SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

Assualt weapons ban expires

Xavier - Sep 11, 2004

		Xavier	Sep 11, 2004
		The assualt weapons ban expires now on monday . So what will be legal now ?

		Dud	Sep 11, 2004
		From what I gather, nothing much will change. For example, I know a guy that lives in a trailer down by the quarry and he has a shitload of guns in it, including an M-16, and none of it was confiscated or what not during the assault weapon ban. :huh There's nothing much more assault-worthy than an M-16, maybe with the ban lifted he can get the Full-Auto kit for it! :banana I know that was illegal. EDIT: Here is a site explaining the assault weapon ban: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm... I guess everything in that article is prohibited now, (M16-A1, M16-A2 etc) but will be completely legal to own, come Monday. EDIT2: I've always wanted to mow down some deer with a M60.

		Gallstaff	Sep 11, 2004
		I hate rednecks.

		Xavier	Sep 11, 2004
		an m-60 is a machine gun , still illegal im pretty sure . I would also be a poor choice to use as a hunting rifle because its not very accurate so you'd need to be somewhat close unless yor planning on using a few chains or crates of ammo . Edit: Also the m-60's old news the 240B is the newer thing , used for suppressive fire and also has a large calibur good for possibly getting people behind cinder block and small brick walls . If you want to blow a deer to bits then use a 50 cal .

		Xavier	Sep 11, 2004
		Im doing research on the matter and it seems what was made illegal . 1.Fully automatic assualt weapons . 2. Suppressor ends 3. Bayonet attachments 3.Grenade attachments 4.Pistol grips 5.30 round magazines 6.Foldable buttstocks 7.Weapons that are easily modifible to fully automatic . If you have and can prove to the ATF that the weapon or parts was manufactured prior to 1994 then its legal . Id like to get a miltiary grade m-4 carbine , all the ones for sale here look funny with out the suppressor and bayonet attachment . I think they also use a different size ammunition . Then id also put a foldable but stock and grenade launcher with scope on it . Here you can get class three assualt weapons and concealed weapons perits for $15 , this law doesnt seem to do much except maybe drive the price up to an insane range .

		Alexvrb	Sep 11, 2004
		The whole thing is being blown out of proportion, too. Kerry is scaring (well, trying to) people by telling them that it will encourage people to run out and buy assault weapons and that terrorists will want to come here and buy guns to kill people with. I'm serious, he was on TV earlier blabbering about it. I don't care if you love the guy or what, but come on. Many people don't seem to realize that there are other gun control laws and restrictions in place, many of which are already excessive or stupid. If I was going to obtain a gun to mow people down, I could always do it illegally, and no ban can do jack about that.

		crystalmethod	Sep 11, 2004
		Yeah and boy do are those gun control laws ever effective. Out of curiousity tho, aren't bayonets the long spear like things you attatch to the end of a gun? What the hell is the use/why the hell would anyone wanna have one of these? To spear a charging bull?

Alexvrb

Sep 12, 2004

Originally posted by crystalmethod+Sep 12, 2004 @ 02:16 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crystalmethod @ Sep 12, 2004 @ 02:16 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah and boy do are those gun control laws ever effective.[/b]

Well, that's a different story, but yeah... that goes back to the last sentence of my post above.

<!--QuoteBegin-C
rystalMethod

Out of curiousity tho, aren't bayonets the long spear like things you attatch to the end of a gun? What the hell is the use/why the hell would anyone wanna have one of these? To spear a charging bull?[/quote]Actually, bayonets are pretty short, but yes you'd fix them to the end of your gun. In modern times, they aren't as useful, but for a large portion of history, they are incredibly handy to have on the end of your rifle. Think about it, a lot of times combat end up in close quarters. If you've fired your only round, you can't stop and reload when he's 3 feet away. If you're in an age where you've got more than one shot, maybe you've used them all.

Or maybe in either case, they're within stab range, so why waste the ammo (if they aren't immediately pointing a loaded gun at you)? You can also finish an injured foe without spending a shot. It also helps keep enemies at bay. All you need to do is swing your barrel up to meet a charging enemy, and they have a pointy blade facing them, ready to impale if they manage to get that close before you blast them. But again, in modern times bayonets don't really serve a purpose. They've still got combat knives though, just in case.

		IceDigger	Sep 12, 2004
		If someone breaks into my home he is going to get a body full of lead.

Berty

Sep 12, 2004

Originally posted by Xavier@Sep 11, 2004 @ 07:25 PM

Im doing research on the matter and it seems what was made illegal .

1.Fully automatic assualt weapons .

2. Suppressor ends

3. Bayonet attachments

3.Grenade attachments

awh, now how am i meant to keep the dang varments away from my youngens

		it290	Sep 12, 2004
		I guess my question would be this - are any of those things actually useful for anything other than shooting people? And I'm not talking about display/historical purposes or extreme overkill... I mean c'mon, grenade attachments? What the hell are you going to use that for? What do people actually want these things for other than to feel cool?

		Gallstaff	Sep 12, 2004
		Because they can't afford a new mustang to compensate for their tiny penis.

Dyne

Sep 12, 2004

Originally posted by it290@Sep 12, 2004 @ 12:39 PM

I guess my question would be this - are any of those things actually useful for anything other than shooting people? And I'm not talking about display/historical purposes or extreme overkill... I mean c'mon, grenade attachments? What the hell are you going to use that for? What do people actually want these things for other than to feel cool?

because the constitution says they can. im all against guns period myself. peoples argument for self defense falls on deaf ears to me. if you dont have a gun, and the perp doesnt have a gun, do you really think somebody is going to me more liable to break and enter or assult somebody if they cant take the cowards way out and shoot if things get bad? my answer is no. take guns away and i would garner about 90% of people that normally would have committed a crime would be too pussy to now do so without a gun.

and hunting.....my oho......use a bow and be a man.

