PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Military Style?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, it's pretty clear that the gun control groups aren't happy with their law.  The Assault Weapons Ban was supposed to ban "assault weapons".  But now, we find out it didn't!  The gun makers were supposed to pay attention to the "spirit" of the law:
But Kristen Rand, the legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, a gun control group, said that the XM-15 seized in Muhammad's car still had features that mimic an assault weapon, including a pistol grip that makes it easy to fire from the hip and a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds.

"It complies with the letter of the law, but it is still an assault rifle," Rand said.
This is getting a bit ridiculous.  Aren't "assault weapons" defined under the law, and the manufacture of new ones banned?  If Bushmaster violated the law in question, they can be charged with a felony for every "evil gun" they manufactured.  But they complied with the law, and altered the design so as to not be an "assault weapon".  But now we hear that it still is an assault weapon.
Exactly what is defined as "military style" and why is is so bad that functionally identical firearms with the features should be banned?  We need to stop playing around and get with the program here.  Either we are serious about solving a violence problem, or we are merely interested in semantics.

Why do I get the feeling that the gun control folks just hate guns?  Why do I get the feeling that NO guns are acceptable to them?
And in all of this mindless debate, the causes of crime continue to be ignored.
Not to even mention: TERRORISM.  
How are gun laws going to prevent terrorism?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:03 AM on October 28, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its funny that they claim the pistol grip and the large magazine as parts that identify it is an assault rifle. The snipers never fired the gun at people from the hip and they never fired more than one shot at a victim...so why does it being an assault rifle matter. Also why does it matter if the gun is fired from the hip or not. And a large magazine capacity means nothing bc it only take 3 seconds to reload a gun with a clip and the gun isnt automatic. Since machine guns and sub machine guns (automatics) have been banned since i think 1938 doesnt the term assault rifle already relate to a weapon that is already banned. This is just rhetoric making it possible to apply future retritions on our civil liberties.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:51 AM on October 28, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The ar 15 is not an assualt rifle, the military would never accept it.  And so what it holds ten rounds, I own guns that are much more powerful then an ar 15 and they hold 5 rounds.  It doesn't matter about the number of rounds, it matters where you put the bullet.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 1:06 PM on October 28, 2002 | IP
Serevok

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from madbilly at 10:51 AM on October 28, 2002 :
i The snipers never fired the gun at people from the hip and they never fired more than one shot at a victim...


They were not snipers, they were murderers. Snipers risk their lives on a regular basis to keep you and the rest of the american public safe. Snipers are highly trained and disciplined soldiers. any retard with a hunting rifle could have made the  shots those useless SOBs made...

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:42 AM on April 12, 2005 | IP
Five Seven

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its no secret that the AWB was a bait and switch. Assault rifles have been illegal since the Federal FIrearms Act of 1934. The AWB merely banned meaningless cosmetic features based on flagrant lies on the part of democrats and the brady campaign.

The brady campaign loves to spread lies about pistol grips "making it easier to shoot from the hip", and .50 calliber rifles being able to take down moving aircraft.

What they fail to mention however, is that should one be stupid enough to fire a high powered rifle of a shotgun with a pistol grip from the hip, your wrist will literally be in peices afterwards. The recoil would shatter it.

Another thing they fail to mention is that it generally takes an entire team on soldiers with fully automatic .50 caliber rifles (most are bolt action) to take down an aircraft. And even then its extremely difficult. Their claim that a single round will reduce an aircraft to ruble is a flagrant lie, as is nearly everything claimed byt eh brady campaign.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:08 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from madbilly at 10:51 AM on October 28, 2002 :
Since machine guns and sub machine guns (automatics) have been banned since i think 1938 doesnt the term assault rifle already relate to a weapon that is already banned.


The whole ban is an exercize in semantics. The ban has to do with bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, and hicap mags. The real definition is vauge since it should apply to all military firearms which would include bolt action enfields and brown bess muskets. The ban is nothing more than a way to try to ban all guns first they say why do you need a bayo lug next it's a semiauto rifle and so on. To put things bluntly you only need the will to kill the tool is your imagination. You can kill with any object the only thing that stands in the way is the will to do the deed or in other words your humanity. And the great majority of the Earths inhabitants are good and decent people it is just a few that are evil. The decent in mankind will only use their guns to protect them selves and only as a last resort for they will walk away from a confrontation and will only use force when cornerd and then only when there is no other choice.


Just to give you the facts Machine guns have never been baned nationaly just in a couple of states. And those are in the last 50 years. Most states allow the ownership of MGN's but they are registerd with BATF and you need their approval, and your CLEO has to sign off on every gun. You need to read the 1934 National Firearms Act. This explains what is entailed in possesing a MGN.  

(Edited by TRIGGER 7/9/2006 at 12:17 AM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 12:15 AM on July 9, 2006 | IP
mzmtg

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All one needs to do to legally own a fully automatic machine gun is pay a $200 tax, get a Sherriff to sign the form and get fingerprinted for the BATFExyzqrs.

Well, all that and pay what will most likely be over $10,000 for the purchase price of a legally transferable machine gun that was manufactured and registered before 1986.

That's why so many gang bangers have them, it's too easy.

Oh wait, gang bangers DON'T have them.

I challenge anyone to find a news article, besides the famous Hollywood bank robbery, detailing the use of a fully automatic weapon in a crime.

Here's a link to plenty of machine guns for sale.  They are far from affordable.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?db=nfafirearms&category=All+Items+in+this+Category&query=category&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=headlines&website=&language=&session_key=

(Edited by mzmtg 7/10/2006 at 09:01 AM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 08:59 AM on July 10, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Those gun's used in the CA robbery weren't fully transferable guns as a matter of fact those two individuals that perpetrated that crime were arrested with those guns a few mo's earlyer and released with their guns and the cop's didn't realize that they had illegal MGN's in their posession and returned them. One thing you should have mentioned is that when it come's to guns the media dosn't know the diffrence between a machine gun and a bolt action rifle or maybe they do and want to make thing's scarryer for the readers.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 3:47 PM on July 10, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think that we have established that few robberies or murders take place with guns owned legally. This means that the crimminals were not effected in the least by gun laws.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:36 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.