Hillary is delusional if she thinks that PA voters favor the 1994 AWB.

[Leftist Agitator]

What a stupid, pompous ass.

There is no law in the past twenty years that rural voters have opposed more strongly than that idiotic "Assault Weapons" Ban.

It set back the Democratic Party ten years. And she wants to revive it?

Jesus, there's stupid, and then there's Hillary Clinton.

[derby378]

1. "I respect the Second Amendment - FISHED IN! I fooled you good..."

She supported the Second Amendment before she opposed it...

[Leftist Agitator]

2. So much for those halcyon days in the duck blind, huh?

What a lying, duplicitous, mendacious person Hillary has become.

[derby378]

5. Must've been all that sniper fire in Bosnia

:eyesroll:

[Leftist Agitator]

8. Either that or Gramps' teachings didn't take.

God, this woman makes me ashamed to be of the same gender as her.

[depakid]

3. Actually, only idiots WANT assualt weapons on the streets

we're not talking hunting rifles here....

[derby378]

4. What's an "assault weapon?"

:shrug:

[stevietheman]

12. A weapon more powerful than is necessary to take down a deer, and is clearly...

aimed at killing lots of people in a short period of time.

[derby378]

22. That's not a precise enough decision to pass legal muster

The point is, we've never had a legal definition of "assault weapon." All we got in the 1994 ban was a laundry list of arbitrary brand names and safety features. That's right, safety features.

[Leftist Agitator]

25. Amen.

Though I wouldn't call a bayonet lug a safety feature, things like flash suppressors, pistol grips and heat shields certainly qualify as safety features.

Except to the uneducated crowd who barely know which end the bullets come out of, of course.

[Leftist Agitator]

23. You know, there is other game, much larger I might add, that people hunt other than deer.

And the deadliest weapon that I can think of is a pump-action 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot, which was never subject to that idiotic ban.

Care to try again?

[cliffordu]

85. DING DING DING We have a winner!!!

Yep -

Jules: We should have shotguns for this kind of deal.

Vincent: How many up there?

Jules: Three or four.

Vincent: That's countin' our guy?

Jules: Not sure.

Vincent: So that means there could be up to five guys up there?

Jules: It's possible.

Vincent: We should have fuckin' shotguns.

:patriot:

[apocalypsehow]

58. Want to see something really funny? Ask one of these savants pelting you with information about

the joys of owning machine guns who they intend to vote for in November, the Democratic nominee or McCain.

You'll get obfuscation, static, and, ultimately, *crickets*.

[Leftist Agitator]

62. You do understand that there is a world of difference between a so-called "machine gun"...

And what you derisively refer to as an "assault weapon", right?

Right?

Yeah, didn't think so.

:eyes:

Oh, and fuck McSame. Hillary might be a deeply flawed, last resort, but I'd cast a vote for her.

Luckily, I'll never have to, because Obama IS the nominee of the Democratic Party in Anno Domini 2008.

Try Again.

[apocalypsehow]

65. Yeah, you don't seem to "think" very much:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x161124

Lookee there! All your cute little gun buddies fantasizing and moaning and groaning and sighing and oooohing and ahhhing over the bare hope that they can wrap their talons around a real sure-fire by-God machine gun.

"Luckily, I'll never have to, because Obama IS the nominee of the Democratic Party in Anno Domini 2008"

Hey, you're arguing with the wrong person. Your "pro-gun Democrats" pals can't even bring themselves to endorse the Democratic nominee: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5530748

Perhaps it's you who should "try again."

:rofl:

[Leftist Agitator]

67. Yeah, because my REAL name is Turbo Teg...

And I actually am Turbo Teg him (or her) self!

Take THAT!

Yeah, I'm not. And you pulling a post from six weeks ago that's not mine really speaks of someone's character.

P.S. That someone is not me.

Oh, and lest your mush-mind forget, allow me to enlighten you:

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FULL-AUTO "MACHINE GUNS" AND THE ARMS COVERED BY THE UTTERLY BUNK AWB.

