ban on assault weapons lifted
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
Thank god, I can finally go pheasant shooting[^] again.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
-
You obviously have never fired one. Such numerical 'statistics' are pure fantasy. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
Progressive firing machine guns, often termed Gatling guns, have several barrels on a rotating carousel, and a system of cams that load, cock, and fire each barrel as it rotates into aim. The M61 Vulcan gatling cannon is of this type. This type of gun has the highest cyclic rate of fire, as high as 8,000 rounds per minute. Most modern progressive fire guns are operated by hydraulic or electric motors (chain gun). As well as a high fire rate, chain guns are less prone to jamming, as misfired rounds are simply ejected. This is not possible if the force needed to eject the round comes from the round itself. This makes them ideal for mounting on aircraft or vehicles.[1][^] POWAH! :-D -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Thank god, I can finally go pheasant shooting[^] again.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
Not peasant shooting? :-D -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
pankajdaga wrote: Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! LOL!!! Thank God for that! This law accomplished nothing, other than to make law-abiding people into de facto criminals. The so-called assault weapons it banned are no more than hunting rifles that have clips which hold more ammunition than usual. Despite efforts by the media to deliberately confuse the public, they are not automatic weapons. They fire one shot per pull of the trigger, just like any other rifle allowed to the public, and they aren't all that accurate. They are, however, fun to shoot for practice, and potentially more useful for home defense than standard sporting guns, though I question that particular point of view. Personally, I think a well aimed 9mm pistol is far more practical for defense, but each to his own. The real issue here is that the ever more invidious government is losing one of its many tools to harrass good citizens, and that's a good thing. Of course police departments are against lifting the ban - they're police, and a police state is a good thing to them. Injuries caused by criminals to police officers are most often inflicted by the same weapon that the cops carry - a 9mm pistol. Reports of police being killed by assault weapons are mostly fictitious, and in those very few cases where it has happenned the media has jumped on the sensationalism that such events cause. I applaud Congress' decision not to renew an absurd, unnecessary ban on a non-issue. It's the first sign of intelligence I've seen come out of Washington, DC in my lifetime. "My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
Roger Wright wrote: Personally, I think a well aimed 9mm pistol is far more practical for defense, but each to his own. I think it depends a little on how many you are defending yourself against. If 3 or more, I'd rather have an MP-5 or some other light weight fully automatic gun. Clips taped together in 2s for minimal reloading latency. That and a kevlar vest in case they shoot back. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
The article doesn't mention whether the ban was for semi-automatic or automatic weapons. When I hear "assault weapon", I think of semi-automatic as well as automatic weapons. If I were to assault anyone, I'd use a semi-automatic weapon for long range assaults, and an automatic weapon for short range/inhouse assaults. Ideally, the weapon should have a semi/full switch, allowing one to adjust to the situation. For extremely long ranges, I'd use a sniper rifle with manual loading. Anyway, I don't see how Jeff's post is in conflict with the article. In fact, the picture in the article shows at least 3 weapons which I know are capable of full automatic reloading. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Thanks for information. And be careful out there - you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency. :-D (Unless you belong to one then I guess it's ok.)
-
Americans and their guns :-D You'd be a whole lot better off if you banned them all. Then at least if somebody is caught with one, you know they are a criminal and can take the approriate measures. Beyond their use for pest control and hunting - there is no other sane reason for a civilian to have one. You'd be better off fixing the problems that cause people to think they need a gun, rather than an out-right ban to start with. But I guess you'll need a few more Columbines before you get the message. Michael CP Blog [^]
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Thanks for information. And be careful out there - you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency. :-D (Unless you belong to one then I guess it's ok.)
