it stays or goes. My worries go lots further than that right now, like to the tune of this bunch of fools in washington bankrupting my country with crushing deficits and national debt, which they have no intention of ever dealing with. At the rate these morons are destroying my country, in a few more years the second amendment will be a moot point, because the whole works will have gone the way of the Roman empire anyway. To me anyway, worrying about weapons bans and the second amendment in the face of stuff like the so called 'patriot act' is ludicrous. But oh well, we'll just have a few more tax cuts, and somehow it'll all be ok. SUUUREEE it will.

[This message has been edited by pete913 (edited 09-13-2004).]

[This message has been edited by pete913 (edited 09-13-2004).]

chief
09-13-2004, 08:12 AM
Those who can protect themselves are citizens, those who cannot are subjects.
As a thrity year military veteran, I recommend all citizens arm themselves.
If things got out of hand the government will turn on you in a heartbeat.

sandman2234
09-13-2004, 08:22 AM
The launcher is controled by each state, so check your local listings. However each granade is a DD, which carries a $200 tax per unit. Kind of expensive way to shoot cans, but if you must...you must.
First thing I am going to do is order an extra 30 round magazine for my Criener .22 conversion kit for the AC-556. Meant to do it before, but didn't and then wasn't able to get it since they had run out of the 30's and were selling 10 rounders at the same price. A 10 rounder is a waste of time with that gun.
David from jax

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 08:30 AM
I think the Waco Branch Davidians can attest to that. (protect themselves)

I'd been sniping everyone in site. But then, they say I need tranquilizers to function in normal society. My dog is just like me, he needs them too.

The "FREEMEN" in Montana? The Us goverment forces was kinda scared of them I think.. Thier crime? printing thier own IOU's for exchange. The goverment does not like competetion with thier produced paper money. Not heard much more about them? right?

Me either..

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

jr45acp
09-13-2004, 08:46 AM
Gentlemen,

I don't intend to stir the pot, but firearms is one area that I have significant expertise in. The so called assualt weapons ban was distasteful due to the manner by which an assault weapon was defined, eg. flash suppressors, pistol grips, high capacity magazines (NOT CLIPS!!!!!!), etc. Further, crime statistics did not support the concept that assualt weapons were particularly problematic. There was however a pervasive fear that was generated predominantly by the so called anti gunners.

To be more to the point, I submit that any item, be it a hammer, a baseball bat, or even an humble 6 shot revolver can, in the hands of one who is either trained or otherwise committed, can,truly, be an assualt weapon.

John B

Buckshot
09-13-2004, 09:06 AM
.........Obviously from the number of posts to the thread it's a charged topic for many. A firearm touches on several aspects of a person's thoughts and interests. However first and foremost the free ownership of a firearm is a right. The authors and framers of the Constitution, it's amendments and The Bill of Rights included the 2nd with our other GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

The several articles were set aside as something the government didn't grant to us in this country, but as recognized RIGHTS as free citizens who enjoyed them from a higher source. In this case God. The rights were enumerated as things NOT to be ever taken away from us. However over the years several of these rights have been severly eroded.

The thought that the authors of the above documents ment for us to remain forever armed with flintlock ignition and loading from the muzzle is an argument of childishness. There are so many things not deliniated in our rights that we enjoy today, ASSOCIATED to those rights that to even suggest such a thing is absurd. How about television, computers and cel-phones. Not to mention charge cards.

To use them is not a right, but our ability as free citizens is to be able to communicate secure in our privacy via whatever means ie: newspapers, computer, mail, & etc is guarenteed to be free of government censureship. We have the RIGHT to communicate freely by whatever means. If you will notice (if you have a copy of our Constitution and Bill of Rights) that there are no 'object' limitations anywhere.

We have cars, bicycles, airplanes, computers, lazer printers, telephones, radios, ball point pens, electricity, and a miriad of other things never dreamed of by the founding fathers. Yet our freedom of speech isn't limited to us as only a soapbox on the corner or our scratchings with a quill pen and ink, or our free travel across boundries via horseback.

Certainly the men who with much thought and inspiration, penned these documents probably could not have concieved of the material advancements that have been made in the past 200+ years. They could not include or exclude specific things. And by what right would they even be able to exclude anything deemed a God given right?

As to the 2nd Amendment, it is very clear WHY it was placed in the document. All you have to do is to read the thoughts of the authors. The suggestion made by Evan of 'need' fits in today with the PC 'Right Thinkers' and further, even mentioning nuclear weapons is assinine in the extreme. I would hope that he was embarassed by even asking such a thing.

I'm sure the real question was at what point, should there be a limitation to what a person should be able to own?

I believe that the founding fathers hoped and prayed that future generations would be able to govern themselves intelligently. They also hoped the people would be intelligent enough, and INTERESTED enough in their own freedoms to pay attention to what was happening. Playing the devils advocate I realize that regulation of certain aspects of our lives and the things we use or do is required. Yet such regulation should be undertaken always with the Constitution, it's amendments and the Bill or Rights in full view.

In view of the way things are today, people have a lot to occupy their time. They DON'T pay attention or question things themselves, but rather let themselves be told what to think and how to feel. If anyone believes that mainline media is balanced, they need a checkup from the neckup. But to illustrate, I know, and know OF lots of people who can tell you actor's names, and recite batting averages, or tell you lifetime yards in rushing for a bunch of people who don't even know this other person is alive, yet they do NOT know who their Congressman is or what they stand for.

WE ARE the people and we are supposed to regulate ourselves. We get what we deserve, yet we also have the right to change what has been done to us. The sunsetting of this bill is a clear indication, and is a ripple effect from the last few national elections.

Best,
Rick

pete913
09-13-2004, 09:31 AM
I think people really need to differentiate between God and the government. All constitutional amendments as well as the constitution itself were created by the government,not by God, and all of 'em can be repealed by the government at any time, ( anyone seen the 18th amendment being enforced lately?) The constitution was never intended by the framers to be a static document, immune to change, which is why they provided for amendments to it in the first place. This is a republic ( unfortunately at times ) where elected officials make the laws. Personally i'd like to see a constitutional amendment making it a class A felony not to vote in an election. It'd sure make a lot more sense than most of the nonsensical proposed amendments i've seen trotted out by the present regime in washington.

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 09:51 AM
I did find this on the net. What I heard of the Freemen of Mo, they had been to a seminar held by a Jewish business man of New York State. He owned a small manufacturing business and a grocery store. He hired the wino's and Hobo's to work in his Manufacturing business and paid them with Script only good in his store. This way, they did not earn money and did not mess up thier social security or other Goverment income. The Freemen just used this concept and printed thier own money/script. When the locals tried to cash the "checks" at a local bank they found out they were not readily transferrable. The Freemen did not guarantee them in FEDERAL cash. But basically IOU's. Not totally illegal, unless you look at it from the goverments viewpoint.
(this is my understanding)

Cut "n" pasted..***************************
********************************************
Seattle Times/March 17, 1999
By Tom Laceky

Billings, Mont. - Seven leaders of the anti-government Montana Freemen were sentenced to stiff prison terms for conspiring against the nation's banking system, though a judge spared more jail time for two of the defendants' wives.

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour yesterday ordered ringleader LeRoy Schweitzer to 22 1/2 years behind bars, hoping to send "a loud and clear message to those who pass this hatred and ugliness around."

Schweitzer and five other defendants refused to enter the courtroom, continuing to demonstrate their scorn for the government. They were able to watch the proceedings via TV from a holding cell after Coughenour declined to have marshals bring them in by force.

Nine Freemen were convicted in two trials last year.

They and their followers were accused of trying to undermine the nation's banking system by issuing thousands of bogus checks totaling billions of dollars.

"What we are talking about is a calculated and organized program to undermine the banking system of this country and to encourage other, more ignorant people to violate the law," Coughenour said.

About two dozen members of the anti-government group, living on a farm on the plains of Montana, held FBI agents at bay for 81 days in 1995 before surrendering without a shot being fired.

Schweitzer was convicted on 25 counts of conspiracy, bank fraud, threatening a federal judge, illegal possession of firearms and participating in the armed robbery of an ABC-TV crew covering the Freemen.

The judge sentenced Daniel Petersen Jr., probably the No. 2 man in the Freeman hierarchy, to 15 years in prison and ordered him to pay restitution of $39,845.

Rodney Skurdal, 46; and John McGuire, 61, were also sentenced to 15 years. Dale Jacobi, 57, a former Canadian police officer, received 13 years; Richard Clark, 12 years; and William Stanton, three years.

Agnes Stanton, Stanton's wife, and Cherlyn Petersen, Petersen's wife, were sentenced to time served and released.

In addition to maintaining they are not subject to federal or state laws, the Freemen also claimed that God intended white people to rule the Earth, that blacks are animals and Jews are descendants of Satan.

'end cut'n'pasted..
********************************************
********************************************
Notice the last paragraph, this makes it okay to treat them anyway you want to.. This statement labels them as "monsters" to destroy at will.

Not very good. I sure hope the Goverment don't come to liberate me. Watching Court Tv.. I see a similar trial. A biker who his girlfriend murdered.. They are smearing him, his name and publishing Nazi Tattoos pictures.
She will prevail. I was not there and don't know the truth, other than she shot him in the head at close range as he leaned up against the nightstand while being shot several times previous. She meant to murder him, not just to shoot him.

I got, have had my "stockpile" of weapons, buy sell and trade. After I got my cnc I got approached by several people asking me to build full auto conversions for them.. I did not publish I had a cnc.. How'd they know?
I was ready for Y2K.. I was kinda dissapointed when I could not become a warlord in my neighborhood.. (not really)

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

meho
09-13-2004, 10:15 AM
ibew, I bought one of Glen's personal M1A's a few months ago. It is beautiful. Tigerstripe walnut stock, new Krieger barrel. The serial number is NELSON 11. He gave all his employees a personalized reciever for christmas. I will shoot it this weekend at Ft. Benning in our 600 yard highpower match. I hope to get it tuned up for the Ga state long range match later this month. I'll shoot it in the Palma match, 800,900,1000 yards.

Every Springfield Armory National Match M1A and above level guns for over 20 years were built by Glen in Columbus Ga. Glen is not in good health and has sold his shop and most of his personal firearms. I'm not sure who is building the new Springfield's. I know it's done inhouse though and have heard some bad things about them. Glen was ARMY.

Just thought you might be interested in some of this since you mentioned Glen's name. Not many people know about him.

James

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 10:51 AM
Meho:

With the rifle I had, I had a bio. Mine has a stainless 1:10 twist barrel, Springfield reciever and custom two stage trigger, super dense walnut stock with a feather. That trigger always throwed me.. hard then creep, then easy.. I killed a running deer at 175 yards with the rifle. My hunting buddies called me a liar till I walked them from the brass to the bone/blood spray. Next week they all had chinese M14 copies. (dumbasses)

Perhaps I spoke wrongly.. the bio said he built match rifles for the marines.. Not he was a marine armorer.. I guess with what you said he built some rifles for everyone.

I miss that rifle, for all around shooting it was the best, Large enough caliber, heavy enough to cushion recoil and you had that second shot ready, and third, and fourth, and .... I had a 6x18 redfield scope on it. Never got punched in the eye with it. I reloaded to run maximum 2700 fps w/165 gr ballistic tips. A lee crimp closed my groups up. Even starting pressures. Neato.. 100 yard groups were less than 3/4" consistient.
My 223 does not have the distance the 308 had. I think it is a 2-400 yard max rifle. I remember shooting watermelons at 500 yards.. fun..
OHH my,, I sound like I am talking about one of the pretty young ladies I used to escort.. hmmm..... About the same thing, a beautiful toy.


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 11:00 AM
Ohh by the way.. Muscle has as much to do with hitting a target as the rifle does.

You do clap-push ups? or two finger pushups? Also limbering up/relaxing with a set of Nunchuka's. it'll help your score. That and getting to know the wobble on each position.. pulling the trigger as the sight wobbles across the X.. Nothing beats practise. Healthy lungs and back muscles too.

After rupturing the disc between my shoulders, My target shooting became both painful and worse then I can stand. Now I prop up to shoot accurrate.

Really disheartening to get old, but consider the Alternative.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

HTRN
09-13-2004, 11:35 AM
David, if it causes you that much pain, it may be time to step up to this:
http://www.coshoctonchamber.com/Images/small_tom_heavy_gun.jpg

One of the reasons I decided to shift away from highpower to BR is because the vision in my right eye is going. It also appeals to my perfectionist nature. You may be interested to know that BR is frequently referred to as "the sport of fustrated machinists"

HTRN

mpbush
09-13-2004, 11:49 AM
Gypsy,

In an attempt to combine the spirit of fun with Bench Rest shooting, you should build a semi auto German MG34 belt fed. The tripod the germans built is very rigid and infinitely adjustable. The guns are amazingly accurate off the tripod and with a 250 round belt....well, its just more fun!

Evan
09-13-2004, 12:29 PM
Buckshot,

Nothing in the constitution is given by God. It was written by men, and men only. They did not write the constitution under divine inspiration.

My reference to nuclear weapons was to point out the extreme of the range of weapons available today. Someone said that accuracy of the weapon is the deciding factor. So, where does that put a shotgun with a wide choke?

"even mentioning nuclear weapons is assinine in the extreme. I would hope that he was embarassed by even asking such a thing"

Not a bit, you obviously did not understand my point.

I also did not say that the Framers intended that the citizens be forever armed only with flintlocks. I did say that it is very unlikely that they foresaw the advent of the weapons available today. I disagree that an M16 is not as lethal as a shotgun for instance. Having fired thousands of rounds from an M16 I know what it is like. In the time of flintlocks an automatic weapon such as an M16 would be like possessing a personal nuke today. I think the Framers would be aghast if they could see what has happened. Do you think it should be legal to possess an AM180? After all it is only a 22.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-13-2004).]