Learn your history, or STFU, please.

[apocalypsehow]

69. You need to learn to read slower. Or better. Or something.

:eyes:

[Leftist Agitator]

73. You need to set up strawnem to not collapse so suddenly...

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Oh, and I'm done with you.

Have a nice life, fellow DUer (and I say that with the utmost reticence).

[apocalypsehow]

76. LOL! You obviously have just heard the term in passing, i.e., them there "strawnem"...

:rofl:

You don't have a clue what one is, do you? Else'n you wouldn't be pretending you'd just spotted one...and misspelled it to boot.

:eyes:

You said: "Oh, and I'm done with you."

Don't go breakin' my heart like that!

:rofl:

[Leftist Agitator]

66. Hey, now here's an interesting proposition...

How about you define the term: Machine Gun?

We'll go from there.

[benEzra]

83. Typical "assault weapon" is about half as powerful as a typical deer rifle.

the most popular "assault weapons" are centerfire .22's, e.g. the AR-15 and Ruger mini-14. Even non-automatic civilian AK's (.30 caliber) are only about half as powerful as a .30-06 deer rifle.

Caliber/Weapon................................ Kinetic Energy
AR-15 (.223 Remington/5.56x45mm)................1,275 ft-lb
AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm).....................1,495 ft-lb
.30-30 Winchester (1800's design deer rifle)....1,902 ft-lb
.243 Winchester.................................1,946 ft-lb
.308 Winchester.................................2,670 ft-lb
.270 Winchester.................................2,702 ft-lb
.50 Beowulf.....................................2,878 ft-lb
.30-06 (most popular deer rifle)................2,900 ft-lb
.444 Marlin.....................................2,942 ft-lb
.300 Remington Ultra Mag........................3,682 ft-lb
.375 Holland & Holland..........................4,230 ft-lb
.338 Lapua......................................4,830 ft-lb
.375 Remington Ultra Mag........................5,073 ft-lb
.416 Remington Magnum...........................5,115 ft-lb
.408 CheyTac....................................8,298 ft-lb
.416 Barrett....................................9,380 ft-lb
.585 Nyati.....................................10,130 ft-lb
.700 Nitro Express.............................11,150 ft-lb
.50 BMG........................................13,971 ft-lb

The most common "assault weapon" calibers are in red, though there are also some (FAL, CETME) in .308 Winchester. Yes, "assault weapons" define one end of the civilian rifle power spectrum, but it's the low end.

The small caliber centerfires are the most popular target guns in America because (1) small-caliber ammunition is cheaper to shoot, (2) they kick much less, and (3) the rifles that shoot them aren't the beasts to shoot that many deer rifles are. Since 4 out of 5 gun owners don't hunt, most of us don't need that kind of power.

[Johnny__Motown]

14. assault weapons are military design rifles, designed to kill people. Some trademarks include pistol

grips and flash suppression



It is hard to define exactly what one is because manufactures have made tiny changes to their designers every time a law is passed to try to define it.

[Leftist Agitator]

19. "It is hard to define exactly what one is..."

Yeah, it is.

Because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

There are, now try to stay with me, three broad categories of firearms.

Shotguns of various designs.

Pistols, both revolvers and semi-automatics.

And finally, rifles of various sorts.

An "assault weapon" was basically defined as any rifle that is "scary looking", That is, had too many features associated with "Them guns that terrists carry in the movies."

Anyone knowledgeable about firearms knew that the AWB was complete bullshit.

A rifle with a stock is fine, but add a pistol grip (which adds little functionality), and it becomes an unholy killing machine.

A muzzle break is A-OK (look it up if you don't know what it is), but a flash suppressor? Blasphemy! Verboten! DEADLY (booga-boogaboo!)

Look, if you don't get it after reading this, respectfully ask for more info, and I will be glad to oblige.