		Dud	Sep 12, 2004
		When someone breaks into someone else's house they aren't afraid of the cops showing up. If an alarm gets tripped, they have a minimum of four minutes to get out. They are afraid of the homeowner having a gun and blowing them away. Criminals are going to get guns no matter what. There will always be black market gun selling. Gun control laws only restrict regular law abiding citizens from buying guns. True, guns may cause terrible accidents, for example children getting killed. They used to call that Darwinism. :devil Maybe if anti-gun nuts realized people are always going to buy guns, they'd spend their time educating people on how to put trigger locks on their guns, and general gun safety.

		Lyzel	Sep 12, 2004
		The whole thing is just symbolic. Kerry is trying to make an issue out of it.

		it290	Sep 12, 2004
		Your post doesn't explain why it's a good idea for normal, law-abiding citizens to possess assault weapons, or what makes these weapons more useful than (for example) a regular handgun in the oft-cited 'home self defense' scenario. Also, you always hear people say things like 'gun control laws only restrict regular law abiding citizens from buying guns'. Do you honestly believe that everyone who has an intent to use a gun in a criminal manner has both a felony on their record and knowledge of where and how to obtain a gun illegally? What about people with a clean criminal record who decide to go on a shooting spree, at their workplace for example? edit - ah, and god forbid a politician should try to make an issue out of something.

Dud

Sep 12, 2004

Your post doesn't explain why it's a good idea for normal, law-abiding citizens to possess assault weapons,

That is because by retort was directed at gun control in general.

or what makes these weapons more useful than (for example) a regular handgun in the oft-cited 'home self defense' scenario.

I know a police officer that had to take down a doberman pinscher, (a big dog, for those that aren't dog people) and it took 9 hits from his Baretta to take it down. Also taking into account that the average citizen isn't an olympic marksman, I'd say that an assault weapon has the advantage of only requiring 1 or 2 of its 30 bullets to take down its target. Compare that to the 10 or more bullets from the 8-18 bullets in a handgun magazine required to kill a human being.

Also, you always hear people say things like 'gun control laws only restrict regular law abiding citizens from buying guns'. Do you honestly believe that everyone who has an intent to use a gun in a criminal manner has both a felony on their record and knowledge of where and how to obtain a gun illegally?

You've got to start somewhere. If they have no felonies and don't know where to obtain a gun illegally (ie they aren't a gang member) then they are most likely someone that intends to commit only one crime, like kill their wife. If they couldn't buy a gun, they'd just use something else like a knife or a brick. In a situation like that wife is going to die, gun or not.

What about people with a clean criminal record who decide to go on a shooting spree, at their workplace for example?

How often does that actually happen? The only time I can recall something like that happening was the Columbine incident and the similar incident in Germany a few years later. Theoretically, since they were dealing with crowds, those particular people could have killed just as many, if not more with a samurai sword, which are even easier to obtain than a gun:

http://store.fastknife.com/swords-samurai-...s--si...

Maybe someone should pass laws against those....

ExCyber

Sep 12, 2004

Kerry is scaring (well, trying to) people by telling them that it will encourage people to run out and buy assault weapons and that terrorists will want to come here and buy guns to kill people with. I'm serious, he was on TV earlier blabbering about it. I don't care if you love the guy or what, but come on.

FYI, that argument isn't something that the Kerry campaign just pulled out of its collective ass, it's from the Brady Campaign...:

For terrorists around the world, the United States is the Great Gun Bazaar. The Chicago Tribune reported recently that, found among the mounds of rubble at a training facility in Kabul for a radical Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization, was a manual entitled "How Can I Train Myself for Jihad" containing an entire section on "Firearms Training." Tellingly, the manual singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms and stipulates that al-Qaeda members living in the United States "obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations." Further, the manual sets forth guidelines for how would-be terrorists should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms.

If I was going to obtain a gun to mow people down, I could always do it illegally, and no ban can do jack about that.

That's only true if you have an unlimited supply of money; the ban could raise the expense of obtaining an "assault weapon" beyond what you are willing or able to pay. Generally, though, the goal of lawmakers is not to make it impossible to commit crimes, and I don't think anyone made the argument that the ban makes it impossible to obtain these weapons.

The whole thing is just symbolic. Kerry is trying to make an issue out of it.

That it's symbolic is a valid point, but that doesn't mean it's not also a valid policy issue.

those particular people could have killed just as many, if not more with a samurai sword

That doesn't sound plausible to me. Although I'm sure many people do not appreciate the amount of skill needed to effectively use firearms, I'm also pretty sure that the degree of skill, strength, stamina, and coordination required to kill a bunch of people with a gun pales in comparison with that required to kill a similar number of people with a sword.

Dud

Sep 12, 2004

Originally posted by ExCyber@Sep 12, 2004 @ 09:45 PM

That doesn't sound plausible to me. Although I'm sure many people do not appreciate the amount of skill needed to effectively use firearms, I'm also pretty sure that the degree of skill, strength, stamina, and coordination required to kill a bunch of people with a gun pales in comparison with that required to kill a similar number of people with a sword.

I disagree, it is much harder to shoot someone that it is to slice them with a sword. There are several points on the human body that if cut, will cause the person to bleed to death in a matter of minutes without immediate medical attention.

		mal	Sep 12, 2004
		It's discussions like these that make me glad that I don't live in the good old US of A.