HTRN
09-13-2004, 12:33 PM
MP, the next toy on my shopping list:
http://www.statearms.com/images/bBerthaFull.jpg

HEEHEEHEE, they may have kept me from getting one of those "evil looking" assault rifles, but those learned men who write NYC's firearms laws overlooked .50BMG's http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif Dave if you ever get the chance, you just gotta try one of these. It will put the biggest sh*t eating grin on your face in your lifetime!

HTRN

Nineteenhundred
09-13-2004, 01:45 PM
We only need 2 firearms laws.

1) It is a felony to use or possess a firearm during the commission of ANY crime.

2) No convited felon may ever own, purchase or possess a firearm.

Anyone convicted of either of these should be sentenced to 20+ years, no parole.

It doesnt matter if the crime is against the person or property or animals(State and Federal game laws). Only exceptions self defense or defense of others.
Judges need to enforce these laws religiously. Too many real criminals getting by lightly and we law abiding folks are being criminalized.

I think anyone not excluded by the above laws should be able to own any type of firearm he or she wants. If they cross those lines with them, then they must do the time and forever give up their firearms.

We must insure that we dont use or display our firearms in a manner that threatens those who dont share our enthusiasm, whether they are misinformed or ignorant doesnt matter. We are responsible for our image. We aint in the Old West anymore.
We must re-educate people that firearms arent just for killing, and any type of firearm can be used and enjoyed for sport and recreation.(I dont mean blasting bambi with any full auto.)

It is also the responsibility of the law abiding firearm owner to provide for the security of his firearms. We must make sure that they remain out of the hands of criminals and untrained, unfamiliar, or irresponsible persons. The more controversial our firearms are, the more serious you should be about their security.

We ARE the future our gun rights.

Evan
09-13-2004, 01:58 PM
Nineteenhundred,

Perhaps an intelligence test would also be in order?

mendoje
09-13-2004, 02:04 PM
CNN (www.cnn.com) is at it again, they're running a quick poll regarding the assault weapons ban. Right now those in favor of letting it expire are behind 3 to 1. Is it possible to turn this around by midnight? I think so, given the last CNN poll regarding the ban (May-June 2004) was in favor of lifting the ban 3 to 2. We just need to get out the word. Jeff

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 02:16 PM
I was in my shop wiring up some new ideal automation listening to the stereo as usual..

Kerry, the snake in the grass.. He reminds me of a iguana or other reptile with his manner and looks..

Well the Democratic ticket can kiss my butt after what he (Kerry) came out and said about Assault rifles. That may well go over big with the Kennedys and other two faced politicians but it has hung up in my craw..

I won't vote for him, I won't let my wife vote for him, and the next time I get that big democratic speech at the union hall look out.



------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

HTRN
09-13-2004, 02:34 PM
David, I don't know about Kerry looking like an iguana, but I always thought he kinda looked like the cartoon jackass from heehaw when he smiled http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

HTRN

Mike W
09-13-2004, 03:04 PM
I think the libs are upset because this was a setback in their one step at a time approach to taking away all guns. It took what...75 years to disarm England? Australia was 35 years. Then there are the comments from the shotgun hunters that the ban doesn't affect me. If we don't hang together, then we will hang separately.

mendoje
09-13-2004, 03:18 PM
CNN has already taken down the poll. Jeff

BillH
09-13-2004, 03:23 PM
Welcome to the Good side Ibew.

PHiers
09-13-2004, 04:05 PM
Quote from Evan
"I think it's a "blast" firing a full auto weapon, done it lots too. I don't miss it though. If I ever need to protect myself or family that way I will build a mortar, a rocket launcher and whatever related devices I NEED."

Evan, when did you own a fully auto weapon? They have been about impossible since 1939 to own. Takes a special license and big buck transfer fees.
Gun control is spelled "people control"


------------------
Paul in NE Ohio

Evan
09-13-2004, 04:06 PM
U.S. Army Artillery. (volunteer)

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-13-2004).]

mendoje
09-13-2004, 04:38 PM
I was mistaken, CNN hasn't closed down the poll, they moved it from their home page to here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/assault.weapons.ap/index.html

Jeff

BillH
09-13-2004, 04:40 PM
PHiers, In USA, you can buy Class 3 fully automatics in states that allow it. You need to pay 200$ tax stamp, AND be able to actually afford a class 3 weapon. A legal Class 3 m16 I think goes for around 16,000$
A class 3 Ge minigun goes for around $250,000 last I heard.
Besides paying those fee's, you need to jump thru a whole basket of flaming hoops.
I don't know, full auto may be fun, but semi auto is far superior.

mpbush
09-13-2004, 04:48 PM
Evan,

The M16 (now an M4) is so "lethal" that they are not having to shoot people twice to get sure kills. They worked great against malnourished Asians but against full size Arabs they are proving a bit of a disapointment.

The worst shooting incident in this country was not done with an AM180 but with bolt action rifle, it was the Texas Tower shooting.

As for the "need" argument, do we really want to give politicians whether on the left or the right the ability to regulate what we do on the basis of "need"?

Nobody needs an SUV, nobody needs a V8, nobody needs unfettered internet access, nobody needs 220 power, nobody needs to waste electiricy for power tools, nobody needs a 5,000sf house, nobody needs protection from the Patriot Act.

Nobody needs anything other than air and water but it doesn't make for much of an existence, does it?

There are over 100,000 legally registered machineguns in private hands. Up until recently there had not been a violent crime committed with one. In two seperate incidents cops have used them in crimes, go figure!

Lastly, who needs long knives? That is what the government of Australia decided after banning nearly all guns. The criminals started using swords so they banned those because nobody really needed them.

What do we not need next?

Michael
A proud but sane liberal

jfsmith
09-13-2004, 04:55 PM
I used to let "Rock & Rollers" friends use my uncles farm to play with their toys. I put old sheets down and they let the brass fly. Of course I got to keep the brass. These guys generally blast away for 45 to 60 minutes with various Class 3s. That is a lot of brass.

For what kind of varmit shooting that I do, I only need one shoot. Some of my friends bring their 50s along. If you don't hit a ground hog with that sort of weapon, you at least have blown his ear drums out and maybe the draft of the bullet would knock him over. Plus we generally get a visit from the sheriff's department, I think they can hear those things at least a county away.


I voted to let the ban die. I can not afford what Class 3 weapons cost to buy, let alone feeding them. I much prefer my T/C Contenders for most things under 250 feet and my 30 calibers (non select fire) for longer distance.

I think silly laws should be banned.


Jerry

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 05:54 PM
On Cnn a bit ago.. Bush said he backed the bill also. But "CONGRESS" sat on thier duff..

I wrote his father in 90? and I got a nice formal reply. His Father if I remember the wording correctly was "With" us freedom-gun owners.

I have been mad all day. I sure accomplish a lot of physical tasks when I am pee'de off.

Can't do much control wiring thou, Have to keep your mind on track.

Maybe I'll be calmed down tomorrow.

Maybe I'll write a few dozen letters tonight thou. Letters, well someone has to dispose of them.. People pay attention more than just email, they hit the delete key.



------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

jfsmith
09-13-2004, 06:26 PM
I think George Sr. resigned his life membership with the NRA. This was over something that most not have been important, because I don't remember why.

Anyway, why don't big people become Endowment or Benefactor members of the NRA.

My father paid for me to become a life member back when I was 16. I raised the membership up to Endowment Member about 20 years ago. I may raise it again soon.


Jerry

Radmachine
09-13-2004, 07:12 PM
About the only quote I haven't seen on this thread is "you never need a gun until you need one desperately". I saw plenty of so-called assault rifles at the last gun show I went to. They've always been available, even after the ban. I just didn't like the prices.
Richard

BillH
09-13-2004, 07:15 PM
The Gun Issue is much more a Conservative/Liberal debate.
Mostly democrats are anti gun, because most of them are liberals. Zell Miller on the other hand is a conservative democrat who is pro gun.
George Bush, and his son are both in the middle to my standards, Arnold is a liberal and anti gun.

BUsh 41 renounced his NRA membership after the NRA made some remarks about the Alcohol Tobacco and firearm gun grabbers.

Evan
09-13-2004, 07:17 PM
mpbush,

The proper way to use the M16 is to set the selector to 3 shot. You then aim low and the weapon climbs on the target delivering a triple tap. Very effective. The M16 is designed to incapacitate the target no matter where hit. The hydrostatic shock it delivers ensures severe damage regardless of what it hits. If you were shot in the hand with one it will blow your hand off.

As for machine guns, the stats you quote are only for legally owned and registered full auto weapons. There are over 8000 such weapons reported as stolen and although not the weapon of choice they are used in commission of crime including homicide.

wierdscience
09-13-2004, 08:03 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chief:
Those who can protect themselves are citizens, those who cannot are subjects.
As a thrity year military veteran, I recommend all citizens arm themselves.
If things got out of hand the government will turn on you in a heartbeat.</font>

Amen!

joahmon
09-13-2004, 08:22 PM
mpbush,

When it come right down to it, there are only two things you "need" to do; "live 'till you die" and "die".

That said, I like my toys and as long as I don't hurt anyone, I want to swing my baseball bats, toss my axes, throw my knives, and shoot my firearms, etc.!!!

wierdscience
09-13-2004, 08:28 PM
I would still rather be shot by an M-16 than a .42 flintlock.Look at the wounds produced by a civil war era rifle,if you were hit in the arm or leg,most often you lost it,not from infection,but from the shot.

Big,slow lead makes big nasty holes.

All the statistics in the world still won't support a ban on assualt weapons,they make up less than 3% of the firearms total.Pistols and sawed off's are still the weapon of choice for crimminals.

PHiers
09-13-2004, 08:32 PM
"PHiers, In USA, you can buy Class 3 fully automatics in states that allow it. You need to pay 200$ tax stamp, AND be able to actually afford a class 3 weapon. A legal Class 3 m16 I think goes for around 16,000$
A class 3 Ge minigun goes for around $250,000 last I heard.
Besides paying those fee's, you need to jump thru a whole basket of flaming hoops.
I don't know, full auto may be fun, but semi auto is far superior.
uote from BillH"

Yeah Bill that is why I said almost impossible. For all intents and purposes for the normal person it is impossible. Ok, so Bill Gates can afford to do it. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif


------------------
Paul in NE Ohio

Evan
09-13-2004, 08:43 PM
Wierd,

Have a look at the ballistic gelatin damage that the M855 5.56mm round for the M16 does, then decide if that is what you would rather be shot with.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/Frog.html

BillH
09-13-2004, 08:49 PM
From what I hear, if you get shot by anything, even a .22, your going to the ground, first bullet stuns you or kills you.

wierdscience
09-13-2004, 08:49 PM
I have already seen it several times,not impressed,hit that same gelitin with a muzzle loader and see what happens,plus if I have a 12ga,I still win if he is close.


As another argument against any sort of gun control-

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/3713173/detail.html

ibewgypsie
09-13-2004, 09:03 PM
High velocity bullets have a shockwave, The deer I have shot with 223 the chest cavity was full of blood. Evidently the 223 ruptures blood vessels as it passes through.

30/06 308 seem to have more "bounce em down" in the impact but the deer were just as dead.

I would not want to be shot. Not with a 22, not with anything larger. The 22 stingers out of a 4" barrel ruger have enough impact-velocity to blow the leg-shoulder clean off a squirrel. A crater missing flesh the size of your thumbnail. Much worse then being stuck with a knife.

I used to carry that ruger 22 everywhere. I could hit marbles at 30 feet with it just about everytime. My younger brother outshot me with the gun's stainless target (bull barrel) cousin. I gave it to him. I then bought a competetion target model. BUt I swear, it is not any more accurrate then the cheap $130 basic one. It is fancier.

A 22 is not a toy. My older brother died as the result of being shot with one. We had rats in the house, he was waiting up to shoot one.. and rolled over on the pistol.. (rats were as big as possums and used to get in bed with us)

I still love weapons of all types. I am a big kid I guess. Swords, knives, guns, Nunchukas, throwing stars, vietnam era gurottes.. I got a little of everything.


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

scooter
09-13-2004, 10:37 PM
George Bush Sr. resigned his membership with the NRA after they referred to the ATF as a bunch of "Jack Booted Thugs" - if my memory and bourbon serve me correctly.

And certainly under J. Reno's tenure they were (i.e. Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales etc...)

scooter
09-13-2004, 10:47 PM
For some reason where I work people are really afraid of J. Ashcroft, like he the boogey man. They fear him and the Patriot Act.

They seem to forget the flagrant, outright assault and abuse of rights perpetrated by Reno and her cohorts.

Ashcroft looks like a saint when compared to Reno.

x39
09-13-2004, 11:38 PM
Regarding the small vs. large caliber wound debate, from what experienced hunters have told me, and what I've read, small fast rounds like the .223 damage far more meat than the heavier calibers. Kind of a strange phenomenon. My buddy and I were out shooting once, he had an AR-15, I had an SKS. He set a short piece of 2x6 on end at 50 yards and shot at it several times. Being that it didn't fall over, we thought he'd missed. Not so. Closer inspection revealed that he hit it every time. I shot it once with the SKS and it went flying.

mpbush
09-14-2004, 12:00 AM
Ruby Ridge happened under Bush Sr., Waco was planned under Bush Sr. and started a month into Clinton's Presidency. ATF are and were cowboys.

Evan,

M16s do not have 3 shot burst, they are FA only. They do make versions with 3 shot burst but the military m16s do not have them.