[BornBlue]

89. Wow, you know your guns.

I am a 23 year old female. My dad taught me how to shoot when I was in 3rd grade. I have even handled a MAC90(which is essentially an AK).

I am having a difficult time following the logic of the term "assault weapon". Aren't all weapons essentially designed to assault in one way or another? How can we possibly say that this or that feature makes it more dangerous, I mean, c'mon ITS A GUN. I agree that automatic weapons have no place in the hands of the masses, but really beyond that, give us our guns. Take our guns away, you take the already dwindling power away from the people.

Thanks for setting the record straight! :toast:

[derby378]

29. Ever stop to think what's so bad about a pistol grip on a rifle?

It adds stability to one's aim and handling of the rifle. The Brady Campaign would have you believe that a pistol grip simply enables you to fire a rifle from the hip. But anyone who's watched old episodes of The Rifleman with Chuck Connors knows that you can fire a lever-action rifle without a pistol grip from the hip as well. That's a no-brainer.

[Leftist Agitator]

31. Do you really think that any of them know the first thing about firearms?

They don't, and it shows.

[derby378]

33. Well, this is where we can earn our keep...

By making other Democrats confront the reality behind gun legislation, maybe we can change a few minds, and then a few more, and a few more...

[Leftist Agitator]

39. Indeed.

I can tell you, there are precious few minds awaiting for enlightenment of that sort here in WV.

Hell, the fact that I don't hunt and have a vagina is enough to raise some eyebrows 'round these parts.

But I agree, the more Dems that people like you and I can educate about the reality of firearms, the better.

:hi:

[benEzra]

90. You realize that nearly all target rifles have pistol grips, right?

The key definining feature of a 20th century military infantry rifle isn't stock shape, it's the capability of automatic fire. No military in the WORLD has ever issued a non-automatic AR-15 or civilian AK-47 lookalike to its troops.

FWIW, this is an "assault weapon" according to the Brady Campaign:



Banned by name by H.R.1022.

[Leftist Agitator]

6. Um, yeah, we are talking hunting rifles.

If you don't know the facts about the 1994 AWB, then respectfully STFU.

[derby378]

7. Hey now, hey now...

Let's give depakid a chance to address the previous question before getting ugly, 'kay?

[Leftist Agitator]

9. Fair enough.

Somehow, I doubt that wisdom will be forthcoming.

[depakid]

11. How many STUPID gun nuts do we have to listen to spouting off?

Yep- these are hunting rifles, alright:







Frankly, its embarrassing.

[Leftist Agitator]

15. Actually, you obtuse person, only TWO of those are hunting rifles.

And the M-16 is marginal. Not the best thing for deer, but great for small game.

The Mac-11 and the MP-5 are submachine guns. Glorified pistols with bigger clips.

They weren't covered by your beloved AWB.

Oh, and interesting fact! That AK was perfectly legal as long as it didn't have a bayonet lug and/or flash suppressor. Oh, and you could still get 30 round mags, only the manufacture of new so-called "high capacity" magazines was prohibited.

Right, so you've proven that you don't know what he hell you're talking about. We're done.

[depakid]

21. You know- that almost sounds like satire

Except that it's pernicious, and shows a pathological obsession with firearms of the type that costs America mass shootings every couple of months (or weeks) -has given you exponentially the highest murder rate in the western world-and, lest we forget, the largest and most expensive prison system anywhere on the planet.

Yet woe to anyone who points that out- or proposes something positive to begin to deal with the situation....

[Leftist Agitator]

24. Woe to ye, who oppose something that ye know little to nothing about.

I'm not the one who dug up scary looking pictures of guns. You are.

Care to admit that you have no idea about the mechanics of firearms or the language of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban?

Because from where I sit, it's pretty obvious that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, one last thing. The Swiss have a rate of gun ownership and a "gun culture" that rivals our own. Yet they have a persistently low rate of firearm-related crime.

Care to explain that, Kreskin?