Jeff Bogan wrote: you may get a knock on your door from your local intelligence agency Naaah. I'm not a commie, nor have I ever uttered death threats to politicians or other officials, so I'm safe. But if they want to knock on the door, they'll better have a warrant. I have a license for my .22 S&W, and it's in a safe, just as required. If it hadn't been for me saving for a new car, I would've been the owner of a Glock 35 and a S&W .44 mag revolver right now. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). Hmm. A gun has one purpose. To hurt, damage or kill something or someone. A car has a purpose, to get from a-b, so your example is a little suspect... but I guess it all depends on your point of view. To me, guns serve no useful purpose. I can't understand why so many people get off on them. I guess it is something in the genetic code somewhere. I understand why an army needs a gun, I can see why modern day police forces need a gun, I can see why the farmer finds them useful but for everybody else - surely there are more fun and safer ways to pass the time. I'd have no problem in having licenced establishments where you can go and shoot a few rounds off, but to me there is no good reason why a person needs to *own* a gun. I'll argue about banning car-ownership and introducing a proper public transport system another day :-D Michael CP Blog [^]
-
pankajdaga wrote: ban on assault weapons lifted :jig: Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Yes, dance! And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47, I'll make sure to post a happy :jig: on CP for ya. :jig: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
The M-16 for example, the standard issue for the US army, which is certainly classified as an assault rifle, is automatic. I am referring to the cyclic firing rate which, yes, you would and could not sustain because the barrel starts to over-heat, and you quickly run out of ammo. You fire in short bursts anyways, even with an automatic. My point is what do we need it for? The only case that can really be made is that it lends fire-power to the people (the "militia") so that if the U.S. does in some improbable manner get taken over by hordes of criminals and barbarians, the average person can readily defend themselves. Is this what these people are thinking? I ask because I have searched high and low for arguments on both sides of the argument and they are extemely thin. No one seems to explain their position in the gun debate. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
What in the world are you talking about? It is obvious that you don't know which ban has been lifted. The M-16 is a Class 3 firearm, which means that it is capable of fully automatic fire. The ban in question dealt with semi-automatic weapons, which only fire one round per each pull of the trigger. If you can manage to fire a semi-automatic weapon at 800 rounds per minute then I will personally make the submission to the Guiness Book of records for you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Yes, dance! And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47, I'll make sure to post a happy :jig: on CP for ya. :jig: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
I`m SO there wrote: And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47 If some wacko chose to kill my son or daughter, what difference does it make what weapon he chose? A bat, knife, axe, car, or a chainsaw would all do the job. What weapon he chose doesn't really make any difference in the outcome, no more than being shot automatically means that you're dead. If someone wanted to kill my son, and was determined to do so, then there is no law that is going to keep him from it. I`m SO there wrote: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! If wanted to kill a bunch of people, quickly an easily, I would simply get into my SUV and drive it through a dense crowd of people. More people would be killed or maimed in a shorter period of time than you could accomplish with a semi-automatic rifle. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
The article doesn't mention whether the ban was for semi-automatic or automatic weapons. When I hear "assault weapon", I think of semi-automatic as well as automatic weapons. If I were to assault anyone, I'd use a semi-automatic weapon for long range assaults, and an automatic weapon for short range/inhouse assaults. Ideally, the weapon should have a semi/full switch, allowing one to adjust to the situation. For extremely long ranges, I'd use a sniper rifle with manual loading. Anyway, I don't see how Jeff's post is in conflict with the article. In fact, the picture in the article shows at least 3 weapons which I know are capable of full automatic reloading. -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: semi-automatic or automatic weapons The ban only covers semi-automatic weapons. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: and an automatic weapon for short range/inhouse assaults Since we are only allowed to have semi-automatic weapos (unless we have a Class 3 license), I would chose a shotgun, but that is just me. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html[^] Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
pankajdaga wrote: Everything achieved by Clinton is finally undone! What, pray tell, didn't he achieve? Here's a short list: Oral sex is no longer sex; 8 years of inaction led to 9-11; Oh, yea, he pardoned some folks; pankajdaga wrote: ban on assault weapons lifted And your title is disingenuous - the ban wasn't lifted, it wasn't renewed. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: While a ban does may it more difficult, a determined criminal can still obtain illegal weapons Agreed. But should we make it all that much easier? The key word there is "determined". Many criminals aren't necessarily that determined to seek out what isn't readily available. But give him an assault weapon, and of course he'll use it. With all the consciousness being put into terrorism, especially today, what's the justification for not continuing the ban on assault weapons? I think to some extent it IS effective. And I don't see how people can argue that their freedom is somehow curtailed by not being able to own an assault rifle. Is someone's freedom to have access to these things worth the price of someone else's child or loved one? I was living in CA when some idiot opened up on a playground full of children, which I believe is what led to this ban to begin with, and, IIRC, was one of two or three incidents that year. How soon we seem to forget. And I agree with Kerry--these weapons play right into the hands of terrorists. Come on, it was in the terrorist training manuals! You know, people talk about sacrifices that they have to make for our national security. How about the NRA and pro-gun people making a couple sacrifices in the interest of national security? Well, that's my 2c. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: The key word there is "determined". Marc Clifton wrote: these weapons play right into the hands of terrorists. Come on, it was in the terrorist training manuals! I think that terrorists come under the category of "determined". I am not disagreeing with you, however a ban in itself is, in my view, not sufficient. The facts in the UK, at least, speak for themselves - In the 10 years since a total* ban was introduced, gun related crimes (bank roberies, etc.) has increased. Something more needs to be done. However, I simply don't know what that is. * Total is not quite the correct term. It is still possible to be in possession a gun in the UK but you need a damned good reason for it. For example, trained armed police officers and certain types of farmers (for shooting vermin that are worrying their animals) are about the only civilians that would legally have access - and there are very strict controls over where the gun is when not in use.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
-
Marc Clifton wrote: The key word there is "determined". Marc Clifton wrote: these weapons play right into the hands of terrorists. Come on, it was in the terrorist training manuals! I think that terrorists come under the category of "determined". I am not disagreeing with you, however a ban in itself is, in my view, not sufficient. The facts in the UK, at least, speak for themselves - In the 10 years since a total* ban was introduced, gun related crimes (bank roberies, etc.) has increased. Something more needs to be done. However, I simply don't know what that is. * Total is not quite the correct term. It is still possible to be in possession a gun in the UK but you need a damned good reason for it. For example, trained armed police officers and certain types of farmers (for shooting vermin that are worrying their animals) are about the only civilians that would legally have access - and there are very strict controls over where the gun is when not in use.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I think that terrorists come under the category of "determined". Good point. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Something more needs to be done. However, I simply don't know what that is. Absolutely. And I don't have any good ideas either. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
What in the world are you talking about? It is obvious that you don't know which ban has been lifted. The M-16 is a Class 3 firearm, which means that it is capable of fully automatic fire. The ban in question dealt with semi-automatic weapons, which only fire one round per each pull of the trigger. If you can manage to fire a semi-automatic weapon at 800 rounds per minute then I will personally make the submission to the Guiness Book of records for you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Semi-automatic is not strictly defined as one round fired per pull of the trigger. That is one definition, but it is not the only one. Semi automatic versions of the M16 will fire three rounds, for example. Admittedly it is small calibre but it shows that it not a strict defition. On your second point - the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington slaying is based on M-16 rifle. You are trying to imply that it is some holy grail that cannot be obtained by the average person. That's bull. Even with this ban there have been loop holes at gun shows, and the 3mil vets running around have had there ways as well. Lastly - WTF - 800 rnd per min - yes. That is the cyclic firing rate. Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it.
-
Semi-automatic is not strictly defined as one round fired per pull of the trigger. That is one definition, but it is not the only one. Semi automatic versions of the M16 will fire three rounds, for example. Admittedly it is small calibre but it shows that it not a strict defition. On your second point - the Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington slaying is based on M-16 rifle. You are trying to imply that it is some holy grail that cannot be obtained by the average person. That's bull. Even with this ban there have been loop holes at gun shows, and the 3mil vets running around have had there ways as well. Lastly - WTF - 800 rnd per min - yes. That is the cyclic firing rate. Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it.
I don't understand why you keep talking about the M16. The M16 is not one of the weapons that is part of this ban. There are NO weapons that are part of this ban that will fire 800 rounds/min. I really don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this. The AR-15 and its variants, like the Bushmaster, that ARE part of this ban, are semi-automatic. They will not fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. Furthermore, three round bursts are defined as automatic fire (hence, the Class 3 rating), not semi-automatic. Jeff Bogan wrote: Look it up on google if you are having trouble with it. I am not the one having trouble. You have no idea what is part of the ban and what is not. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
A 100% ban is ridiculous. Why remove social liberties of the common man? If a bunch of guys like hanging out in the desert, shooting at beer cans, let them to that. If people like hunting deer, or whatever, let them do that. If they want to do it, they should be accountable. To be accountable, you should have a license permit per gun/person, be of a certain age or older, no prior criminal convictions. To acquire a license should take enough time to cool down the angriest person. To fire a gun for which you do not have a license for (other than test firing it before purchase) should be fineable. To fire a gun in an area which isn't safe, should also be fineable, and possibly a criminal act. Cars kill. Killers use cars. Should we ban cars too? So far the driver's license scheme works pretty well (I admit it's not perfect). -- Arigato gozaimashita!
Cripes, I agree. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Why would anyone need to utilize a 800 rounds per minute firing rate? Killing mice? ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Guns that fire 800 rounds a minute are already illegal to own. The ban covered semi automatic weapons not 50 caliber machine guns. For that matter good luck finding a clip that would hold 800 rounds....... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