As for the 3 rounds stiching up a person's body, that is the sort of thing artillerymen and others tend to think due to a lack of training. I mean no offense but if someone is doing that it is due to bad training, nothing else.

As for the "lethality" of .223 ballistic gelatin is not flesh and while the effects are spectacular they do not always translate to real world performance.

People who HAVE to kill what they are shooting at always use large caliber bullets with mass second and velocity a distant third in order of importance.

Like many things loved by engineers, the .223 works better on paper than in reality. However, as Gypsy said, all guns are lethal and I don't wish to be shot by any of them. More cops are killed by .22 lrs and .25 autos than anything else.

sandman2234
09-14-2004, 12:28 AM
I explained the choice of firearms to my wife, who listened but didn't understand my reasoning. The next time she came down to the "Farm" where we shoot, she promptly asked for a demonstation. Trust me, a tractor trailer door, 3/4" plywood laminated with aluminum sheet on one side and galvanized steel sheet on the other does not appreciate being shot with 30 rounds of .223 at full auto rates. Then one blast with an Ithaca "Stakeout" (12ga, 12" barrel pump shotgun)and there are no more questions as to why I choose the shotgun as my primary means of defense.
I don't have the gelatin to practice on, but if criminals come to my house uninvited, I may have some actual flesh test cases for law enforcement to look over and compare with their gelatin tests.
David from jax

ACF
09-14-2004, 12:33 AM
I checked out the ballistic gellatin pictures and what you have are pictures of what certain bullets do in ballistic gellatin. How these bullets function on a living being can be an entirely different thing. The 223 with a jacketed lead core expanding bullet is going to kill far better than any of the non expanding bullets bullets shown for the 223. Take this same type of bullet and drive it to a higher velocity, say out of a 22/250, and you'll have a faster kill. Also they make mention of the small fast bullet versus the slow heavy bullet, this has been a controversy for some time now. In my experience I'll take the faster bullet, it kills better, assuming you are using the correct bullet for the size of critter your trying to kill. Speed kills in my opinion.

Chris

sandman2234
09-14-2004, 12:45 AM
It appears that Evan and I are on opposite sides of a fence when it comes to firearms. He asked if owning an AM180 should be legal since it is only a .22.

Heck yes it ought to be, and is still legal to own one of those fun shooting guns(in the U.S.A). They use 177 round drums and you can shoot for almost half a minute without reloading one of those full auto dreamboats.
I just wish they weren't so expensive. Should have bought one of them instead of that all these machine tools...
David from jax

jfsmith
09-14-2004, 12:50 AM
I have seen the gelatin picture of wound channels from various bullet, guess what ??? In real life it's not so clean, massive internal impact, bullet travel and the body starts to produce pus almost right away. The 30-06 of WW II may enter with a small hole and blow a big one coming out, the .223 (5.56mm NATO) does always leave the body that it strikes.

The military did have M16A2 with bursters on them for a while. This was 3 shoots per squeeze, this was to stop "Spray and Pray", I guess the praying paid off. No more bursters.

It is 12:04 eastern time, so we can all start making flash suppressors and muzzle breaks with bayonet lugs and pop the stops out of restricted magazines.

So I will be getting my M14 flash suppressor out for my M1A and symbolically putting it on the rifle.


Jerry

srecker
09-14-2004, 12:53 AM
mpbush

The M16A1 does in fact fire full auto, but one of the things that makes the M16 an A2 version is the three round burst. As far as I know all of the services have had the M16A2 for quite some time. When I went through basic (USMC) in 1992 I never even seen an A1 model.

[This message has been edited by srecker (edited 09-13-2004).]

jfsmith
09-14-2004, 01:02 AM
Gee Whiz I am getting old, I did boot camp on the M-14 and didn't get to handle an orginal M-16 until I was almost shipped over seas. The A1s were introduced in theatre during my second tour.

I may have been miss informed about the A2s being returned to rock and roll. My only relationship to the military these day is my USAA insurance.


Jerry

mendoje
09-14-2004, 01:03 AM
M16s (A2, A3, and M4 versions) are currently issued with 3-rd burst trigger groups. 3-rd burst replaced the FA option. I remember them on the Marine Corps firing line at Camp Pendleton CA as early as '95.

Regarding "stitching up", 2 of my buddies were just issued their handgun CCW permits in Orange County CA. The training provided by the Sheriff's Dept includes "triple tapping", with the first two shots intentionally vertically separated so as to cause trauma over a greater area. The third round is placed "high" at 12 o'clock.

jfsmith
09-14-2004, 01:13 AM
I do have one connection to the military http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//redface.gif R. Lee Emery, "The Gunny" on the History Channel, he keeps on killing melons with all sorts of weapons. He has been in a lot of movies, both military and not.

Jerry

[This message has been edited by jfsmith (edited 09-14-2004).]

Excitable Boy
09-14-2004, 01:20 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised to see all the posts on this subject on a non weapons oriented website. Perhaps there is hope for the world http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//smile.gif

I can't say much more that hasn't already been said about this victory and the ending of a stupid piece of legislation. I live in CA so mostly it won't affect me, but I think it's a good step in the right direction (no pun intended). I'm a big fan of the Constitution and am glad to see this come to pass. Now if we could do the same for the Patriot Act.....

Perhaps we can also get rid of that stupid federal Switch Blade prohibition.

John

------------------
Pursue Excellence and the rest will follow.

Evan
09-14-2004, 02:40 AM
mpbush,

The M16s I used in the Army all had 3 shot selectors as well as full auto. Don't know where you get your info but mine is from personal experience. The suppressor on the muzzle is designed to allow the weapon to climb slightly when fired, which it does. I shot 63 of 65 targets in final qualification in basic training. That was in 69.

When we first were using the M16 the instructor set out an ammo bucket filled with water. He shot it with an M14, 7.62 NATO ball round. It jumped a bit and had a bullet size entrance hole and a hole on the back the size of your fist. The water drained out. He put out another and shot it with one round from an M16. The ammo can exploded into shrapnel in a cloud of mist. While ballistic gelatin isn't the same as flesh the reason they still use it is because the results have been proven to be useful in determining the lethality of a particular round.

I am a gun owner and they aren't taking mine away any time soon. I have no problem with sport shooting but what do you do about all the people who aren't firing on all cylinders? I guess crackheads have rights to bear arms too?

Joel
09-14-2004, 04:43 AM
No, crack heads shouldn’t have firearms, but who is to decide whether you are ‘firing on all cylinders’? I guess the problem is being fair about denying a right to someone who hasn’t previously broken an appropriate law, and thus proven that they are unfit. After the crack head in question shoots somebody, it makes it easy to identify the fools among us. Perhaps not the most efficient solution.

Not that I have half the gun savvy of most folks here, but I thought that one of the main reasons that the M-16 was adopted was because of the high muzzle velocity attainable with its small caliber, and the consequential accuracy at great ranges. It is interesting to note that if you drop one bullet, and simultaneously fire another bullet (level), they both hit the ground at the same time. This illustrated to me just how important muzzle velocity really is.
If you want to take the leg off, use a .45 with appropriate rounds.

Another sad fact of war; it is generally more desirable to injure the enemy than it is to kill them. Injured soldiers cause the enemy many problems that dead bodies do not.


[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 09-14-2004).]

Evan
09-14-2004, 05:01 AM
Joel,

The M16 does shoot flatter than say, the M14. However, the reason for the high muzzle velocity of the M16 is to ensure the bullet will fragment. This was to overcome the Geneva Convention prohibition against expanding soft point or hollow point rounds. I could shoot nearly as accurately with the M16 at 350 yards with iron sights but the M14 was better for long range. With the M14 at 450 yards I could hit a half man target 8 out of 10 times with iron sights. They wanted to see if I was interested in sniper school and I took the test but really wasn't interested.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-14-2004).]

teddy
09-14-2004, 06:48 AM
i read one of the earlier post about the gun seize in Chicago.Four yrs ago while i was working in for a steel mill i was transferred to illinois.I referred to it as "peoples republic of illinois".
no offense meant but arkansas is way less restrictive in lots of ways...i moved back.
my favorite gun is my 22 mag.very versatile.i own an AR-15 preban colt also..fun to shoot and very accurate..but the 22 i think is still more fun to shoot

x39
09-14-2004, 08:01 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Excitable Boy:

Perhaps we can also get rid of that stupid federal Switch Blade prohibition.

John

</font>

I'd go along with that. In the nursery school this nation has become, we're lucky to have butter knives.

gvasale
09-14-2004, 08:17 AM
one reason for the switch to .223 was to carry more rounds of ammo while reducing the weight to be carried.

wierdscience
09-14-2004, 08:50 AM
If memeory serves doesn't NYC still have a blade length law even thou nearly every chef and housewife is in violation?

HTRN
09-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Weird, the law says you can't carry a knife with a blade 4 inchs or longer. 4" and over and it becomes a "dangerous implement". I have plenty of knives over 4" inchs, including some really nice Randalls, but the ones that I carry are all 3 1/2" to 3 7/8" http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif I'm looking for a retailer for an odd Gerber knife called an "Air Frame" with a 3 7/8" blade. I really like the Gerber blades, I have a couple of them...

HTRN

ibewgypsie
09-14-2004, 11:56 AM
One thing to consider if you ever have a confrontation.

If you shoot someone with your assault rifle, expect it to be paraded around in front of a camera. You are guilty of something before you ever get to court.

I grab my old double barrel shotgun. I did have a 8 shot shotgun, but got to thinking what they would do after the police looked at me. I mean when they stop me at a traffic stop, they are sure I have done something, they just don't know what.

Something about looking down the barrel on a double barrel also, your eyes seem to focus down each barrel.. Shock.. Make any assailant give it up and lay down and wait on the police.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

sandman2234
09-14-2004, 12:38 PM
That is why I use a pump. They don't have to see it to know it is there, when you cycle the slide, there is no doubt of what you are doing, and the consequences if you don't do what the gunholder says.
David from jax

Gary Helmick
09-14-2004, 03:57 PM
I'm with David from jax,I have a pump and hope that if I ever have an encounter, the sound of me pumping a live round in the chamber will be enough. If not, the next sound will not be heard by the intruder. (Hope this never happens though)
Gary Helmick

wanna577
09-14-2004, 04:19 PM
It always come down to the elitists thinking they should have the right to decide who owns guns and what kind. Intelligence tests for christ's sake. You can be the stupidest person on earth and they'll give you a drivers license. With all the death's from cars every year do you hear anyone whining about car bans and stricter driving license requirements? If anyone here honestly believes the government wants your guns to prevent crime and make us safe, I feel sorry for you. Look at Britain and Australia. We are supposed to have guns for one reason, to protect ourselves from our own government. Cut and dry.
Evan, any credibility you have on the topic of rifles went out the door when you started talking about having 3 shot burst and full auto capability on the same m-16. And your overstated claims of it's power are ignorant to be honest.

BillH
09-14-2004, 04:34 PM
IF I recall, the original m16, and A1, was full auto only, then the A2 model had 3 shot burst only, however now theses Day, if you got the paperwork, I've seen trigger groups that are semi/3shot/full auto.

Evan
09-14-2004, 04:44 PM
Wanna,

I said "The M16s I used in the Army all had 3 shot selectors as well as full auto"

I didn't mean to say they were on the same rifle. I should have made it more clear. We had both models to use including the original "jam a second" models.

Please don't trot out the old line about cars killing people. Cars are intended as transportation, not killing machines, and people are killed due to negligence of the drivers. Firearms are intended to kill, that is the primary function.

BillH
09-14-2004, 05:00 PM
Intended to kill, that is why 9 out of 10 instances where A gun was involved, it was not fired? A gun demands respect, we all know what it is capable of doing. They require responsibility, as does motor vehicles. We all know, or atleast should know what a motor vehicle can do when used innapropriately or for acts of crime.
Take Grand Theft Auto 3, or Vice city. If I want to go on a killing spree, It is much more efficient for me to jump into a car and start driving on the sidewalks, then it is for me to shoot anything I see.

Evan
09-14-2004, 05:08 PM
Bill,

The firearm is a killing machine. The car is a vehicle. Cars are built for the express purpose of transporting people and goods. If you use it to kill people you are not using it for which it was designed or intended. A firearm is designed and intended to kill. If it wasn't it wouldn't be much use for intimidation, would it? The car argument simply doesn't apply. It's like saying bricks kill people. Well, they can be used that way but it's not what they are for.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-14-2004).]

ibewgypsie
09-14-2004, 05:11 PM
Evan:
I can tell you have never ridden a harley through downtown Atlanta. Some people should not have licenses.

I am not so sure. I once watched a Porshe lay rubber tracks on the road changing from the right lanes to the left lanes diagonal.
I was having the thoughts the drivers didn't understand he was melting his tires and I really didn't want to be in the accident when he did find out.

#3 Burst trigger:
Colt tried out the 3 burst selectors in El Salvador in the 70's. Everyone with them returned, the other ones did not have enough ammo and got lost behind. I had a redheaded friend who came back from Vietnam "nuts". He got into drug importation and Mercenary work.
Hard being someones friend like that. I retrieved his wife and newborn baby from his house after someone shot out all the windows and doors with a shotgun /s. They hid at my rental house.

So I agree, the guns have been around for a while. I didn't believe what he was saying at first, then time won out. He dissapeared not seen since the 80s. Probably lost in the swamp in Florida.