[Leftist Agitator]

27. Oh, I almost forgot..

So the fact that I'm well versed in the study of firearms means that I exhibit a "...pernicious..." "...pathological obsession with firearms..."

I own one firearm at present. A Mossberg Maverick 88 Security model. I never felt the need to keep a gun of any sort around my apartment until a close friend was raped in her own home two years ago. I'll be damned if that's going to happen to me!

I grew up shooting guns. My Dad and brothers all hunt, as do several uncles. I was the tomboy of the family, and thus the only female who ever took an interest in hunting or shooting. When Dad took the boys out to go shooting, I always insisted on going along.

And I must say, thanks to Dad and my oldest brother Ryan, I'm one hell of a shot.

:)

Do you really, truly think that those of us who deeply respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution are deranged somehow? That we've lost our reason or are inherently violent to a fault?

I'd really like to hear what you have to say.

[apocalypsehow]

60. Yep - 30,000 deaths a year, split about half and half between homicides and suicides, give or take

in any given year.

Yet the neurotics skywind into full spittle-spewing mode the second anyone points out that their pursuing their "hobby" is done at the expense of the lives of thousands of their fellow citizens every year.

They simply don't give a damn. It is, indeed, "pathological."

[benEzra]

84. Umm, the vast majority of those DON'T INVOLVE RIFLES.

The homicide data, from the FBI (Uniform Crime Reports 2005 and 2006, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon, column totals):

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

And that's for all rifles combined, not just small-caliber rifles with modern styling (aka "assault weapons").

"We desperately need to ban the most popular rifles because, ah, so many people are killed with criminally possessed handguns." :eyes:

[Irreverend IX]

63. Are you aware that "assault weapons" are almost never used in crimes?

The favored weapons of criminals by far are cheap handguns. They're easy to conceal and if the get used, they can be ditched in a hurry with minimal financial loss. A few criminals use shotguns, which are deadlier by far than any "assault weapon." But almost no criminals use rifles, of which "assault weapons" are a subset. Rifles are used in less than 3% of homicides nationwide; more people are killed with fists and feet than with rifles.

AR-15s and semiautomatic AK-47 copies are expensive and impossible to conceal, which makes them very unattractive for criminals. Fully-automatic firearms like the MP5 and MAC-10 require a special license and approval of local law enforcement to purchase and are extremely expensive, so the chance of criminals using them is nil. Semiautomatic copies of the MP5 and MAC-10 are available, but they're uncommon and expensive collector's pieces, so they're not likely to be misused either.

Why do you want to ban guns that are almost never used in crimes and that you clearly don't know the first thing about?

[benEzra]

95. Actually, *that* AK looks to be a Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapon...

just like the suppressed M4 and the MP5. If you look closely, I think you can see that it has a 3-position selector, not a civilian Safe/Fire safety.

That M4 is Federally restricted 3 different ways--because it's a NFA Title 2/Class III automatic weapon (look at the selector), because it has an integral NFA Title 2/Class III restricted sound suppressor, and because it has a barrel length of way less than the 16" civilian-legal minimum.

The fact that someone would actually post a picture of restricted police/military/government-use-only machineguns (some of them SBR and suppressed) while arguing for a ban on non-automatic, non-SBR, non-sound-suppressed civilian guns speaks volumes about the issue.

[benEzra]

80. Those have been tightly controlled in this country for 74 years now

and have absolutely nothing to do with the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

This, rather, is an "assault weapon":



Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, small-caliber farm/utility rifle banned by name as an "assault weapon" by H.R.1022.

[Johnny__Motown]

10. Sorry, most Democrats favor that ban regardless of the political cost.

[derby378]

13. Not anymore...

Let me refer you to a poll taken on DU a couple of years back (it's in the article):

http://www.a2dems.net/terms.htm

[Johnny__Motown]

17. That poll is not of Democrats.. and is still a 57-63 % result who want it.. you are wrong

please read your own link.. it says it polled over 1000 Adult Americans not Democrats

[derby378]

20. You're looking at the wrong poll

That's the Consumer Federation of America poll, not the DU poll.

