ahhh, but part of the problem is states like Cali ban practically everything. Case in point, a Beretta CX4 Storm is available everywhere but Cali, they have deemed it an assault weapon BASED SOLELY ON THE LOOKS.

There may be other states that are as confused as Cali, but I am not sure which ones if any.

That makes sense to me CW. Thanks for the input.

So we take away Sadam's WMD because he "is a felon" and used them in the past. Does the UN (or the US for that matter) allow any Country to build a nuclear weapon for defense purposes only if they've never had one? I mean if they don't have them now they don't have a record of using them right? So anyone that wants one and doesn't have a record should be able to have one. Is that the current policy?

Plabonte, keep in mind that by definition criminals break laws. So is having one more law on the books banning certain weapons going to affect criminals? Again, by definition they break laws. If those who are anti-gun are so concerned about the welfare of people, why don't they push legislators to outlaw murder? Or is it that, again, criminals by definition break laws? Hmm... Oh wait, murder is already illegal! But people still do it???? Well, criminals do! Remember, they don't care about the laws of society!

After being a firefighter and a police officer for many years now I can honestly say that motor vehicles (especially when combined with alcohol) are MUCH more likely to injure/kill people on a daily basis than 'assault weapons'. Again, this is just based on my experience. Maybe we need to make laws that outlaw drunken driving? That way no more people will be hurt/killed under these circumstances. Maybe we need to outlaw speeding too. Again, this should cut down on injuries/fatalities, right?

Oh wait, these ARE already illegal. So why do people still do these acts? Why do people also murder others? Is enacting more laws to make all of these acts 'more' illegal going to help with anything? In the same respect is enacting laws that prevent lawful citizens from owning certain firearms going to stop people (criminals) from murdering others? If they're in the hands of criminals (who again by definition break laws), then no. Keep in mind that convicted felons are already prohibited from owning firearms. Is enacting another gun law going to prevent them from doing something they by law already weren't allowed to do? Will it prevent them from committing even more illegal acts with these now 'extra' illegal guns!? Remember that murder is also illegal. A lot of people forget this and try to blame everyone and everything (guns) for the actions of the criminals. Let's keep in mind though that murder is murder, no matter how it's done. Why punish law abiding citizens based on the actions of a select few within out society? Is this right/fair to you?

Anyway, that's how I see it. All I'm trying to show you is adding even more laws to control criminal behavior will NOT work. In the case of guns laws they tend to only punish law abiding citizens from owning certain firearms. One prime example is DC. Handgun ownership has been strictly illegal for a few decades now. Yet DC has often had the sad title of "murder capital of the US". Does it surprise you that in the vast majority of firearm-related murders handguns were used? But handguns and murder are both illegal in DC. Yet, oddly enough, the criminals there continue to ignore the laws. Huh...

I've done my best here to illustrate my point, but if you honestly see firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens as being comparable to a brutal dictatorship having (internationally-banned) WMD, then, well, I fear my time was wasted.

Just my two cents!

Plabonte, you can be guilty of a felony and not be guilty of a violent crime. Car theft is a prime example. Now to carry our comparison further, Iran Seized our embassy (Sovergn US soil, according to international accords) and held our diplomats hostage for 444 days! They didn't nuke anyone, or gas anyone, but is this the kind of behavior we want to see in a country that is actively persuing a nuclear program? The Russians have many warheads, but haven't (as a government) offered them up for sale to anyone that has the asking price. North Korea on the other hand, has demonstated the tendancy to sell whatever to whoever, moreover they agreed (With the Clinton Administration) not to persue a weapons program if we aided them in getting a "peaceful use only" nuclear reactor. They unilaterally abrogated this agreement and have gone ahead with a weapons program anyway. Can someone who hasn't kept their word yet be trusted to keep theses weapons for their own use? I seriously doubt it. We are negotiating with the NK's directly, and through intermediaries to try to get them to abandon their program. If the Kerrys and Clintons in the world have their way, we'll DO something about the time Al Queda gets an H-bomb!