As a tattoo artist, I have saw and know you'd be scared to know what all walks off army bases. I could have tattooed for a M60 with about twelve feet of belt. I ran him off. I wondered how far behind him the base cops were.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

sandman2234
09-14-2004, 05:18 PM
Although not an M-16, my AC-556 does shoot .223 ammo, and does have semi auto capabilities, along with 3 round burst and full auto. All controled by one switch and one trigger.
All of my killing machines (guns) have been very unsucessfull at there intended use, but they do work wonders on cans, clays, and paper targets, happily giving me years of un-satisfactory service.
David from jax

sandman2234
09-14-2004, 05:29 PM
Double post. Must have left it in 2 round burst instead of semi auto
David from jax

[This message has been edited by sandman2234 (edited 09-14-2004).]

Involute
09-15-2004, 09:00 AM
I don't have any problems working my milling machine, but my killing machines... I've owned those for years and still haven't killed anything yet. Guess I just haven't figured out how to work it properly.

Rustybolt
09-15-2004, 09:20 AM
Like any tool, a gun, a milling machine, a car, requires responsible human agency to make it work. The key word here is responsible.
There are an estimated 100 million. I'll write that again 100,000,000 firearms in the US. In the hands of an estimated 60 million owners. The question isn't why is there so much crime invovling firearms, but why is there so little.
Aother thing to keep in mind. Once the violence associated with drugs is factored out of the equation, the US is no more dangerous than most western european countries.


Since all government power comes from the barrel of a gun, it is only proper that the people reserve the same right for themselves.

joahmon
09-15-2004, 10:14 AM
Evan,
How many "kills" have been reported during the Olympic biathalon events?
Bob

pete913
09-15-2004, 11:42 AM
The way I see it, guns, kitchen knives, a plunger gun used in a meat packing plant for that matter do not kill people. Killers kill people. They'll do it with anything at hand. Bin laden used airliners to kill people. So now we should outlaw airliners? Or maybe box cutters? Or kitchen knives? Or your grannies old nylon stockings? Drugs have killed more people than all the guns ever owned in the US. So has booze and cigarettes, and out of control eating habits. I'm a democrat, lets get that outta the way right here. I don't believe in Diane Feinstein's nuttiness or Charlie Shumer's anymore than I believe the NRA's propaganda ( which in reality has nothing to do with gun control, they just use it as a means to push their radical right wing political agenda). Don't believe that? ha. OK, I'm also an NRA member. Sometime, when they call you for money, just tell them you're a democrat and see how friendly they are to you. They'd just as soon cut your throat as look at you, even though you support the second amendment. I do support it,100 percent. I just cannot in good concscience support the republican party's wacked fiscal policies, which will be the ruin of this country long before any serious threat to the second amendment. I'm still waiting for an explaination of how our sitting administration, which has taken the biggest budget surplus in US history, and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history,( well before 9/11), and increased the size of government more than any previous administration, can possibly call their policies conservative. In my opinion, when the framers of the constitution included the second amendment, government such as we have right at this moment, was exactly what they were talking about when they gave us a right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from tyranny.

jfsmith
09-15-2004, 12:02 PM
The Franklin County Sheriff said on TV last evening, that he didn't see any decrease or increase in crime and didn't see that this Insult Weapons (my words for the law)Ban had made any changes.

He also said that if need a ban, we could have a new law in place.

Evan
09-15-2004, 12:10 PM
Bob,

No idea, but there have been accidents. I approve of sport shooting and used to teach Sea Cadets how to shoot before our government decided that it wasn't right for teenagers thinking of joining the services to learn how to shoot (????). The fact remains that firearms are weapons. Weapons are for killing.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-15-2004).]

ACF
09-15-2004, 12:37 PM
There are people who use guns for target shooting and benchrest types of competion. This use of the gun has nothing to do with killing or using the gun as a weapon. There are those who practice the art of trap and skeet shooting who are using the gun as a form of competion among other shooters. This also has nothing to do with killing. So there are other uses for guns than just weapons/killing. There are people who collect guns, who don't even fire them. So I don't think it's fair to say a gun is only used for killing.

Chris

Evan
09-15-2004, 12:43 PM
That is the intended purpose of a weapon. It may be used for other purposes. Makes a poor hammer though. Sport shooting is also called target pratice. Practice for what?

x39
09-15-2004, 01:38 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
Weapons are for killing.
</font>
What is the sword without the hand that wields it?

Evan
09-15-2004, 01:41 PM
People kill people. I have never said otherwise.

ACF
09-15-2004, 04:36 PM
"The fact remains firearms are weapons. Weapons are for killing."

Say I'm a benchrest shooter and shoot against others to see who can obtain the smallest group at a given yardage. To be competitive, I will choose the best components {in my opinion} available to assemble my rifle. I will either hire a qualified gunsmith or do the work myself. My only goal here is to be able to put 5 shots in less than a 0.2 inch group at 100 yds. This is what is needed to be competitive. There are no thoughts of using this as a weapon, only how can I keep my groups small. I care not what the construction of the bullet is, so long as it is accurate, consistant and allows me to keep my groups small because the only terminal performance needed from these bullets are small groups. These bullets are not designed for weapons use, but only for accuracy. The point here is THIS firearm was not designed to be a weapon, only to be a competitive piece of equipment that happens to be a firearm. Therefore, I can't say all firearms are designed to be weapons.

However, I can take and use this firearm as a weapon, just as I can take various other things such as cars, knives, etc. and use them as weapons.

Yes, there are firearms that are designed to be used as weapons and probably most are.

The fact remains that SOME firearms, cars, knives, etc. are weapons.

Weapon 1. any instrument for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war.
2. anything serving as an instrument for making or repelling an attack.
3. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, teeth, stings,etc.
{The American College Dictionary}

There is no word killing in this definition so maybe we should not equate weapon with killing. A weapon can be used without killing.

Chris

ibewgypsie
09-15-2004, 04:42 PM
Court Tv:
They let the "woman IN Florida" walk. "Jody Bowman" Anyone else been keeping up with this?
People are crying because they let her go.

She.lawyer painted the biker as a monster. It is okay to kill monsters. She could have left, walked away but she returned to house after putting her kids in saftey. She returned and picked up/loaded pistol and shot boyfriend 9 times, last time coup de grace in the head.

He taught her how to shoot the pistol she killed him with.

More court injustices. He may well have been a monster, but still deserved a trial. When I became a "vigilante" I was going to be arrested. I did not murder anyone, but tackled a arsonist and held him for police.

The story she told inflamed me also. Well thought out, and she has a mean look in her eye thou.


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

BillH
09-15-2004, 04:50 PM
Heres My argument for comparing cars to this assault weapon ban. It banned Flash hiders, or threaded barrels basically, Bayonett lugs because we all know there were way too many drive by bayonettings going on, and Retractable buttstocks, cause a big ass rifle with a folding or collapsing stock may be easier to conceal, but its still a big ass rifle that you cant conceal.
Now Lets say I get voted in, and Im a huge whining liberal. I put forward a bill that's called, " Safer Car Bill".
TO sell my bill to all the sheeple in the world, I say, "It's for the children, don't you want safer cars?"
By bill gets passed, and no one knows a damn thing about it other than it supposed to make cars safer.
Well in my bill, IT would ban all v8 engines, heck, even most V6's. No passenger car can have more than 180hp, and 150ft lbs of torque, either at the engine or the wheels.(Not like a Liberal politician would be smart enough to specify that).
ANY ATTEMPT WHAT SO EVER to EVEN drop 1 more hp into your car, you will be mandatorily sentenced to 20 years in prison. Your garage will be ranshacked, looking for tools to allow you to do so. Which would be all of them including your precious Bridge port mill and 20,000$ lathe.
Don't think it can't happen, thats exactly what that AW ban was, Voted in by sheople who don't know what their signing, or do and just don't give a damn about you.
Oh however, my right to bear arms is in the constitution, no such ammendment for your sports cars...

meho
09-15-2004, 05:38 PM
The gun and car analogy is poor. Gun ownership is a constitutional right provided one meets the federal requirements. Car usage is a privilege provided one meets the state requirements. Big difference.

“Practice for what”, Practice for shooting a better score next time. It is as simple as that. My soul motivation for competitive shooting is to be the best competitor I can be.

James

tonydacrow
09-15-2004, 05:59 PM
Shooting is great sport, but that isn't why I own guns. I'll tell you why I own guns.

You come into my house to sexually assault my wife or kids and you die. You come into my business and try to rob me with a deadly weapon and you die. You try to invade this country or attempt a violet overthrow of the duly constituted government and you die.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, however, if you know I have guns, you are unlikely to come into my house, business or country. Then, I don't have to kill you and you don't have to die.

That is why I own guns. And that's why I want the most accurate, highest capacity, nastiest looking guns I can find. And that's why I hate the cowardly politicians who are willing to sell my right to self defense for a few votes and the ability to stay in office so they can control even more of my life.

Evan
09-15-2004, 06:04 PM
"There is no word killing in this definition so maybe we should not equate weapon with killing. A weapon can be used without killing."

That definition is all about killing.

Why do you think firearms were invented?

Mike W
09-15-2004, 06:16 PM
We lost the ability to buy a bolt action single shot 50 cal bmg monday here in Kali. One step at a time. Boil a frog slowly and he won't know he is cooked.

andyward
09-15-2004, 06:57 PM
I've read many of these posts and would just like to put my 2 cents in. I don't really consider myself an "expert" with a sword... but, I have been doing competitive sword fighting for over 20yrs (rattan swords... i.e bruises only... mostly)

Hehe... we used to have a bumper sticker, "IF you outlaw all guns... Can I carry a sword?" A joke, but the reality is much more serious. My wife is 5'3" and maybe about 120lbs... my mom is about 5'1" and getting up in the years. Any thug with a baseball bat or just his 2 hands could make short work of either of them. However... both have a 22 Ruger pistol is 10 rounds and an extra clip. They know how to use it. With my advice, "If you shoot anyone with a 22 and don't hit them in the head or the heart... you are just going to piss them off. If you fire one round... fire all in the first clip. Load the 2nd clip and then see if the perp is ever going to move again."

Without an equalizing weapon... the weak are just prey for preditors.

My 2 cents,

Andy

NAMPeters
09-15-2004, 07:12 PM
I will concede the point to Evan about the primary function of a gun. I use it that way many times a year and I am not a hunter. When rattlesnake season comes to the ranch it is the best tool to do the job of snake control.

What is of concern is that a gun can be both a defensive or offensive weapon, which route that is taken is the choice of the user. The gun control laws miss this point, deliberately I believe, and harasses the defensive user under the guise of controlling the offensive users (criminals). You ask why? Talk to your liberal elitist friends for the answer.

------------------
Neil Peters

[This message has been edited by NAMPeters (edited 09-15-2004).]

ACF
09-15-2004, 07:13 PM
Don't pay any attention to me, I just got stung by a bee and I'm dead.

Chris

maddog
09-15-2004, 07:21 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Joel:
As I thought was relatively established; the freedom to own what I like and do as I please, so long as I create no tangible problems for others. As I stated, the “really need” argument just isn’t strong enough on its own. What that law specifically affected for me, was my ability to fire 50 rounds out of my 7mm rifle between reloads, and 18 as opposed to 10 with my 9mm handgun. I also find folding stocks and kickback (flash) suppressors useful. Is this a major and intolerable loss? Of course not, but it is an unnecessary one that seems to exist solely to pacify some people who view guns differently than I do (my tendency is to say “people who don’t understand guns”, but that is an oversimplification).

I wasn’t kidding about the “cool looking” gun remark. When my non-firearm savvy friends see my guns, they say that they look “dangerous”. My 50 round clips, kickback suppressor, bipod and such, increase the guns functionality or enjoyment to me. Yet these items seems to be what make the gun “evil” (no, MORE evil is probably more accurate) to the uneducated. I get the notion from the same group that they think this type of weapon is fully automatic by nature, which of course, it is not. The most uninspiring gun in the world can be used to kill someone just as dead as an AK-47. Laws such as this give every appearance of doing little toward actual firearm problems. Guns are clearly dangerous, but unless they are completely eliminated, I am not convinced that any of these mickey mouse laws are going to do very much.

I remember when Texas started to allow concealed handgun licenses. Many folks adamantly thought that all hell would surely break loose, and that crime and murder rates would skyrocket. The truth is that these laws generally have very little effect. Criminals will obviously do as they please regardless.

When things are approximately equal on either side of a given issue, I choose to go the route of less restriction, and greater freedoms.

Incidentally, unlike most posters on this board, I do not hunt. I sure would if I had to, but I don’t have to. I do enjoy hunting the dangerous ‘skeet’ and stealthy ‘tin-cans’ that so pervade and threaten in the woods nearby. </font>

maddog
09-15-2004, 07:25 PM
I remember when Texas started to allow concealed handgun licenses. Many folks adamantly thought that all hell would surely break loose, and that crime and murder rates would skyrocket. The truth is that these laws generally have very little effect. Criminals will obviously do as they please regardless.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The crime rate her ein Texas actually went
down after concealed carry passed. (I like
to carry the Glock with 15 rnd mags...)

x39
09-15-2004, 08:38 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by meho:
The gun and car analogy is poor....Car usage is a privilege provided one meets the state requirements. Big difference.
</font>
Well, yes and no. I understand what you're saying, but consider this: as long as it's used on private property, anyone can drive a car. You can drive drunk, with no license, no registration, no insurance, and as fast as you want. A five year old can drive a on private property. For that matter, a well heeled five year old can walk into any car dealership in the US, lay down the cash and purchase the most powerful car available, have it loaded on a trailer, and taken home. No waiting periods, no background checks. Cite me a law that says otherwise. The only regulatory force the state has over an automobile is when it is operated on a public way. Can the same be said of firearms? In fact, our "right" is far more regulated than our "privilege".

ibewgypsie
09-15-2004, 08:39 PM
Why do you reckon it is a felony to put a laser pointer on any federal employee?