Scroll down further, please...

[Johnny__Motown]

38. The one that polled only 152 people? and asked if you would vote for someone if.....

Scenario: Candidate supports Federal funds for stem cell research, universal health care, overhaul of science education in schools, Roe vs. Wade, gay civil unions (if not marriage), etc. The one thing she will not do is reauthorize a ban on "assault weapons." Would you vote for her?


This isn't specifically about the ban.. it only asks if you would vote for someone who agrees with every issue except one.


Is this honestly the one you are trying to use for evidence? 152 people from DU 2 years ago and it isn't even asking the question directly.


Ummm... sorry but I still think you are wrong.... approx. 25% still had a problem with voting for someone even if that is the one and only issue where they stray from the progressive agenda

[derby378]

40. I did mention that there were a lot of caveats in the poll...

But maybe I should try the poll again on DU and see what sort of response I get now.

[Johnny__Motown]

43. No you didn't.. all you did was refer me to it... read your post

[Leftist Agitator]

41. Alright, let us examine a piece from one year ago tomorrow.

EDIT: Two days from today, hence one day from tomorrow.

See here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/18/dems_and_guns/index1.html

The desire to court voters in swing states with a large percentage of gun owners is the primary reason that Democrats have recently tended to view the issue of gun control as poisonous. There were other reasons as well, however. First, there were fears that support for gun control could split a key Democratic constituency: union members. A survey done by Americans for Gun Safety has shown that 54 percent of union households own a gun. Moreover, gun control is an issue with what Spitzer describes as "hassle" and "intensity" factors that don't favor advocates. Supporters of gun rights are passionate in a way that supporters of gun control are not -- gun-rights backers are single-issue voters and activists, while on the other side, Spitzer says, "the typical gun control supporter is somebody for whom the issue is not a No. 1 concern, it's No. 6 or No. 8."

Doug Hattaway, who was national spokesman for Gore's 2000 campaign and is now the president of Hattaway Communications, concurs. Hattaway notes that organizations like the Brady Campaign cite the high public support for gun control measures, but says that support doesn't translate into electoral victories for Democrats.

"There's a difference between agreeing on an issue and having it motivate your vote," Hattaway says. "Yes, people agree, but there's not a potent pro-gun control constituency in national elections."

There is, on the other hand, some potential downside that can come with being a supporter of gun control, the "hassle factor" to which Spitzer refers.



Now, you were saying?

:eyes:

[Johnny__Motown]

46. WTF is your point?? people can own a gun and be against assault weapons.. this means nothing to me

so what if 54% of union households own a gun?

[derby378]

49. And, as we have just explained...

There doesn't appear to be any such thing as a definition of the term "assault weapon," so what would these people be against in the first place? Pistol grips? Multi-position stocks?

We walk a fine line when we determine that we're going to ban innovation and adaptation.

[benEzra]

93. I think you fail to grasp the scope of the "assault weapon" buzzword.

so what if 54% of union households own a gun?

I think you fail to grasp the scope of the "assault weapon" buzzword. Roughly half of those gun owners would be affected by "assault weapon" restrictions.

The "assault weapon" meme covers the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, and that's not even counting the gun owners that would be nailed by the 19th-century magazine capacity restrictions.

[jody]

98. Any candidate who wants to ban semiautomatic firearms automatically wants to ban AW. n/t

[BootinUp]

16. Its a personal issue for her I believe

I agree there are some political costs associated with it. It also depends on how well the idea is sold.

[Leftist Agitator]

18. We've had that idea sold, with disastrous consequences.

Disastrous, as in "Bush 'won' in 2000 because of it".

He lost my home state of WV because Bush & friends were able to use the legacy of the AWB to proclaim far and wide that "Gore wants to take yer guns!"