Plabonte,

Yes, weapons were designed for killing. But, ANYTHING, not just firearms can be used to kill. If a criminal wants to kill you with club, he will. The club was designed as a weapon too, right? Ban rolling pins? The same holds true for knives. A kitchen knife has a way larger cutting surface than a switchblade. Which is banned?

You're absolutely right, you don't need an AK or Streetsweeper to defend your home. I peronally use a M-1911A1 with CorBon ammo. But,the right to keep and bear arms is just that. It's a choice. You should be able to choose which gun you wish to own. Sort of like freedom of speech. Can we ban what types of topics we are allowed to discuss?

As for sporting use, the AR-15 and M1A are the semi auto version of the M-16 and M-14. The AR-15 and M1A are used in national high power rifle matches and are fully sanctioned by the DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship). They are now banned in many states. I can't buy one in CA because it's considered an "assault rifle" by those who are unaware. Thus, I am denied the sporting use of a rifle I am way more than familiar with. I cannot participate in DCM matches because the California DOJ thinks the AR-15 is an assault rifle.

The ban punishes law abiding gun owners. Do you honestly think criminals can't obtain these weapons on the streets?

E4A

I'll tell ya where I stand on this issue. I'll say it again. Guns are inanimate objects. They can't move, they can't think and they can't reason. They are tools. Period. Tools used to kill, or to protect.

But to make a law, banning guns, or certain types of guns, doesn't do a damn thing. Criminals don't obey the law, so laws only affect citizens who OBEY the law.

It has been proven in Florida, that when a county issues a concealed weapons permit to anyone who asks for one (that doesn't have a criminal record of course) that crime rates went DOWN... SIGNIFICANTLY!

When asked of a number of hardened criminals in a Florida jail if they knew a home had guns in it, would they choose another target and the majority of them said, "Hell yeah".

Guns aren't the issue. Laws aren't the issue. LAWYERS are the issue. If we would punish the people who use guns to commit crimes as they deserve to be punished, others would learn from that. But we are too soft.

To quote my dear friend Mike... endeth the sermon.

I am a gun collector and hunter. I am fully behind our right to own guns. I cannot see a reason for a private individual to own a fully automatic weapon. However, I am against any laws that infringe on our right to own guns.

Once you take away one kind of gun, then there will be legislation to take away another, then another. People in England can still own guns, but none of them do because it is too difficult.

As for the law about people with felonies not being able to buy guns, what crap. If someone makes a stupid mistake when they are young, they should not be punished all their lives. I personally know someone who was convicted of a felony that has several guns (obtained since the law went into effect). Boy, that law sure works.

J

Wow I'm leaning quite a lot here. Thanks for keeping things civil.

I'm not sure if I buy the "Criminals don't follow the laws so why have them theory". And here is why. If a cop pulls over a criminal type who has an automatic weapon and there is no law that prevents the use of this weapon the cop can not arrest the perp nor take away the weapon. You are right that the criminal doesn't follow the law but the law can also act as a proactive to prevent instead of just reactive after the fact. If you go buy the "Criminals don't follow laws so why have them" theory then why have any laws at all. What is the point because bad people will do what they want regardless.

A question I have that maybe you guys can answer is with the existing law is there a bigger penalty for illegally carrying an assult weapon as opposed to a regular gun?

Also, do you guys really think that there should be no limits on "The right to bare arms"? So I should be able to own a handgun or an assult weapon or a flame thrower or a gernade launcher or a tank or a missle. I have the right to protect myself after all and there are no limits.

I've got some WMD's I picked up on E-bay if you are needing some to protect your family.

LOL

IF I wanted 1,000 guns I should be allowed to own them.
Guns can kill if used the wrong way.

Smoking is legal, so if I wanted 1,000 cigars I should be allowed to own them. Cigars can kill if used the wrong way.

Baseball bats are legal, so if I wanted 1,000 baseball bats I should be allowed to own them. Baseball bats can kill if used the wrong way.

Knives are legal, so if I wanted 1,000 knives I should be allowed to own them. Knives can kill if used the wrong way.


Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

So if you want a tank you should be able to own one and drive one correct? I mean you have to protect your self from road rage. People have gotten shot over minor disputes. And I bet if you polled a bunch of people prone to road rage and asked "Would you be prone to take out your road rage on someone driving a tank?" they would say, "Hell no."

One more question that I kind of asked but nobody really replied to.

Why do you feel you need an assault weapon. And don't give me a "Because I can and its my right" type of answer. Some of you are collectors so I understand why you would want them. But other than that why will a regular gun not do and you have to have an assult weapon?

"Assault Weapon" is a relative term.
I can assault someone by blowing salt in their face.
I can assault someone by patting them on the back.
I can assault someone by kissing them.

At what point do we out law something?
When it is used improperly?
If that is the case rocks and stones would have been outlawed thousands of years ago when cavemen first used them to kill another tribesmen.

Yes I am taking it to an extreme, but I am trying to point out that everyone has a different sense of what an assault weapon is. ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon if the offended party feels assaulted.

You're absolutely right plabonte, a law CAN deter a criminal action.

But really, think about this. Are you more concerned that someone (a criminal) might at some point attack you with the intention of a robbery, assault or murder, all while using a firearm? Aren't you more concerned that people exist within society who DO commit these crimes against others (regardless whether a weapon is used or not)? Isn't this more alarming than which weapon (if any) they may use at the time? Like I said in the past, criminal intent or will is always going to ignore laws (again, by definition to be a criminal one has to break laws).

I know I'm really biased here as I've worked the streets for some time (law enforcement) and have obviously encountered my share of criminals along the way. All I've talked with didn't care about the laws they were breaking (no matter how many or how serious), they just wanted to do whatever it was they were doing at the time. Based on this I know that adding even more laws isn't going to do anything to stop them. Remember my DC example? If you can give any relevant info as to how their ban of handguns has helped in any way I'd love to hear it. I've read many, many studies that show the opposite actually. Unbiased reports too, by the FBI, ATF and DOJ.

Plabonte,

Qoute:
"Why do you feel you need an assault weapon. And don't give me a "Because I can and its my right" type of answer. Some of you are collectors so I understand why you would want them. But other than that why will a regular gun not do and you have to have an assult weapon?"

I already answered:
"As for sporting use, the AR-15 and M1A are the semi auto version of the M-16 and M-14. The AR-15 and M1A are used in national high power rifle matches and are fully sanctioned by the DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship). They are now banned in many states. I can't buy one in CA because it's considered an "assault rifle" by those who are unaware. Thus, I am denied the sporting use of a rifle I am way more than familiar with. I cannot participate in DCM matches because the California DOJ thinks the AR-15 is an assault rifle."

There IS merit in my interest. This is why I want to see the ban lifted on certain types of rifles. For organized US govt sponsered and sanctioned sporting uses. Look into the DCM Program. It all people just like YOU and ME.

You still refer to the banned weapons as "assault rifles", when in fact, they are NOT. They are the semi auto version of military assault rifles.

So on, so forth...

E4A

RDC pointed it out best...

"Assault" has to be in the hands of an assailant...

with this thee, Assailent makes it an Assault...

other then that.. the weapon is harmless...

Hog

I WIN!
I WIN!
I WIN!

:-)

Just vote for me in 2016

from my local paper (note to EI: no, this doesn't represent my thoughts on the subject!) 🙂


Better keep your head down

Because American politicians of both major parties are scared to death of the National Rifle Association, it probably will legal Monday to buy what you might call rifles of mass destruction.

You could get one for your collection. Someone else might get one to mow down a lot of people in a few seconds.

The argument against the existing law banning certain rifles is that it's so full of loopholes that it's had little or no effect; that the difference between legal and illegal weapons was so minor that it didn't matter and that it was easy to modify legal weapons to make them essentially the same as illegal ones.

That may be true.

Those who support the law say federal statistics show that crimes connected with banned weapons have dropped two-thirds since it was passed in 1994.

That also may be true.

But none of that really matters.