My dog loves to attack the red dot.. Does that make him a weapon?

Guns keep criminals scared. Check the Lil community north of Atlanta that was being ransacked daily by people from Atlanta. They made it a law everyone had to own a weapon. The break ins nearly stopped.



------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

Evan
09-15-2004, 08:41 PM
David,

Pitt bulls are banned in some jurisdictions here so, yeah, it does make him a weapon to some people.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-15-2004).]

gvasale
09-15-2004, 09:59 PM
No one ever asked me why I wanted to get a drivers license. No one ever asked me why I wanted to vote. No one ever asked why I wanted to get married, and no one asked me why I wanted to do any number of other things, including acquireing any number of posessions. But we supposedly have the right to "keep and bear arms" and I have to ask permission. Don't exercise your rights, and you may loose them.

BTW, until now, John Kerry has never openly claimed to be a gun owner or a hunter, and I wouldn't vote for him for anything. Got tired of writing letters to him re: 2nd Amendment rights, as each time the same form letter came back.

meho
09-15-2004, 10:14 PM
x39... Cite me a law that says otherwise. The only regulatory force the state has over an automobile is when it is operated on a public way. Here you go…

http://kotzpdweb.tripod.com/dwi.html
Kotzebue Alaska Police web page:
With the growth of the number of motor vehicles in town, unfortunately, the rate of persons driving while intoxicated has skyrocketed. Drunk driving does and HAS historically and recently led to property damage and personal injury of the driver and of pedestrians and property in Kotzebue. Vehicles are damaged, people are hurt or killed, and utility power cut off for several hours due to intoxicated driving. Driving while intoxicated or 'high' is like making your Truck, Car, Plane, Boat, Snowmachine or 4-wheeler into a loaded weapon. Remember, DUI laws apply not only to the operation of any motorized vehicle within the city. Drinking and driving applies to the whole state - private property or not.

http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/0/2be69982597761f385256eb7005f8fdf?OpenDocument
Florida Attorney General Charley Crist:
A review of the court's decision, however, does not indicate an intent to apply all the regulatory provisions of the state traffic laws to any roadway within this state regardless of whether the public has a right to travel on it. In fact, the court determined that the broader regulation against driving under the influence anywhere in the state rather than just on its streets and roads was reasonable. While the case was decided by the First District Court of Appeal, the decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by the Supreme Court

Here are two statements with one state attorney stating that DUI is an enforceable offence on private property. I can provide more if needed.

Unfortunately many of us are misinformed on the laws that govern us. There are several motor vehicle laws in the states that are enforceable on private property.

I am not aware of a 5 year old buying a vehicle. That’s a little silly isn’t it? Here is a law on that:
California DMV
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/vr_info.htm
According to the law, any minor who does not possess a valid driver's license cannot order, purchase, lease, accept, or otherwise obtain any vehicle subject to registration (Vehicle Code §15500).

My dad was a cop for 38 years so I guess this stuff just wore off on me.

Waiting period. In Georgia if one has a concealed weapons permit there is no background check or waiting period. What’s the problem with a background check? All one has to do is lie on the federal firearms sheet about mental health or being a felon. At least if there is a way to check with a government agency about such things it keeps someone from obtaining a gun from a licensed dealer. Why would anyone object to proving that they are law abiding and can legaly own a gun? I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of people that don't meet the requirements of gun ownership.

It looks like we are all on the same side of this debate. We just see things differently.

James


[This message has been edited by meho (edited 09-15-2004).]

[This message has been edited by meho (edited 09-15-2004).]

mpbush
09-15-2004, 10:50 PM
Evan,

While I am sure you mean well, the M16 as issued in the late sixties and even 70's did not have 3 round burst abilities, it was FA only.

x39
09-15-2004, 10:59 PM
meho, I stand corrected on OUI statutes in other states. Here in Maine a couple of years ago an OUI case was dismissed because the guy was driving on his own property. I really don't see where the state has a leg to stand on with respect to an individual operating a vehicle intoxicated on his own land, but hey, here's to a brave new world. Regarding the California statute, that doesn't count. California ceased being a part of the US years ago. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//wink.gif

[This message has been edited by x39 (edited 09-15-2004).]

Evan
09-15-2004, 11:06 PM
When I did basic at Ft. Lewis we had the M16A1. We also were using a different model, it may have been experimental. The instructor told us that it was an improvement over the A1. As I recall and I remember this pretty well, we weren't allowed to put it on full auto, only 3 shot. I know this isn't documented in the history of the rifle but I clearly recall at the time being told we would have our nards cut off if he heard more than a three shot burst on the firing line at any time. You figure it out.

Carl
09-16-2004, 01:53 AM
Submitted for your consideration and what ever it's worth: The Japanese, when asked why they didn't attack our mainland during WWII stated that they knew they would have "a rifle pointed at them from behind every blade of grass" The terrorists of 9-11, even though they were on a suicide mission, carried out their attack in places where they were guaranteed that NO ONE was armed. It was the ONLY WAY they could succeed.

Evan
09-16-2004, 01:57 AM
I just took the quiz at this site. Got three wrong out of 20. Oddly, they seem to think the M16A1 had three shot burst capability.

http://www.ichiban1.org/html/trivia_quizzes/trivia_quiz_02.htm

barts
09-16-2004, 02:17 AM
It's a really difficult problem. I've fired pre-ban AR-15s - fun if a bit $$$ for plinking. My BP pistol is more unusual, though - and louder, too, I think.

Clearly, some
accomodations have to be reached - stingers
or claymores at wal-mart seems like it would
cause far more problems than it solves. Maybe gun ownership and use needs to be handled like cars. I certainly wouldn't have any problems w/ a firearms endorsement on my DL... one needs pyrotechnics licenses for heavy-duty fireworks, after all, and I need a special type of DL for a 18 wheeler or a school bus. Licensing gun ownership makes sense to a lot of folks - but if the NRA fights that tooth and nail, they'll end up giving ground on which guns people can own.

Either everyone can have only water pistols, or those who've demonstrated care and competence can own more dangerous weapons.

Arguing that everyone should be allowed to
own their own Uzi isn't going to
work past the first wacko hosing down a
office/school/church.

- Bart

Evan
09-16-2004, 02:21 AM
That is the point I am trying to make.

NAMPeters
09-16-2004, 03:23 AM
"those who've demonstrated care and competence can own more dangerous weapons." O'k then, tell me how one would screen for such a condition? Is there a test or examination that would give 100% results in screening out wackos and criminals? Of course not, so where does that leave us? Back to the priciple of innocent until proven guilty. True, this will let some wackos and criminals through but that is one of the risks of a free society. It is better to try and educate to obtain desired results than command and control, for who among us is so perfect that they can do the right commanding and controlling?

------------------
Neil Peters

Evan
09-16-2004, 03:40 AM
How do you educate a brainless crack head who has the luck to not be arrested yet and who has the right to buy a Glock? Do you really want to live in an armed camp full of whackos ???? Keep in mind that half the population is stupider than average. Half of them are way stupider than average.

x39
09-16-2004, 08:44 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
Keep in mind that half the population is stupider than average. Half of them are way stupider than average.</font>
You're absolutely right, unfortunately those people comprise the core constituency of both parties.

pete913
09-16-2004, 09:24 AM
I've lived in an armed camp full of wackos. The place was Belfast Northern Ireland. More gun crime there per capita than anyplace in the US by a long stretch, and guns are outlawed in the UK. Laws outlawing guns only serve to make the average citizenry into defenseless victims for other people who have no qualms about obtaining and using guns illegaly.

jfsmith
09-16-2004, 10:28 AM
I took the test, it did have the A1 saying it had 3 round burst and the ones I used didn't. The 30 round magazine was not used in the early days, because you could not be in the prone position with 30 rounder. The magazine held the rifle to high off the ground.

But all of this is rather useless, because most of us can not normally afford to purchase an M-16 or any other class 3 weapon, and we can barely afford a formerly classified as a ban weapon, they aren't cheap, but they are legal to purchase. My AR-15 HBAR NM was $600 when I purchased it. The price went thru the roof on this model shortly afterwards. I like the rifle, so it's not an matter of making a buck, it's a matter of hitting the bullseye on a piece of paper at 100 yards or more.

Maybe they should import more of the Spanish FR-8 rifles, great knockable to keep behind the seat in the pickup for jusy incase those terrorist ground hogs show up.


Jerry

BillH
09-16-2004, 10:50 AM
Jerry, your in Canada? That is why this ban sunset is so important, Preban config AR15 rifles are now back to normal prices again, ofcourse you could of always bought the neutered versions over the ban years.

gundog
09-17-2004, 01:08 PM
Evan, and others,
You are missing the point the crack heads do not buy their weapons legally they get most of there weapons by stealing or black market (other people stealing them). Laws only work on law abiding citizens. The term law abiding citizens means you could own any number of any kind of weapon and they would be no more dangerous than a lawn mower.

One other point that does not make sense in Ca. there is a 15 day waiting period. This law is for a cooling off period so you don't get mad and buy a gun and shoot someone. When I lived in Ca. I had a whole safe full of guns why make me wait 15 days for a new one if I was in a rage and wanted to shoot someone I would have used one I already owned. I would not have a problem with some common sense legislation the problem is the anti gun people write this crap and no one enforces it on the people who commit the felonies. I do think a person owning a gun for the first time should have to take a safety course for each type of weapon they own. I don't think felons should be allowed the right to own firearms (depending on the type of crime committed). I am not sure I agree that just anyone should be able to own a full auto M60 or law rocket. I think there needs to a line drawn somewhere. I do think an AR 15 should be legal to own in semi auto form.
Mike

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 01:21 PM
Weren't the terrorists that took over the planes armed with box cutters?

If all you have is a stick, and your opponent does not. You are better armed. Is it a deadly weapon? you better believe. All the old cowboy movies where they pop someone on the head to "knock them out" is in reality just as likely to kill them.

Evan: I wonder what "special" circumstances you were in the military. My ex was a Ranger Medic, a large boned woman, She trained with Ruger p85's and berettas. I know this cause she could field strip mine quick like.


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

Evan
09-17-2004, 01:44 PM
No, I'm not missing the point. Every firearm out there, no matter whose hands it is in, was bought legally at some time by someone. It is for that reason that limitations on what is possible to buy make sense. Making it possible to buy and own a machine gun doesn't make sense even if it is expensive and difficult since over 8000 are now in criminal hands, and that's just the recorded thefts.

I agree that the assault weapon ban was based on ridiculous premises, namely weapon appearance more than anything else.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership. This does not mean registration which is a total waste of time. However, in order to legally buy a gun or possess a gun you should have to pass a course in gun safety and have a cert to prove it. This isn't taking your guns away and should pose no problem with privacy. There doesn't need to be any sort of ownership tracking for this to work, just a cert that is very hard to forge. Sort of like the new money but only one to a customer on course completion. Sure, there would be a black market in certs but it would make things easier for the law abiding gun owners. Those who possess illegal stolen guns would simply have them confiscated if no cert is produced when they are discovered to be in possession for any reason.

Part of my opinion on this is formed from personal experience with my brother. He is schizophrenic. One day some years back in CA he had a really bad day and the aliens were coming to get him. He was out on the porch waving and pointing his loaded .45 cal S&W at the neighbours until the cops picked him up and took him for evaluation. They took his handgun. After a week he was let out since he wasn't deemed looney enough. He went to the cop shop and they gave back his iron. Dumb, dumb, dumb. So far he and the public are lucky, he hasn't yet killed anyone.



[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-17-2004).]

Evan
09-17-2004, 01:47 PM
David,

Nothing special except for nuke weapons transport and maintenance of the General's helicopter.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-17-2004).]

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 02:19 PM
I kinda adgree with some things..

People should be evaluated for responsibility. Be it gun, drivers license, nuclear maintenance jobs, plane pilot, anything that affects other people directly. This should be a card stating you are a "sane" person who can operate motorvehicles and own weapons up to howitzers and tanks. Training should accompany any reponsibilty in using any weapon.. I mean people who think thier bullet flys out and stops at the target.. and.. that small stand of trees will stop a 30/06.. (my next door neighbor) Stupid people should be monitored.

Evan:
If the police gave back your brother his weapon after he proved his self unstable, they are at fault. Moreso than the gun manufacturers. Somebody dropped the ball.

I think guns should be available to the "national guard, police, security guards" readily available at discount prices. Formed militias are regulated nowadays. Cruel, injust and crooked politicians need something to keep them in line. The crooked goverment has grown too large now for a few hillbillys to take it back.
As for Militia....
SHOULD a policeman be a armed force for the goverment or the people? Who should they owe thier allegiance to? I hate crooked cops and politiicans. They seem to orient themselves for that employment because of the contacts they make. They should be under the jail, not even own weapons.. I got a dozen personal experiences to relate on that.. but you probably don't want to hear them..

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

Flash319
09-17-2004, 03:24 PM
I know that lots of you on here are into guns. They are infact need peices of metal that posess lots of power. Just the same reason I like any type of mechanical engine. The thing about it is purpose. I agree with most of you that telling someone what they can and can have is not a free world, but don't you think that learing from the past makes you have better decisions. This ban may or may not have merit, but to say that it takes away rights is a bit much. A gun is used for ONE thing, Killing! No other use. If making a ban on putting that V8 in my mustang saves 1 police officer then it is worth it. ( Saves everyone because of the enviromental inpacked of a v8). Every little bit helps. I live in Canada so I am not paranoid like in the US. I am going to get a bit of flack for this but I think all guns should be banned except for special purpose. Law inforcement or nesessity of life (Hunting for food to live on not just because you can. Like in the north). It is not 1810 anymore and having a gun under your pillow does not help anything. Makes everyone paranoid weather its automatic, or single shot hunting gun.

jfsmith
09-17-2004, 03:45 PM
BillH,


I am at my hosue in Ohio at the moment. Where I have my Colt AR-15. In Quebec, I have a Bushmaster AR 15.

