IconoclasT wrote:
] Palindrome wrote:
]
] ]
] ] Guess who is a large supporter of Bush's campaign? The NRA.
]
]
] What does that have to do with the issue? Nothing
] whatsoever. If the current law is to non sunset, the
] primary responsibility lies with congress, not the president.
]
]
] I, for one will be glad to see this sunset. It was poorly
] conceived and banned individual weapons based upon appearance
] rather than function. The majority of banned weapons were
] imported but for the most part, functionally identical to
] other non banned weapons which happened to have a less
] menacing physical appearance. A badly concieved law based upon
] mostly subjective criteria designed to appease a sensitive
] constituency is never a good thing.
]
] For the record, fully automatic weapons (ie sub machine guns)
] had already been illegal for anyone w/o a very special class
] of BATF FFL to posess for a very long time. This act did not
] address these weapons.

ok thanks for the info

] streets. If terrorism is our major concern right now why make
] it easier to buy automatic weapons in our country.

This wasn't a ban on automatic weapons (guns that continuously fire if you hold down a trigger). Those have been banned since the 1930s.

This was a ban on semi-atuomatic weapons. Well, thats not true either. You can get a gun that has the same rate of fire and uses the same ammo (ie same large holes), both before and after the ban.

This was a ban on accessories to semi-automatic weapons. The guns couldn't have certain things, like bayonet mount points, 30 bullet ammo clips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, grenade launchers, etc.

This is key. The guns available both before before and after the ban cause the same amount of physical damage. This is what the gun nuts harp on and say that the ban was stupid because of this so-called "power issue."

However, most of these features, (most notably the flash suppressors, large ammo clips, and of course, grenade launchers), make the guns more deadly, even if they shot them same bullets as banned guns. This exposes police and others to unecessary dangers. Thus I supported the ban and am sad to see it not restored.

It's rather funny to see NRA members balk when you ask them how a 30 bullet clip, flash suppressor, and bayonet mount help them "hunt" or protect their homes.

Acidus wrote:
] This was a ban on accessories to semi-automatic weapons. The
] guns couldn't have certain things, like bayonet mount points,
] 30 bullet ammo clips, folding stocks, flash suppressors,
] grenade launchers, etc.
]
] However, most of these features, (most notably the flash
] suppressors, large ammo clips, and of course, grenade
] launchers), make the guns more deadly, even if they shot them
] same bullets as banned guns. This exposes police and others to
] unecessary dangers. Thus I supported the ban and am sad to see
] it not restored.
]
] It's rather funny to see NRA members balk when you ask them
] how a 30 bullet clip, flash suppressor, and bayonet mount help
] them "hunt" or protect their homes.

No, they need a bayonet to fully restore an antique war musket.

Gun control is not really an issue that I care about. I don't own guns. I don't think they're very important. I think that in peaceful societies people tend to own them less. I also don't think that overtly militaristic items like fully auto weapons should be easily purchased. I don't have a problem with waiting periods, licensing, limits on quantity, and bans on particularly dangerous accessories.

Guns are dangerous things, like cars. We ought to take then seriously and ensure those who own them understand and respect them.

On the other hand, gun control is a little like video game regulation. Guns don't create violence any more then video games create violence. If I want to play doom in my bedroom I ought to be able to. I'm not going to kill anyone, and I don't need the nanny state looking over me to make sure I don't turn into the next Dylan Kleibold. Similarly, if I want to restore a WWII trench rifle that my grandfather might have used, and go shoot it at the range on the weekend, I ought to be able to, even if it involves a bayonet mount. I'm not going to kill anyone and I don't need to nanny state telling me what kinds of hobbies are appropriate or inappropriate.

Don't allow the fact that you don't play video games, don't like video games, and don't understand video games turn into an interest in controlling what others choose to do with their free time.

Decius wrote:
] Gun control is not really an issue that I care about.
]
] Don't allow the fact that you don't play video games, don't
] like video games, and don't understand video games turn into
] an interest in controlling what others choose to do with their
] free time.

NPR put its political agenda front and center on Monday's Morning Edition. (Last week their top story was the one thousandth US death in Iraq -- a milestone which is matched in its arbitrariness only by the Millenium New Year. Why doesn't the US media track the Iraqi casualties?)

We're in the middle of a war, and it's the first news day after the 9/11 anniversary, but both your top news story and your first feature segment are about the expiration of a regulation on firearms accessories?

It's funny to see liberals play the shame card. That seems like more of a Fundy thing to do.

Is this an attempt to change the subject of the public conversation? Perhaps Republicans and Democrats alike are tired of sniping at each other over the presence or absence of a smoking gun from three decades ago. Why they would decide that the next topic ought to be gun control is beyond me.

noteworthy wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] Gun control is not really an issue that I care about.
] ]
] ] Don't allow the fact that you don't play video games, don't
] ] like video games, and don't understand video games turn into
]
] ] an interest in controlling what others choose to do with
] their
] ] free time.
]
] NPR put its political agenda front and center on Monday's
] Morning Edition. (Last week their top story was the one
] thousandth US death in Iraq -- a milestone which is matched in
] its arbitrariness only by the Millenium New Year. Why doesn't
] the US media track the Iraqi casualties?)
]
] We're in the middle of a war, and it's the first news day
] after the 9/11 anniversary, but both your top news story and
] your first feature segment are about the expiration of a
] regulation on firearms accessories?
]
] It's funny to see liberals play the shame card. That seems
] like more of a Fundy thing to do.
]
] Is this an attempt to change the subject of the public
] conversation? Perhaps Republicans and Democrats alike are
] tired of sniping at each other over the presence or absence of
] a smoking gun from three decades ago. Why they would decide
] that the next topic ought to be gun control is beyond me.