It was a terrible idea then, it's a terrible idea now.

[hollowdweller]

26. Yeah that was a major fuckup on her part. Obama answered the gun question better

[Leftist Agitator]

28. At least I'm not the only one who noticed.

If Obama were smart and/or underhanded (which he's not... underhanded, that is, because the man is a damn genius) he would make an ad showing Her Royal Clintonness expressing her unqualified support for the 1994 AWB. That would play GREAT in rural PA.

Gore lost WV in 2000 for that very reason, and that poor guy was only guilty by association.

[jody]

30. BO also wants a revised AWB. BO & HC are doing everything possible to alienate 80 million gun owners

[Leftist Agitator]

32. I didn't hear Barack Obama say anything about reinstating that AWB in the debate tonight.

But if he has expressed such support, I will become quite disillusioned with him.

Gun control leads to genocide in many instances. History bears that out.

[derby378]

34. He's expressed support for a semi-auto ban several times last year...

...but lately, he's been surprisingly quiet on the issue.

[Leftist Agitator]

35. See, not cool that he ever supported such tripe.

But I am enheartened by his retreat from such an asinine policy.

Time will tell, no?

[derby378]

37. Well, he might not be Bill Richardson or Jim Webb...

...but if he were to choose either as his running mate, that would help Obama tremendously.

I know a lot of DUers are hoping for Clinton and Obama to be on the same ticket, but that's a really slim chance right now.

[jody]

36. BO also said we should ban all semiautomatic firearms. Note that assault weapons are by definition

semiautomatic firearms so BO wants to ban more than just a few semiautomatic firearms with cosmetic features as stated in the original AWB and in the revised AWB.

[Leftist Agitator]

56. I usually don't ask, but...

Do you have a link for that assertion?

[jody]

59. Barack Obama on Gun Control (On The Issues) see link below

Barack Obama on Gun Control

[Leftist Agitator]

64. Way to put up.

And I am disappointed to admit that I disagree with Obama's rhetoric with respect to firearm ownership.

Oh, for once, a DUer gave a link to a vslid question. Hell be frozen over on that, undoubtedly.

:)

[Johnny__Motown]

42. 80 million assault weapon owners? you have got to be kidding....

[Leftist Agitator]

45. No, 80 million gun owners who realize that the 1994 AWB is BS.

Try again with the selective reading, bud.

[Johnny__Motown]

47. You assume everyone who owns a gun is in favor of assault weapons.. that is insane

[MercutioATC]

53. You assume that you know what an "assault weapon" is.

Any informed person realizes that the definition of "assault weapon" in the 1994 AWB was absolutely NOT based on anything pertinent. It's like a bunch of old ladies and soccer moms pointed to guns that "looked scary" and decided to ban them.

[jody]

48. Obviously you have a reading comprehensive problem because I did not say 80 million AW owners,

In fact, BO supports banning semiautomatic firearms and assault weapons are just a small subset of semiautomatics.

BO wants to ban all semiautomatic firearms, not just the handful of semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features and that makes BO more of a gun-grabber than HC.

[Johnny__Motown]

50. So you say the 80 million people are in favor of semi automatic weapons? any evidence of that?

[jody]

52. You are a real comedian. Have a nice evening and goodbye. n/t

[MercutioATC]

54. Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is?

By definition...do you know what it is, and what the difference is between a semi-automatic weapon and automatic weapon?

[apocalypsehow]

55. I wouldn't waste my time with that ,*ahem*, "pro-gun Democrat." He refuses to say he won't

vote for McCain if whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee doesn't satisfy his personal craving to fondle his fetish-devices.

[benEzra]

88. Do you know what the word "semiautomatic" means?

Semiautomatics:









The majority of civilian guns sold in the U.S. are semiautomatics. A semiautomatic firearm fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time.

What did you think "semiautomatic" meant? Pull the trigger and spray bullets like a machinegun?