I just want all of the stupidity everywhere to end.

Jerry

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 03:45 PM
Flash..

Yes, you don't need a gun in the least for protection till you need one desperately, then you need it in your hand and not locked away. You are no safer with it locked away then not having one. A screwdriver wielding house invader can kill you before you get the key/combination turned..

There is a retirement home in Chattanooga Tn. The old people were getting robbed when the SS checks came in. Not going out mind you, but when they returned with thier groceries and change. The "thugs" were mostly street kids who'd knock them down and take what they wanted.. Would a 22 pistol stopped it? yes it equalizes a victim with a predator. So would a 275lb redneck, but the police told me I had better not hang around the area.
I won't tell people they can't protect themselves from Thugs. I do suggest proper education in some ways, not schooling unless it is needed, but common sense test. Like russian roulette kills people, and kids who play with loaded guns die.. Bullets don't care, they just go out the barrel. We have enough laws, lets enforce the ones we do have.

I like my V8.. Like my gun rights. I hunt when I can and love the outdoors too. What is "right" for you at this moment may not be right for the rest of the populace. Be considerate of others. Unlike the robbing thugs who for a few dollars will hurt and maim you.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

NAMPeters
09-17-2004, 04:00 PM
Evan, you state your brother is schizophrenic (whacko?), does that put him in the lower half on the inteligence curve? "Keep in mind that half the population is stupider than average. Half of them are way stupider than average." Most likely not true, for being whacko is an equal opportunity afliction, it can shine anywhere.

Your idea of a certification of responsibilty is interesting but implementation would be a nightmare and eventually would devolve into a political instrument of control.

I prefer the innocent until proven guilty approach.


------------------
Neil Peters

[This message has been edited by NAMPeters (edited 09-17-2004).]

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 04:05 PM
Neil..

Scary.. but what I read recently puts the "wackos" at a higher level of intelligence than the "normals" Thier ways of dealing with thier problems is where they get into trouble with society.

I know several people who live better than I do, they get a govt. crazy check each month. I wonder as I climb ladders and work on 500k voltages who is the crazier?


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

gundog
09-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Flash,
I have a safe full of target guns, that is one of my hobbies. My guns have never killed anything not even an animal. I am not against hunting I just don't like eating game. I will not hunt what I am not going to eat. I would use a gun to protect myself or family if need be.

I will make a guess and say that you do not own a firearm. It is always easier for people to do away with things that do not interest them. I think they should do away with golf or auto racing as I have not interest in them (not really). Maybe we should do away with alcohol or automobiles they kill more people than guns. I am glad I live in a free society that I can still poses these things. I hope that the people who show no interest in guns will ever be able to vote my rights away or the left wing politicians legislate them away.
Mike

Evan
09-17-2004, 04:42 PM
Neil,

My brother is way above average intelligence. That doesn't make him any less unstable, probably more so. The good thing is that as he grows older he seems to be learning how to cope with the "voices" somewhat better. He really is a member of the tinfoil hat club though. We get along OK but I have to tell him I can't help him to convince the president that he (my brother) is the only one that knows how to stop the the next attack...

As for half the population being stupider than average it must be so. General intelligence fits a bell curve very closely. One half of the data points are on the left.

tonydacrow
09-17-2004, 05:24 PM
Evan,

Where do you get the figure of 8000 stolen machine guns? I've never heard that before. Are you talking about 8000 machine guns that the feds can't find paper on? That's a different story. Regardless, there is only one instance of the use of a lawfully registered machinegun used in crime since the late '30's in the US and that was by a police officer.

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 05:24 PM
For those of you who don't see the parallel of Vehicle operation and gun ownership..

I have been watching a guy ride up and down the rural street I live on on a 4wheeler.

At first I didn't pay any attention to him, he was alone. Running pretty fast up and down the road. In the last few minutes he has been doubling small children on it. No helmets. I guess he thinks they are bulletproof. Have you ever saw someone with thier head busted open so you could see the brains inside? I have. The head bursts under pressure of a blow like a watermelon. Or a bug hitting a windshield.. The open plate in a small childs head makes it that much easier.. more flexible to a point.

I remember seeing child brains down the hood of a 72 nova. Nightmarish memories. (no seatbelt makes you a projectile) I attempted to aid the accident victims..

I am in a dilema, Do I call the police? If they die I will surely suffer guilty feelings.

Stupid people do stupid things. I know I can't save the world.. I have done tried to flag them down.

okay, he is alone again.. He can kill himself with my blessing.

------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

Evan
09-17-2004, 05:40 PM
Data from US Department of Justice, "As of March 1995, the NCIC stolen gun file contained reports on about 7,700 machine guns and submachine guns."


You know it's more by now, probably a lot more.

Link here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt

It's not the lawfully registered firearms that concern me, that is until they are stolen.

NAMPeters
09-17-2004, 07:32 PM
"One half of the data points are on the left." Evan you that and I know that, what bothered me was your implication that they were whacko.

------------------
Neil Peters

[This message has been edited by NAMPeters (edited 09-17-2004).]

x39
09-17-2004, 07:38 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
Data from US Department of Justice, "As of March 1995, the NCIC stolen gun file contained reports on about 7,700 machine guns and submachine guns."
</font>

I wonder what (if any) percentage of those were stolen from the government. If I recall correctly, some years back a guy here in Maine got pinched with a full auto FN-FAL that was reportedly stolen from the Canadian Army. On your idea regarding gun training, I think it should be a mandatory course in high school.

ibewgypsie
09-17-2004, 07:42 PM
Good Point X:

A M60 walked into the tattoo shop one day.. Trying to trade for a tattoo..

If them are counted, yes I adgree with them numbers.


------------------
David Cofer, Of:
Tunnel Hill, North Georgia

sandman2234
09-17-2004, 08:08 PM
3.1 % of the full auto firearms registered in 1934, and manufactured till 1986 have been stolen?
Wonder how many cars of that same period have been stolen? Probably more...
David from jax

Evan
09-17-2004, 08:24 PM
I don't think that includes military weapons. They have their own internal processes for reporting theft of assets. Here is a quote from the report I cited above:

" Reports of stolen guns are included in the NCIC files when citizens report the theft to law enforcement agencies which submit a report to the FBI. All entries must include make, caliber, and serial number. Initiated in 1967, the NCIC stolen gun file retains all entries indefinitely unless a recovery is reported."

What do cars have to do with anything?

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-17-2004).]

meho
09-17-2004, 11:01 PM
I wonder what (if any) percentage of those were stolen from the government.

Yep:
http://www.atf.gov/field/nashville/012201birmingham.htm
The BPD Detectives determined the origin of the firearms to be a contract United States Customs bonded warehouse located in Birmingham, Alabama. The BPD Detectives contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to request assistance in the investigation of the theft. The machine guns were originally held at the bonded warehouse in accordance with US importation laws for a Birmingham area Federal firearm licensee. Upon learning this information, United States Customs Service (USCS) Special Agents joined the investigation. It was quickly discovered that the machine guns recovered were two of fourteen machine guns of the same make, model and caliber stolen from the warehouse and subsequently illegally trafficked on the streets of Birmingham.

Anyone care to discuss the number of deaths per year caused by doctors malpractice? 100,000.

Wait a minute, oh no...I live with a physician. Maybe I should register her. I don't feel safe at home any more. Should I move out? Get a divorce?



[This message has been edited by meho (edited 09-17-2004).]

wierdscience
09-17-2004, 11:42 PM
I can let you guys in on a little secret.You know what group of people have the most guns and ammo stolen from them?Cops!

A buddy of mine is a police veteran of 35 years with two major city departments.He says the number of guns and ammo stolen every year would shock most people.

Typical way it gets boosted is during crowd control.People get packed up along with a few cops and while they are rubbing elbows the guns or the bullets get boosted like any other pick pocketed item.The brazen bandito quickly gets "lost" in the crowd,afterward some quick work with a grinder and the gun is ready to hold up convience stores or settle those outstanding crack accounts.But amazingly it almost never gets any attention,probibly out of embarassment.It would be pretty bad if you think about it,your a cop and your gun gets stolen right off your hip? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

Rustybolt
09-17-2004, 11:45 PM
Sandman. I suspect it does include military weapons. The cost of full auto has taken it out of the range of recreation and into the investment realm. The cost of a full auto M16 is somewhere in the range of $6000-8000 dollars. A small investor can get in the game for around $1500 for a sten, a gun that cost less than $20.00 to manufacure.A pre 1927 Auto ordenance Thompson in original condition with matching numbers and magazines will bring six figures.

On a further note. The BATFEs records are so screwed up they do not know how many registered machine guns there are in the US.

With my skills and imagination, I'm much more dangerous than any gun. If I chose to be.

wierdscience
09-18-2004, 12:02 AM
Okay,here is a good question.Is it still the case that a person can scratch build a gun,even a full auto machinegun and it be legal so long as he or she never sells or otherwise transfers ownership except through leaving it to a relative in your will?That used to be in the law,wonder if its still legal?

HTRN
09-18-2004, 12:18 AM
you can scratch build a gun, but there are some rules. One of them is you can't sell it. EVER. I think there's some rule concerning serial #'s, I think the ATF has something on this on their site. Full Auto is a Nono. You have to have some weird license to build "dealer samples" I think. To own you still need the Title III and pay the $200 transfer fee. A number of years ago, I heard about some Preacher was busted for building belt fed fifties(not really that hard to do) in the basement of his church. I think it happened in Texas... ATF did a raid, and he wound up serving a life sentence. As for stuff like suppressors that go on the tax stamp, I have no idea. I would like to know as I'm a tinkerer by nature and it seems to be something of an Art rather than a science to design them. I figured on tinkering until I had a workable design/prototype and then spring for the tax stamp. I don't know if you could do this but somehow, I doubt it. Doesn't matter anyway, NYC expressely outlaws them.

HTRN

Carl
09-18-2004, 12:20 AM
I think everything you mentioned is still true except for the full auto machine gun. Many people don't realize that a conservative republican president, Ronald Reagan, signed into law a restriction on citizen ownership of any machine gun manufactured after 1986, thus creating a market where only the rich elite can own a machine gun. I think this is the only actual gun ban ever to be signed into law by any president.

Evan
09-18-2004, 12:35 AM
Rusty,

The BATF is not responsible for keeping records on stolen firearms. That is kept in the NCIC database (National Crime Information Center) which is the responsibility of the FBI. I'm not sure that makes me feel better though.

It isn't likely that NCIC keeps track of military losses. The military isn't about to let the FBI know what's missing. That is the job of the CID (military Criminal Investigation Division). Further, most such thefts will be an inside job and not subject to civilian criminal law but handled under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

HTRN
09-18-2004, 01:08 AM
What has gone missing would have you hiding under your bed. Here in Staten Island during the late 70's, a bunch of teenagers almost successfully swiped a M-113 APC from the Manor Road Armory. I forget why they failed, I think they got it stuck, or it ran outta gas... Everything from MRE's to Rocket launchers disappear every year with the National Guard armories being the "easiest pickings" Not too long ago, a Biker Gang in Norway tried to do an attack on another using an AT-4 Rocket launcher stolen from an American Military base in Germany. There reason why had something to do with them becoming a European franchise of the Hell's angels and the attacker wanted to prevent it.

HTRN

wierdscience
09-18-2004, 01:29 AM
Geez,you guys should see what has been lost in inventory.Complete jet engines,tanks,entire ships,missiles,you name it.
My dad was doing an inventory of main frames and perefrials once and came up short a Sperry Univac 1108 main frame,sure its an antique now,but back in 73' it was still worth many $$$$.He looked and looked and finally in a basement,on the far side of the test site it sat....in four feet of water http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif
Ever see Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark? Remember the very last scene when the guy was pushing the ark in a crate through a cavern of a wharehouse full of stuff? Dad said they had several places like that when he was in the Navy,wharehouses that crossed timezones and nobody had a clue what was in them.

x39
09-18-2004, 08:29 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Flash319:
[B] If making a ban on putting that V8 in my mustang saves 1 police officer then it is worth it.</font>

You mention the lives of police officers. Are their lives of more worth than those of ordinary citizens? Where does it end? With us all driving golf carts with a governed speed of 15mph?

jfsmith
09-18-2004, 10:32 AM
Police are held to higher standard of conduct, if there lives are worth more, then the life of a serviceman must be worth more than all of the police officers combined.

Lets see, 2 judges, one sheriff, one clerk of courts, past mayors and a lot more of our government have been caught doing illegal or unethical things in my area, so if their lives are worth more, then their crimes are worth more time in jail. Besides lossing their pension and licenses.

Jerry

[This message has been edited by jfsmith (edited 09-18-2004).]

jfsmith
09-18-2004, 11:04 AM
Don't get me started on traffic violations and that stuff. Every day I go to the post office, I see somebody illegally parked in the handicapped space. The police do nothing, the postal people don't care. So it's a law the government is mandated to enforce and doesn't.


Jerry

Rustybolt
09-18-2004, 12:05 PM
Damnit Jerry! There just aren't enough handicapped people to go around! You can't expect them to everywhere at once!!


(Said with toungue firmly in cheek)

My wife steadfastly refuses to use her handicapped sticker, we usually park at the other end of the parking lot and walk. I'm the fatso and need the exercise.