It is definately an attempt to change the subject. It was an attempt to talk about something real and important in our country. What should the next topic be?

Palindrome wrote:
] What should the next topic be?

Apparently flag desecration...

Maybe they should make guns that don't kill people.

One use of guns is hunting, another is protection. If I was going to shoot someone in defense, the idea is that they stop. Sometimes this takes many bullets. Once you decide to shoot someone, you've decided that it doesn't matter whether or not they live, so to fire as many bullets as possible in a short amount of time is doing the same thing as a hand gun only better. I don't think the mass damage potential is enough to make them illegal.

terratogen wrote:
] Maybe they should make guns that don't kill people.

"Guns don't kill people. Physics kills people."
-Dick 3rd Rock from the Sun

] I, for one will be glad to see this sunset. It was poorly
] conceived and banned individual weapons based upon appearance
] rather than function. The majority of banned weapons were
] imported but for the most part, functionally identical to
] other non banned weapons which happened to have a less
] menacing physical appearance.

Well it looks like everyone bought a round at the I'm retarded bar this weekend.

It doesn't matter how the banned features were ultimately suggested, be it "menacing physical appearance," dice, or even bloody darts. Stop harping on how the items were choosen, because its irrelavent if the banning final features in the bill did have functions that it would be a good idea to protect. IE Stop judging the creation of the bill and judge it on what it does.

Your arguement, and indeed, the arguement that most people against this bill seems to be: This ban didn't reduce bullet size, packing, or rate of fire. Thus the ban is pointless. And the thing is, you are right about the power issue. So what is your problem with the ban then? It doesn't reduce the hole you are going to put in a deer or an intruder in your house.

So, yes, the bill doesn't solve the power issue. What does it do, and what features get banned? Lets exmaine a few:

-You can't have a folding stock, making weapons easier to hide under clothing. Makes sense. Handguns are easy to hide because of size, so we have a law against consealed weapons. This prevents you from making an semi-automatic weapon easier to hide.

-Cannot have flash suppressor. Again, makes sense. In hunting, the animals are gone as soon as they hear the gun fire. So having something to hide the visual notice of where a gun is being fired from is pointless. Sure it looks "scary," but this is a logical item to ban.

-Can't have 30 ammo clips. Shit! Now what will you do in case of Red Dawn?

-Do you even want to defend the grenade launcher? Come on!

The ban doesn't solve the power issue, but it does ban features which really shouldn't effect you anyway. Dismissing the law simply because appearence was a factor is by far the stupidest thing I have ever seen you meme.

Acidus wrote:
] The ban doesn't solve the power issue, but it does ban
] features which really shouldn't effect you anyway. Dismissing
] the law simply because appearence was a factor is by far the
] stupidest thing I have ever seen you meme.
OK, I'm not going to claim to know much about this law, after all I was only 11 when it was enacted. The point I want to make is how horrid a statement you make, "it does ban features which really shouldn't effect you anyway."

Now, take that to its logical extreme -- why does it matter if gay marriage or abortion is regulated against, it doesn't affect you... what does it matter if capital punishment is instituted, you're not going to kill someone, are you?... microsoft putting a bounty on virus writers? doesn't affect you... DMCA making it illegal to do pretty much anything? that might affect you, but not me, the average joe, so clearly we shouldn't worry about it!

yes, i know some of the things i say are absurd but that's the point, maybe you didn't mean what I think you did but at least take another look at that statment

--

I don't know if you shot but I do and I'll address some of your other statements

] -Can't have 30 ammo clips. Shit! Now what will you do in case
] of Red Dawn?
when shooting it's much less of a hassle to reload a single 30 round clip once than a 10 round clip 5 times -- am I saying my convience is worth someone's life? no -- but neither do i believe that keeping a new 30-round clip off the streets will save someone's life when there's an old one to be had

] -Do you even want to defend the grenade launcher? Come on!
yes, actually -- i would love to shoot a grenade launcher -- i also play with blasting gel... why? because it's _fun_ to blow stuff up

If we're going to judge by what the ban has done we should also remember that these things didn't become illegal to own or sell -- all existing weapons/accessories were grandfathered. I personally own a 30-round clip for one of my rifles and if I wanted another do you know what I'd do? go to a pawn shop, a gun show, or a family friend and buy one.

I've done no research for this -- any claims about the assault ban are made purely from memory and are subject to being incorrect

] Ok I know that the ban wasn't effective in keeping assault
] weapons off the streets but that doesn't mean we should have
] an open market. If this ban was useless then we need to be
] formulating another plan to keep these weapons off the
] streets. If terrorism is our major concern right now why make
] it easier to buy automatic wepons in our country. Honestly
] what possible reason could anyone have to need these types of
] weapons??

...and why does any law abiding citizen need cryptography the government can't break? I guess i'm just of the opinion that if something is going to be banned, there has to be a really good reason to ban it. It just does not seem logical to me to create laws to prevent something when the supposed target of the legislation does not follow the law.