The Corrupt Anti-Gun Industry In Action

[1a2b3c]

If it wasnt for that damn first amendment i would ask that misinformation like this be deamed illegal.

The deadly toll caused by semiautomatic assault weapons reached its zenith in the early 1990's, before the federal ban was enacted, when gang members, drug dealers and paramilitary extremists terrorized our communities. Those were the days of drive-by shootings, workplace massacres, and police shootouts.

Thank god we passed the assault weapons bans. Now america is free from drive-by shootings, workplace massacres, and police shootouts. <sarcasm>

Criminals chose assault weapons because of their rapid fire and easy concealment, and these dangerous characteristics proved a deadly combination to police officers on the street.

Yes, its much easier to conceal a semi-auto rifle as compared to a semi-auto pistol.

Assault weapons are designed with military features intended for combat, not sport.

Damn, shooting yourself in the foot. Sarah should read Miller before writing this crap.

But some unscrupulous manufacturers have sought to thwart the intent of Congress by changing the names of banned assault weapons or making slight changes to evade the military characteristics test. Unfortunately, neither the Bush nor Clinton Administrations took action to stop such dangerous conduct.

Too funny. You came up with a gun ban that was so fucking stupid that all the manufacture had to do was change the name of his gun to make it legal. And then you think the president is going to be dumb enough to mention that a law he passed is only stopping guns with a certain name from being manufactured? Like he wants voters knowing that shit. But i guess following your ban to the tee is unscrupulous

Rep. DeLay has teamed up with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to kill the Federal Assault Weapon Ban and make AK47s legal again.

No, Tom is teaming up with the NRA so that the gun can say AK47 once again and not SAR1. Didnt you read what you wrote? The AK is still made today. They just changed the name and removed a few of the military characteristics....the bayonet lug. You anti's got to be the dumbest fucking people on the planet.

And this is a my little thread on the missinformation given by the corrupt anti-gun industry.

[Catch22Dem]

1. but no link?

[DarkPhenyx]

2. They do have one thing right though.

There is absolutely no need for the common American to own the weapons that they were attempting to target with this ban. None. Period. End of statement.

Yes, it is unfortunate that some people, instead of abiding by the law, actively work to find ways around it. It borders on criminal intent, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

4. What about that old "pursuit of happiness" reason?

People who do not commit violent crimes should be allowed to own any kind of firearm they want.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Why?

Now that's a simple question isn't it?

As to the pursuit of happiness? Happiness isn't something ensconsed in the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution. It is in the Decleration of Independance. It is up to the courts, guided by the Const and the BoR, to determine what means are appropriate in that pursuit. A great many fun and happiness enhancing activities are outlawed. It's called "for the greater good".

[slackmaster]

11. You have the function of government backwards

It is up to the courts, guided by the Const and the BoR, to determine what means are appropriate in that pursuit.

Exactly wrong.

It's up to the legislature as guided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights to determine what means are NOT appropriate in the pursuit of happiness. Anything that is not specifically prohibited by due process of law is ALLOWED.

A great many fun and happiness enhancing activities are outlawed. It's called "for the greater good".

Only inherently dangerous activities should be outlawed. Having a firearm is not inherently dangerous. Carrying a glass bottle of nitroglycerin around in your pocket in public is. That's why the former is NOT banned and the latter is.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. We both have it only half right.

It would be the courts and the legislature. More and more, as it is the legislature that is failing in it's job, it is falling to the courts to correct things. Unfortunate, but true.

Smoking marijuana is illegal. It also is a PoH enhancing activity. It is no more "inherently dangerous" than drinking. However, for the "greater good", it has been made illegal...whether we agree with it or not. Finding ways to work around that law is considered illegal as well, and are punishable.

The State, whether we agree or not, has determined that the threat to the common good posed by "assault weapons" outweighs any "need" or "PoH" concerns.

[slackmaster]

13. Not quite right on"assault weapons"

The State, whether we agree or not, has determined that the threat to the common good posed by "assault weapons" outweighs any "need" or "PoH" concerns.

The state determined that it would be in the public interest to try defining assault weapons and banning the manufacturing of new ones for ordinary citizens for 10 years. That ban has not had any kind of measurable impact on public safety, either for better or for worse. The experiment has failed and in the interests of the PoH should be allowed to expire on schedule.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. I disagree.

Please show me your numbers that cause you to form that conclusion. Remember to point out that the arms manufacturers willfully worked around the law, IOW broke the law through technicalities and loopholes.

[slackmaster]

15. Burden of proof

The null hypothesis is always formatted like "X has no effect..." with the responsibility of finding an effect falling on the researchers. If no effect can be proved then the conclusion is that there is no effect or there is not information to tell whether or not an effect exists. Information on types of weapons used in crimes is available. Here is a sample:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm



Without attempting the kind of deep statistical analysis one would need to say whether or not the AWB had any effect, my eye tells me that the overall homicide rate started dropping before the AWB took effect in late 1994 and that firearms other than handguns (including shotguns, the second most popular type of crime gun) have become less popular among murderers at about the same rate as knives and blunt objects. If you look around you will find that rifles (a subset of which accounts for most AWs) are used in about 2% of gun-related crimes and that figure has remained pretty constant over the years. Clearly no "smoking gun" there. If there was some kind of obvious improvement attributable to the AWB I'm sure someone with the time and resources would have done it by now. But all the AWB enthusiasts have is anecdotes and numbers that are probably too small to be useful for any statistically meaninfgul analysis.