Nor does it matter that polls repeatedly find that a comfortable majority of Americans support the existing law. Or that former President Ronald Reagan supported it. Or that many law-enforcement officers have begged Congress to renew it, fearing that otherwise they might be outgunned.

All that matters is the National Rifle Association. It's bullied and bribed (with legal "contributions") enough members of Congress so that the law will expire on Monday.

Many Republicans have long done the NRA's bidding. Many Democrats haven't – and some of them paid the price. Bill Clinton speculated that pushing the "assault weapons ban" might have cost his party 20 seats in the House of Representatives in 1994. Some believe Al Gore's support for such legislation cost him the 2000 presidential election.

So as the law comes up for renewal, most Democrats are keeping mum as the Republican leaders of the House refuse to let it come to a vote.

President Bush, who once said he supported the law and now says he'd sign its renewal, refuses to ask his party's congressional leaders to renew it. (That's not a flip flop, of course.)

The law might amount to little more than symbolism. But the NRA and its apostles can't tolerate even that.

And many of the people we elected to represent us are actually representing the NRA.

my opinion: someone stick a stake in this ban's heart.

we shouldn't ban guns; we should, however, have laws about how they can be used. fire a gun into a building -- that's bad; you go to jail. fire it at a target on a shooting range -- no problem.

the whole "guns don't kill people" thing -- it really comes down to how a gun is USED. it comes down to BEHAVIOR that is either legal or not (or it should be, imo). we can, should and do legislate behavior.

Cav, That's what I beleive too! The press clipping you posted is a prime example of the anti-gun media bias that I have observed for decades. I think the most blatant case was a backdrop of a revolver behind a news anchor on a Houston news cast, while the reporter was reading a story about a murder BY STABBING!

"I'm not sure if I buy the "Criminals don't follow the laws so why have them theory". And here is why. If a cop pulls over a criminal type who has an automatic weapon and there is no law that prevents the use of this weapon the cop can not arrest the perp nor take away the weapon. You are right that the criminal doesn't follow the law but the law can also act as a proactive to prevent instead of just reactive after the fact. If you go buy the "Criminals don't follow laws so why have them" theory then why have any laws at all. What is the point because bad people will do what they want regardless."

Plabonte, this is so full of misconceptions that I'm not sure where to start! First, the ban only affected Semi-autpomatic weapons, not automatic weapons (machine guns). Second, since 1968 there has been the Gun Control Act of 1968, the same law that requires you to fill out the Form 4473 (yellow sheet) when purchasing a gun, also makes it a felony for a person who has been convicted of a felony to possess a firearm, so the cop you mention above HAS cause to arrest the above cited perp. The only effect this law has had has been to drive up the aftermarket price (it only affected the sales of new guns, not the ones already out there) of SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons that "look" like true assault rifles (selective fire military arms) to honest, law abiding people!

And as to the question you asked about reasons to own one, they are alot of fun! get out in the country where you have a good backstop, and rip off a thirty round mag as fast as you can squeeze the trigger! WOW! It's a HOT to see who can knock over ten cans (not tin cans) faster! It's a challenge to see how fast you can recover from the recoil (not much, but enough to fudge your aim) and get on the next target. Sound silly? That's what the founding fathers meant by "A well regulated militia" Militia is NOT the National Guard, or the Reserves, the militia was originally meant to be every white man between the ages of 18-45, then became every man between those ages, then became every PERSON! You get the idea? "the militia" is the pool from which the military draws personnel, whether by enlistment (recruitment) or by conscription (draft), In WWI and WWII the Germans captured said they knew exactly when they met an American unit, because the 30-06 rounds made such a decidedly more threatening crack as they passed your head in close proximity. Alas, the average marksmanship of a raw recruit has deteriorated and the power of American ammo has been dialed back, so we're just one of the gang now! In fact, the Savage Arms company produced a .22 rifle called the 1919 BSA rifle! It was an approved peice of equipment for a Boy Scout! but with the advent of WWII, the BSA droped it, as they wanted to avoid comparisons to the Hitler Youth.

FYI