Wayne02
09-18-2004, 03:40 PM
Magazine prices sure have come down. I just bought four mags for my wife's G17 as a present for our upcoming anniversary.

G17 17rd, LE magazine factory demo's, like new condition, $14.99 each.

She has two 17 rounders now (non-leo marked). Trying to find non-leo marked, so called "high capacity" mags before the ban expired was difficult at best. When I did find them, the price ranged from $90 - $125 each.

You can also get brand new, leo marked magazines for $20 - $25 now. The magazine suppliers I've talked with have reported selling thousands of mags over the last several days. Several had sold out of their initial stock within two days after the ban expired. I'm sure there will be blood in the streets... http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//rolleyes.gif

Word is that Glock is holding shipments of leo marked mags until they re-fit all of their gun kits in stock. I.E. replace the 10 rd mags with the 17 rd mags in the new gun kits.

Wayne

mpbush
09-19-2004, 11:49 AM
I just had to address the "making your own gun thing".

You can't engage in the commercial manufacture of firearms without a license. You can make as many guns for yourself as you want as long as they fit the various legal definitions, ie 16+ barrel on a rifle, etc.

There is no need to serial number them, most .22s and shotguns prior to 1968 had non either.

You CAN sell them but again, if you are doing it for commercial gain, it is a no no. Say, you built some trap shotguns and then give up trap and sell them, that would be fine. However, it is a fine line if you are then using the proceeds to build more guns that you again later sell.

While they play games with the actual meaning of the law, atf has a web site with a Q&A that addresses some of this.

Evan
09-19-2004, 05:14 PM
No fine lines in Canada. It's all illegal. So, if I wish to make a .22 for squirrel hunting or a bazooka, same penalty. I believe it's ten years in the iron hotel.

There is also a law here against "possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace". They can arrest you for having in your possession anything, and I mean anything, that could be used to cause harm. Baseball bat, rock, nail clippers, whatever. We also have a special law here that covers "infernal weapons". That means anything not covered by the definition of a firearm. Lasers, particle beam weapon, acoustic disrupter, taser, whatever.


We also have no Miranda "rights" nor is there any law saying that an arrested person is entitled to a phone call. Many Canadians think that is the case, they watch too much US TV. The police here can hold you incommunicado for 48 hours if they choose. There is also no set right to a speedy trial. People have been held for years here before trial. In one case recently a person was held for trial longer than the possible maximum sentence possible for the offence if convicted, which he wasn't.



[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-19-2004).]

Joe S
09-19-2004, 05:41 PM
The "assault weapon" ban was a partially sucessful attempt of the camel to get his nose under the tent. It set a precedent for the idea that you can outlaw something based on its cosmetic appearance. Ar-15s, AK-47s and M1as have been readily available and legal, during the "ban" but without the bayonet lug. If we allow ugly and mean looking guns to be outlawed, what argument will be use to defend the 30-06 deer rifle, bolt action or semi-auto, when someone points out it is a lot more dealy than an AK-47? We tolerate all kinds of printed trash that is sold in bookstores,but if the First
Amendment means anything , we accept and tolerate the right of free speech even when it applies to things which we personally dont approve of. The same concept applies to the Second Amendment,I don't own an UZI and have no use for one, but will defend a person's right to own one for lawfull purposes. Joe s

Evan
09-19-2004, 06:05 PM
But, will you defend the right of any person to buy one? How do you know it will be used for "lawful purposes"? Just what is a lawful purpose for an Uzi? Self defense?

Arcane
09-19-2004, 06:18 PM
Joe S, when they can "outlaw something based on its cosmetic appearance", I want them to outlaw my next door neighbour.....she's ugly and mean looking!

CompositeEngr
09-19-2004, 06:49 PM
A lawful purpose is anything that doesn't cause harm to others. If I want to buy an AR15 and hang it on the wall, so be it. If I want to terrorize aluminum cans and jugs of water, who is harmed?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
But, will you defend the right of any person to buy one? How do you know it will be used for "lawful purposes"? Just what is a lawful purpose for an Uzi? Self defense? </font>

jfsmith
09-19-2004, 07:04 PM
How about those who enjoy going to Knob Creek and shoot hundreds of dollars in ammo with quad 50s or mini guns. That is a sport.


Jerry

Evan
09-19-2004, 07:19 PM
So?

Sport:

The noun "sport" has 6 senses in WordNet.

1. sport, athletics -- (an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition)
2. sport -- (the occupation of athletes who compete for pay)
3. sport, sportsman, sportswoman -- (someone who engages in sports)
4. mutant, mutation, variation, sport -- ((biology) an organism that has characteristics resulting from chromosomal alteration)
5. sport -- ((Maine colloquial) temporary summer resident of inland Maine)
6. fun, play, sport -- (verbal wit (often at another's expense but not to be taken seriously); "he became a figure of fun")


Don't see anything there about firearms.

Rustybolt
09-19-2004, 07:28 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
But, will you defend the right of any person to buy one? How do you know it will be used for "lawful purposes"? Just what is a lawful purpose for an Uzi? Self defense? </font>


Precisely. However in an ideal situation I'd prefer a shotgun.

Evan
09-19-2004, 07:56 PM
Me to. I have one.

BillH
09-19-2004, 08:00 PM
You start listing reasons of "why" your already going down a dead end street. If I want an Uzi, it's none of your damn buisness, and that's it. Feel same way about the government.
In an ideal society, if I was to go crazy, and on a rampage, it would only take a few seconds for another fellow citizen to put me down with their own firearm.
Believing that the govt or police will always be there to help when you need it is retarded. (lacking a better word)

meho
09-19-2004, 08:38 PM
Actually, homemade firearms cannot be sold or transferred.
ATF reg. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105]
“With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms”.

One can only make “one offs”. If two are made that’s manufacturing and that requires a license.

There is no need of serial numbers of homemade firearms if they are kept within the same state. If it is transported across state lines that brings in other jurisdictions, interstate commerce to be exact.

“Sport:
The noun "sport" has 6 senses in WordNet.
1. sport, athletics -- (an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition)
2. sport -- (the occupation of athletes who compete for pay)
3. sport, sportsman, sportswoman -- (someone who engages in sports)
4. mutant, mutation, variation, sport -- ((biology) an organism that has characteristics resulting from chromosomal alteration)
5. sport -- ((Maine colloquial) temporary summer resident of inland Maine)
6. fun, play, sport -- (verbal wit (often at another's expense but not to be taken seriously); "he became a figure of fun")

Don't see anything there about firearms.”

Whats the point?

I don’t see anything in there about ball games, race cars or any other specific sporting events. Competitive shooters exert themselvs, compete for pay, and engage in sports.

Competition:
1. The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.
2. A test of skill or ability; a contest.

I won money the last two days in shooting competitions.

James

jfsmith
09-19-2004, 09:15 PM
I don't see the reason for boxing as a sport, people do die during that sport. Lets see football, many player get permanent or paralyzing injuries while playing the sport. How about race car events, people get hurt, injured, or killed.

The last rifle match I went to at Camp Perry, it's been a while, but I believe the range officer had the right to throw you off the range if you didn't play well with others. There we no accidents there.

Knob Creek is highly regulated, the toys they play with don't cut a hole through you, some of the stuff they play with, they may not be able to find enough pieces to bury.


Defining the National Matches as not a sport is like saying the Olympic are not sports.
The National Matches are a places for people to compete and for training to be marksmen. Plus shooting is an Olympic sport.
If you ski and can shoot, you could be in the winter Olympics.

Firearms are one of the most regulated things that an average U.S. citizen can own. Plus I don't remember the last time the government had a mass recall of firearms for failing brakes or choking hazards, but I do know that there were some recalls in the past of firearms. Most done by the manufacturer so they looked responsible and didn't get sued.

I think a 12 gauge pump gun is great for home defense, 2 or 3 large holes in the wall, instead of 28 or 29 holes from an Uzi. Still achieving the same thing.

Jerry

meho
09-19-2004, 09:26 PM
Thank you Jerry. You are spot on.

Competing as an individual on a national level is an experience that not many people have.

I shot Highpower at Perry in 02, 03. I don't plan to miss next year.

James

docsteve66
09-19-2004, 09:27 PM
BY God, billh, finally some one has brains and balls and a good response. You second amendment defenders are too damn nice and polite.

Evan has been bullying this bunch since the start. Why answer the question "do you need..." anything. The question is one of those "I will dominate you" things. Kind of implied is "I have the power to give it to you (or take it away)".

Per our constitution "...... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Note the capital "A" in arms.

Then read the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, ......" Note that the second amendment delegates no power to United states. It forbids "infringement"-period, end of statement.

then, continuing, ".... nor prohibited by it to the states,....." "it" refers to the constitution, The second amendment forbids infringement and delegates no power to the states to "infringe".

then finally: the powers ".... are reserved...." ".... to the people." So far as I can tell by reading the Constitution, NO ONE except We, the people, can infringe on our rights. So I guess the Constitution does allow the anti-gun liberals to "infringe" as private persons. But nothing says I have to treat those "infringer's" with respect or civility.

Keep in mind: The Constitution was written by the founding fathers and adopted by the states with NO bill of rights. Immediately, the various STATES amended the Constitution, over the objections of Congress and President to include the "bill of rights". Various politicos were very unhappy and some never spoke to each other again because of the bill of rights.

Then Evan says "No fine lines in Canada. It's all illegal. So, if I wish to make a .22 for squirrel hunting or a bazooka, same penalty. I believe it's ten years in the iron hotel.
There is also a law here against "possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace". They can arrest you for having in your possession anything, and I mean anything, that could be used to cause harm. Baseball bat, rock, nail clippers, whatever. We also have a special law here that covers "infernal weapons". That means anything not covered by the definition of a firearm. Lasers, particle beam weapon, acoustic disrupter, taser, whatever.


We also have no Miranda "rights" nor is there any law saying that an arrested person is entitled to a phone call. Many Canadians think that is the case, they watch too much US TV. The police here can hold you incommunicado for 48 hours if they choose. There is also no set right to a speedy trial. People have been held for years here before trial. In one case recently a person was held for trial longer than the possible maximum sentence possible for the offence if convicted, which he wasn't.".

And Evan (plus others) has the nerve to ask "do you need....". And you people timidly answer him- then he keeps pushing and puffing. It's not Evan fault- its those who dignified his posturing with civil responses.

Our second amendment was intended (remember the states and people were recently freed of the type government Evan lives under) to forbid the actions Evan tolerates and the actions our states and Federal Government now impose with out protest.

You second amendment defenders are going to lose your rights sooner or later. You allow the abolitionist to make illegal laws and take illegal actions and finally they descend with Federal power, impose a rules and THEN pass laws making their actions legal. This illegal law stuff has been going on so long (ever since the United States began) that we citizens conform with out protest.

"rights not exercised are soon lost" has been my cry for years. Answer not those who demand you explain- the Feds will ask you soon enough. The only answer must be "MYOB, I am free" (meaning "mind your own business, I am free to do what I WANT". Who wrote the story where the big boys lost because every one said MYOB- and practiced it?

Rant off
Steve

x39
09-19-2004, 09:36 PM
I think it's safe to say that the majority of members of this board, given a pile of assorted scrap metal and some basic tools could produce any number of controlled weapons, from machine guns to rockets. So should we license machinists? Should we register machine tools? Should scrap metal be a controlled commodity? It's worth noting that the Israelis frequently target Palestinian metal working shops. In a free society, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what an individual "might" do, rather we should severely punish anyone who harms or attempts to harm another, and that alone should be deterrent enough. The Hebrew scholar Hillel said "That which is harmful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole law. The rest is mere commentary."

[This message has been edited by x39 (edited 09-19-2004).]

sandman2234
09-19-2004, 10:57 PM
Hey DocSteve!
Nice reply, you can shoot my machinegun anytime.
David from jax

Joe S
09-19-2004, 11:16 PM
Evan, Yes, I will defend someone's right to buy an Uzi, they are entitled to a presumption that they will use it for a lawful purpose,(assuming they are eligible to own firearms in the first place, ) just like it is presumed you will use your car for a lawful purpose when you buy it, or that you will use the gasoline you buy for a lawful purpose, as opposed to making Molotov cocktails with it.
Joe S

ibewgypsie
09-19-2004, 11:53 PM
Listening to other people reason "why" I should not own a weapon to defend my right to liberty makes me happy I have several poured under slabs of concrete in various parts of the USA..

I have tattooed for all kinds of weapons.. out nothing but labor and some ink..

Some in Arkansas, some in Colorado, Some in Tennessee, Some in Florida.. Some.. I actually prefered the stainless models. thou Only RUger has the stainless springs and firing pins.

Yeah, I mistrust the goverment to protect my "Rights".

Funny, On 9/11 they went from being the most mistrusted Goverment on earth to the most backed in history.. (gee..) Kinda like the Germans I read about in 1941... Get behind the wagon..

Evan
09-20-2004, 12:18 AM
Steve.

We are all free to do as we please, constitution or not. Timothy McVeigh did as he pleased. Many suffered the consequence. There is no logical or justifiable reason for an individual to possess weapons beyond those needed (NEED) for self defense. I do not tolerate the actions of the government I live under. They insist that I register all my firearms. I refuse.

Why does anyone NEED an UZI? So, where do you draw the line, as I have asked before? Should there be a line? If weapons are to be available to some under your reasoning then they must be available to all. What about Columbine?

There must be a line drawn. It is not reasonable to allow any weapon to be owned by any person. In that circumstance you have a pit of vipers that will strike at anything that moves, without logic or reason. The United States is devolving to a least fit society. It harks back to the days of the old west where the fastest gun ruled the street.