[benEzra]

81. No, closer to 40 million,

16-20 million of whom own guns defined as "assault weapons" by feature and pedigree, and another 20 million of whom own guns that would be slammed by the pre-1861 magazine capacity restrictions. The other 40 million own "riot guns", "sniper rifles", and "Saturday Night Specials" instead.

Look past the loaded terms, and look what the term actually covers--namely, the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in America.

[stillcool]

44. I don't understand this...

don't ordinary weapons do the trick? Is there a need to shoot more deer faster? Are surface to air missiles okay? I think I could get a lot of birds with one of those.

[derby378]

51. What's an "ordinary" weapon?

Is it subject to the whims of the Brady Campaign board of directors?

The Second Amendment, last time I read it, never mentioned hunting.

[Leftist Agitator]

61. Speaking of the Second Amendment o the Constitution of the United States...

"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."

That says it all.

Arms. Guns. FIREarms. They are indeed necessary to the security of a free State.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Yes, detractors, there were no "assault weapons" during the revolutionary period, but do you know what the height of military technology was in that era?

Flintlock rifles. That was the absolute epitome of military weaponry. The framers enshrined the right to own the most pernicious, deadly weaponry of that era in the founding document of this nation.

I wholeheartedly agree with the various restrictions that have been placed on modern weaponry.

Nobody needs a fully automatic weapon for anything aside from perpetrating mass death of one's fellow man. But those have been tightly controlled for eighty years now. I do believe that the restrictions were instituted in 1934, but I digress.

So please, anti-gun types, elucidate unto me what is so bad about exercising one's constitutional right to own a firearm.

[smiley_glad_hands]

92. Jefferson wanted a highly armed population as a detterrant.

With this he saw no need for a standing army.

It's ironic cuz now we have both, on edit: to a degree on the highly armed population part that is.

[stillcool]

70. Well...when I was a kid..

we used to go to the beach and shoot cans. I aimed and I pulled the trigger, and a bullet came out. When I got older I went to the rifle range. Same thing happened. Would I now need more than that to kill something?

[derby378]

79. Well, here's the deal...

With a semi-automatic AK, AR15, M1, or anything else on the verboten list, here's what happens:

You aim. You squeeze the trigger. A bullet comes out. Same as the gun you used on the rifle range.

What some people have a problem with is that these guns are designed with newer safety features that improve aim and stability, reduce night blindness from muzzle flash, and adjust to the shooter's body in order to improve posture. For some reason, they believe these safety features are okay for military and law enforcement personnel, but the average Joe Six-Pack is not worthy to own or possess such safety features.

[stillcool]

100. Consider me enlightened...

or at least more aware of my ignorance. I don't own a gun, and am admittedly afraid of them..having had some nasty experiences in my life. Of course the gun was an added oomph to an already charged atmosphere. I guess that I look at it from both a fearful and a Utopian viewpoint, with an obvious lack of knowledge to see what it looks like from the middle.

[benEzra]

87. What kind of rifle did you use? It may BE an "assault weapon".

Bringing a preban Marlin Model 60 into New Jersey will get you 5 years in prison for possession of an "assault weapon":





And the Ruger mini-14 (.22 centerfire) is banned by name by H.R.1022:





Benelli turkey hunting shotgun and "assault weapon" under H.R.1022:





The AR-15 (also .22 centerfire), the most civilian popular target rifle in America:






Browning BAR Mk II Safari Grade, .300 WSSM, "assault weapon" under Louisiana's proposed AWB



If you think "assault weapons" are somehow functionally different from "ordinary" civilian rifles, you've been had.

[Leftist Agitator]

57. "...don't ordinary weapons do the trick?"

Please define an "ordinary weapon".

Oh, and why you're at it, why don't you tell me what particulars of the 1994 AWB appeal to you?

I'll be waiting...