This is one of the reasons that I live in Canada. Even though I am a US citizen I am not proud of what my former homeland has become. I am ashamed, it has turned from gold to ashes.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-19-2004).]

mpbush
09-20-2004, 12:27 AM
Meho,

ATF is paraphrasing what the law actually says and puts their friendly little twist in it.

The law provides for an individual to make firearms. Note exactly what ATF say's "provided it is not for sale". They crafted their words so that most people read it as you can't sell it but that is not at all what the law says.

(21) The term "engaged in the business" means -(
A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or
business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or
distribution of the firearms manufactured;

ATF just puts their little spin on it but they don't actually make laws.

Evan
09-20-2004, 02:58 AM
Steve,

I think you should apologize. Since when is stating an opinion "bullying"? To be a bully is an act of cowardice, something I am not familiar with.

tattoomike68
09-20-2004, 04:51 AM
Old true saying:

Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than any gun of mine.

wierdscience
09-20-2004, 08:29 AM
"It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six"

x39
09-20-2004, 08:46 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
[B].

Why does anyone NEED an UZI?.... The United States is devolving to a least fit society. </font>
The nation is devolving for demographic reasons, not because of firearms. It is precisely because this nation is devolving that so many feel the NEED to be well armed. Should we allow politicians and bureaucrats who have repeatedly shown that they are not working in our best interests to determine what our "needs" are? It is, as Kruschev said, "like sending a goat to tend the cabbage."

Involute
09-20-2004, 10:19 AM
I don't NEED an Uzi, I don't NEED a shotgun, I don't need a single shot 22. I don't NEED a musket. If I NEED food I can go to a supermarket. If I NEED home security I can get dogs, put up a fence, hire a force of rent-a-cops. If I NEED personal security I can carry pepper spray, a stun gun, or learn martial arts. I managed to survive the first 19 years of my life without a firearm and could make it the rest of the way without one.

If what you own is based on NEED, then what do you NEED your guns for Evan? There must be some other option available, maybe not as good, but sufficient.

The reason I own guns is because I have the RIGHT and I choose to. The ability to do what you want (If it doesn't infringe on the rights of others) is the nature of freedom.

Do you really NEED freedom? Many people live their lives without freedom and do just fine, but they probably WANT more. I sure like my freedom. I like my Uzi (don't really have one). Kinda Ironic that neither one can exist without the other....

[This message has been edited by Involute (edited 09-20-2004).]

nheng
09-20-2004, 10:55 AM
From my license plate:

** Live Free or DIE ! **

Freedom is your God given right, regardless of what form your God takes, if any or none at all. The "DIE" part applies to those who would infringe upon that ... not exactly what Revolutionary General John Stark intended but ok by me.

Rustybolt
09-20-2004, 11:07 AM
Evan. I don't think you're bullying. You have a right to an opinion and the right to state it. I don't agree with you that our society is becoming more unfit.
I do think news outlets sensationalize violent crime in this country.
A British politician once stated that americans must be comforable with a certain amount of murder, in order to enjoy their rights.I think we do.We are very jealous of our rights.It's a shame they aren't taught in our schools anymore.
Those first ten amendments are what separate us from all the other countries in the world.They are also the first things any government would like to get rid of.

jfsmith
09-20-2004, 11:32 AM
The sponsor of this BBS sell a book on guess what, how to make a rifle.

http://www.homeshopmachinist.net/store/index.cfm?curlocation=2


Jerry

Evan
09-20-2004, 11:33 AM
Involute,

I do need my weapons. I live in a remote rural area. There are bears and cougars that sometimes frequent my property. Both animals have killed quite a few people in this province, it happens every year. I keep the 12 guage handy with 2 rounds solid slug and 2 00 buckshot. The Ruger 10-22 is for squirrels and pack rats although most of the time we just use the .22 CO2 handgun for them. My 303 is for long shots, again bear or cougar and the occasional coyote that might be running deer or livestock. My .50 cal Hawkin replica was given as a gift (kit) which does not serve a useful purpose other than making large clouds of smoke.

Involute
09-20-2004, 12:40 PM
Evan,
What anyone needs is a matter of opinion. I don't expect that anyone here is going to change yours. You obviously feel well protected with your Arms, though, some may argue that the .50 Hawkin would be more than adequate for your purposes. However, you see it as being more or less useless. If I lived down the street from you - I might feel defenseless against a pack of Wild British Columbian Dingos unless I had an M60 http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//wink.gif... or maybe a Minigun http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

Ahhhhh... Opinions...............

Rustybolt
09-20-2004, 01:18 PM
238 Replies!!!
And noone has threatened to punch anybody in the nose!!

For the internet, thats pretty damned civilized.

Evan
09-20-2004, 01:18 PM
You're right, it's not likely that anyone will change my opinion. The wild animal threat here is very real though. Just last week a couple of hunters up north from here were dressing out an elk. Over the ridge came a sow grizzly with two yearling cubs. As soon as she saw the hunters she charged with cubs right behind. Both were mauled. The only thing that saved them was the bears noticed the elk meat and became distracted long enough for one of the hunters to fetch his rifle. In another incident a few years ago just down the hiway from my town a seven year old boy was eaten by a bear on his back porch. Last year a neigbour of mine was in her barn and was climbing the ladder into the hay loft. As she neared the top she felt something SWISH through her hair. It was a full grown cougar in the loft and it had just taken a swipe at her. She jumped off the ladder and made it to the house. I have seen cougar tracks in my back field that measured about six inches across. I also have to be concerned about livestock as I am boarding two horses right now. Estimated bear population of British Columbia is around 120,000 to maybe 160,000 black bears. Grizzly population is estimated at 10,000 to 13,000. Cougar population is not known but probably is in the thousands. We also have about 8000 wolves in BC. British Columbia has the highest concentration of large predators left in North America.

There have also been 62 sightings of Bigfoot...

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-20-2004).]

sandman2234
09-20-2004, 02:06 PM
Nothing personal, but Rustybolt if you don't change your opinion, I am going to punch you in the nose over this high speed connection, and then click off before you can recover and punch me back.

As far as owning guns to protect livestock and yourself, do you think the rest of the world is without just such animals? I live in a city, of reasonable size. I have had cougars on my street that were tagged about 100 miles from here and released. So anyone in between was at risk. Houses in that neighborhood were 11' from the property line and at least 1500 houses before any open woodlands.
Where I live now, is backed up to hundreds of acres of oods/swamps and undeveloped properties. I keep the dogs to warn me of any uninvited guests. I keep the firearms to warn uninvited guests of the dogs.
My brother had his rights to own guns removed by a stupid mistake. Noone was hurt, noone else's property was threatened by him, but in a single instance, he lost his rights. He is now at the mercy of the scum of this earth, because the police don't protect you. I will not become one of the unprotected. The statement of having my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it pretty much sums it up. I enjoy my shooting trips to the farm, and would give them up, but don't ask me to give up what I use to protect my family from the almost human beings of this earth. If I lived in the middle of nowhere, I might could get away with a shotgun. But why would I need a rifle? Anything out of shotgun range is not an immediate threat...
David from jax

------------------
Have gun, will travel.

Evan
09-20-2004, 02:31 PM
David,

A rifle is needed to take care of anything running livestock.

"do you think the rest of the world is without just such animals"

Actually, yes to a large degree. There are no eastern cougars any more, no grizzlys in most states and very few wolves left in the US (excepting Alaska). Black and brown bears aren't much of a threat, it's the grizzlys that kill people.


[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-20-2004).]

snowman
09-20-2004, 05:44 PM
Anybody ever see a rabid pit bull? I'd rather live with a cougar in my back yard. They are more docile. Last I knew, North America is full of dogs.

I dont have an assault weapon, and personally dont see the reason to...however, I am will not tell you that you can't. The same as I wont tell you that you cannot be homosexual, pray to Allah, whatever. These are your rights...as they are mine. However, as soon as you try to remove someone elses right, you take away yours as well.

-Jacob

docsteve66
09-20-2004, 10:18 PM
Evan posted the following request of an apology. I considered making it a separate topic to avoid my apology being lost in the noise- but here it is, my head hangs in shame:

In response to Evan's "posted 09-20-2004 01:58 AM
Steve,
I think you should apologize. Since when is stating an opinion "bullying"? To be a bully is an act of cowardice, something I am not familiar with."


Apology: Evan I apologize for calling you, directly or indirectly, a coward. It was an unintentionally poor choice of words on my part.

Funny thing is that I consulted a thesaurus and dictionary before using the word "bully". I wanted a word that all would understand but clearly convey my feeling. I do apologize profusely- I am ignorant of the modern meaning of words such as "bully". Shucks, I even went to the big Websters (nearly have a hernia from lifting it) for a definition before I choose the word "bully". Unfortunately, I guess words meanings change through the years and my reference was copy written 1957. So many events, mainly on the coast of California, through the 60's and 70's changed the old meaning of words.

I would never intentionally call you, or any one else, a coward. I have seen men I thought to be cowardly because I had seen them "bug out" once and leave me in big trouble, But later the same man "Stood Pat", like a stone wall- while the men who had stood pat before bugged out. I've little use for the words coward and brave.

You HAVE mentioned, more than once, your expertise with languages (among other things) so I am sure I misused "bully" so I will go with your definition of bully. Sorry for that misuse and any offense taken- none was intended beyond what MY Websters says. Just to clarify: MY Webster, 1957 defines " bully" as "A person who hurts, frightens, threatens or tyrannizes over those who are smaller or weaker".

Reading that definition in reverse (as I had to do to apply it), I said "Self- Evan here is accepted is by general consensus larger and stronger (smarter?) than us guys (second amendment defenders) and us guys have let him bully you again. Rise up or at least don't answer his threatening questions and opinions". Nope, Evan, I sure did not intend to imply cowardliness it was a left handed compliment to your stature.

But, while on the meaning of words I WOULD like to become a little better educated- where can I read about "bullying" being an act of cowardliness? Give me a Specific cite from reputable accepted sources please. Keep in mind that i have no access to the type reference books you use- make it a common book that we can all consult. I just wish to learn (no need involved). Be sure it is something a man with a 12th grade vocabulary can understand- no Latin or Greek or German or all those other furren speaks please. If, by remote chance, bully does not imply cowardliness, then you are (to me anyway) obfuscating your request for an apology and trying to use your stature to bully me by bridging from "bully"to "Coward". http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//smile.gif

Abject apology given, hopefully the subject of apology is closed.

New subject: Evan, I have no intention of initiating a "flame war", but please go back and read all your messages hunting for holes in your statements- You seem to think you have the right to disobey the registration rules, that you are in danger from the wild life. I assure you, the wild animals (criminals) here in Florida as just as dangerous and cunning as your cougar with a 6" paw. Those "wild animals" carry UZI , shot guns and use automobiles as weapons. Do you really advocate we common citizens are entitled to less powerful arms. I trust the average person to use common sense and, with time, learn again how to use firearms with discretion. IF you need ALL your firearms, then we have the greater need. You just fail to understand the problems we face since about 1965.

BTW, I read (back in 1930's) a news paper published in Tombstone Arizona in the 1800 where they claimed most killings in Tombstone were from frying pans, next were hatchets and axes. guns were way down on the list. Last time I was in Tombstone, I could not find the write up, I wanted to have a copy, if the article I read was authentic.

Evan
09-21-2004, 12:36 AM
Apology accepted Steve.

The stereotypical bully is generally regarded to be a coward. It is a theme that runs throught literature for thousands of years.

Quote "Perhaps the most stereotypical image of a bully is of an unpopular, oafish coward who bullies because he or she is insecure"

Site: click here (http://www.army.mod.uk/soldierwelfare/supportagencies/aws/youth/policy_docs_index/y_c_policy_and_guidelines_for_challengin.htm)

This is not new Steve. Here is a line from Sherlock Holmes: "A more perfect compound of the bully, coward, and sneak than Master Silas Brown I have seldom met with," remarked Holmes as we trudged along together.

http://sherlock-holmes.classic-literature.co.uk/silver-blaze/ebook-page-09.asp

Or this line from Jack London in "South Sea Tales":

"Semi-madness would be a charitable statement of his condition. He was a bully and a coward, and a thrice-bigger savage than any savage on the island "

http://www.literature.org/authors/london-jack/south-sea-tales/chapter-03.html


On bullying in schools:

"In fact, the conventional wisdom says, the only solution is for the victim to fight back, at which time the bully, who is really a coward, will decide to find a new victim."

http://www.acposb.on.ca/Bully.html

The oldest reference I could find is this:

"HERMIPPUS, the one-eyed, Athenian writer of the Old Comedy, flourished during the Peloponnesian War. He is said to have written 40 plays, of which the titles and fragments of nine are preserved. He was a bitter opponent of Pericles, whom he accused (probably in the MoIpai) of being a bully and a coward..."

http://47.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HE/HERMSDORF.htm

As to the requirement here to register all firearms, this is a very hot topic in this country. It is being widely ignored by a very large number of people including provincial governments and the police.

As far as wild two legged animals that is thankfully not a concern in these parts. The last murder to occur in this town was at least several years ago. Also, the law regarding self defense in this country is very different than in the US. You are only permitted to use force equal to what you have been threatened with. If some one comes at you with a knife and you shoot him dead you will go to jail for murder.

NAMPeters
09-21-2004, 12:37 AM
DocSteve go to http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict and type in "bully". You are vindicated. Psycologically bullies tend to be cowards at heart, but that is not covered in the definition of the word. So both you and Evan are correct in a sense but the meaning is what you where intending and I took it that way.

------------------
Neil Peters