[stillcool]

68. Pull the trigger..

a bullet comes out, and you kill something. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the 1994 "AWB". I don't own any UZI's, Kalishnikov's, AK-47's or the like, and I don't live in an urban area, where I have to be worried about the spray...yet. So, what do you use these for? Extinction of deer, Show and tell, or armed robbery?

[Leftist Agitator]

71. You do realize that a "Kalshnikov" and an "AK-47" are one and the same right?

And you do know that the Israeli Military Industries UZI is a pistol not subject to the AWB, right?

What do I use said mis-nomenclatured arms for?

Prevention of tyranny.

Why do you seemingly oppose my right to defend myself in accordance with the Constitution of the Unites States?

[stillcool]

72. No. I did have a boyfriend once...

that had an UZI..or at least that was what I recall..and it was no pistol. "Prevention of Tyranny" from whom? I think that's what gangs use them for too. Turf war.

[Leftist Agitator]

75. Look at the picture of the very smallest gun in the thread, above our posts.

That's an UZI.

It's a pistol. It takes these "bullets" as the uninitiated call them, by the name of 9mm (nine millimeter).

Some models take what's called .45, but they are few and far between.

"Prevention of Tyranny from whom?"

Uncle Sam. And you're a fool if you don't think that that isn't the most important function of firearm ownership.

Throughout history, disarmed populations have been massacred by their enemies. Do you want to be a victim?

Answer me honestly, or don't waste my time, or yours.

[stillcool]

77. yup...I'm a fool...

No matter where I've lived in my life, I have not encountered that kind of fear. My weapon of choice is words.

[msallied]

78. I think I have finally found

a true believer in Freedom on DU tonight. Thank you!

[Leftist Agitator]

97. Thanks!

I appreciate the compliment.

I am indeed a partisan for liberty, and the defense thereof.

[benEzra]

82. Considering that the guns in question are the MOST POPULAR TARGET RIFLES in America...

I'd say most people use them for "target shooting" and "organized target competition". AR-15's (.223 Remington caliber) DOMINATE centerfire rifle target competition in this country, due to their supreme accuracy and light recoil:



That rifle is also an excellent alternative to the traditional .729 caliber (12-gauge) home shotgun, and happens to be the most popular rifle in the United States at the moment. The #1 caliber of rifle ammunition sold annually for the civilian target shooting market is .223 Remington. And the SKS, another gun you're talking about banning, appears to be the single most popular centerfire rifle in U.S. homes nationwide. My wife owns one, a highly collectible 1952 Tula. And I shoot recreationally and competitively with a SAR-1, another rifle you're talking about banning.

You do realize that 4 out of 5 U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, yes?

FWIW, criminals almost never use rifles; they use handguns.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

[benEzra]

86. You realize you're talking about the most popular small-caliber civilian rifles in America,

not restricted military weapons, right?

Here's an "assault weapon" according to H.R.1022:



And the AR-15, the most popular civilian target rifle in America:



No, that's not an M16...


"Assault weapons" don't fire any faster than "ordinary" civilian guns; they fire at the same rate (one and only one shot when the trigger is pulled, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time).

[beyondromantic]

74. she's wrong

The trade pact caused job losses in PA.

[smiley_glad_hands]

91. You could still buy the guns in that ban.

Just not all the neat military type accessories like flash muzzles or large capacity clips.

Enforce the laws on the books fervently and then see where we are at before new legislation.

On edit: For all practical purposes that law didn't really accomplish much other than piss people off.

[benEzra]

94. Actually, the 1994 non-ban didn't even affect rifle magazine capacities...

because all magazines manufactured prior to 9/1994 were complete exempt. Meaning, of course, that practically every AR-15 and AK magazine on the planet was exempt.

FWIW, my "AK" is a 2002 model; you are quite right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1177

That's a 2002 model civilian AK with a ban-era magazine. Only difference between that and a post-2004 civilian AK are the smooth muzzle and smooth gas block.

[smiley_glad_hands]

99. Thanks for the correction. eom

[quantass]

96. K&R