Remember to point out that the arms manufacturers willfully worked around the law, IOW broke the law through technicalities and loopholes.

Spin away. The manufacturers have scrupulously followed the letter of the law in order to stay in business selling some of their most popular products. Grumbling and griping about "loopholes" makes a poor substitute for acknowledging that a law was poorly written. The AWB is all about appearance and has nothing to do with functionality. That is obvious, as some semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable box magazines are covered and others are not. The Ruger Mini-14 is specifically named as not being an AW, which also suggests that political considerations not at all related to utility of the weapons played a role in the drafting of the AWB.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. Following the "letter of the law"...

...does not equal following the law. You know that as well as I. C'mon. You are starting to argue like a conservative.

[slackmaster]

20. AWB is so poorly written I don't see how anyone can defend it

If the authors wanted to ban more than they did, then why did they write the law the way they did?

The intent was to "do something" about "assault weapons". But to ban something that has not been previously defined, the law has to include a definition. The definition provided is weak. The AWB barely passed as it was written; and without the 10-year sunset clause or with a "one evil feature" definition rather than the "two evil feature" clause it would have affected TOO MANY GUN OWNERS and would have failed. So like most laws it is a compromise.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I see the AWB as an unjustified and pointless restriction on individual liberty.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. Which I agree with in principle.

Which only tells me taht it not only needs to be re-up'd but it needs to be strengthened. Prehaps even broadened. *shrug*

[slackmaster]

51. Same old conflict as with all "prior restraint" type laws

If you push too hard you end up with nothing.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. You also have yet to establish "need".

I realize you can't, and it dosen't support your argument. I have yet to meet anyone who could give a sound and reasoned argument for "need". Even the discussion of constitutional right dosen't work because, as we all well know, not even those rights are absolute and inviolate.

[slackmaster]

18. I have no need to establish need

Back to that one again. Neither you nor I actually need most of what we own. Burden is always on those who would BAN an object to demonstrate a public safety interest that is compelling enough to override the value of freedom of choice.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. Yes you do.

You also must prove that your need outweighs public good. The people placing the ban did make their case. Had they not the ban would not have been put in place. Funny how that works.

[slackmaster]

21. It's the other way around

Under our system of laws every activity, every possible thing is allowed unless it has been OUTlawed by due process.

The people placing the ban did make their case. Had they not the ban would not have been put in place. Funny how that works.

Yes, they made their case for an experimental 10-year ban. Anyone is free to try to justify another ban. Without anyone taking action the ban will go away as it was designed (by committee) to do.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. and the ban should be re-instated and made permenant.

as there is no need to do otherwise. see how simple that was? Thank you for helping me to make my point.

[slackmaster]

23. I respect your opinion but don't buy your rationale

You don't have to justify government INaction, only action.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. which is also a point that should be taken up.

government inaction results in annual raises for our representatives. Don't you think that should be justified?

[slackmaster]

27. Action was required to put those automatic raises in place

Without any action to raise salaries, Senators would still be making $6 per diem as they were in 1789.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm

[DarkPhenyx]

30. however continued inaction....

....allows them to continue automatically. Yes, yes...I am aware of the background. Do you honestly think that they would still be making $6/day? *snort* Not bloody likely.

[slackmaster]

33. This is pretty far OT but there's good and bad to the auto pay raises

Having the raises occur automatically eliminated the time-honored tradition of having Congress get into a big to-do about it every election year. As long as the raises are calculated in a manner that compensates for cost of living and does not result in an ever-increasing standard of living for them I think having them occur automatically is fine.

[Superfly]

24. Can you clarify, what *you* believe the ban bans?

NT

[slackmaster]

26. Thanks Superfly, I forgot to ask that one

Always good for a laugh if nothing else, since very few among us really understand it.

:evilgrin:

[DarkPhenyx]

28. ok, since you ask...

OK, so SuperFly asked nicely. :)

Text deleted and link provided. It's near the bottom of the page.

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

[slackmaster]

29. Hey, that's cheating

Posting the actual sections of the United States Code. For shame! It's much more fun when people attempt to explain it in their own words.

What are you trying to do, DP, have an honest debate on this subject?

[DarkPhenyx]

31. ah, I might leave something out though.

can't have that.

I usually try for an honest debate.

[DarkPhenyx]

35. and something to really make you wonder....

...I'm pro gun ownership too.

[the_acid_one]

52. Re: Something to make you wonder

Quote: I'm pro gun ownership too.


I guess that's something else we disagree on.

[Superfly]

34. I asked for your words...

but since you posted the entire code...

Of the 2 weapons pictured below, which one is banned and which one is not? (Try to answer this on your own)

[DarkPhenyx]

36. No, you asked what I thought was banned.

I gave you my answer.

now, as to your second, pointless, question...the one on the bottom becasue of the bayonet lug.

Now ask me which ones I think should be. No, I'll save the band-width. Both should be.

[slackmaster]

37. Let's cut straght to the chase

Given that you would ban assault weapons for reasons you have stated clearly enough IMO, how would you define "assault weapon"?

[DarkPhenyx]

39. And that is where the question really comes in.

while I don't have the specifics all worked out in my head it is falling along the lines of limits on semi-auto vs bolt action and similar weapons, integral vs. detachable magazine, caliber...*shrug* It isn't an all weapons vs. no weapons argument. There is a nice median ground. Just like there is with cars, and drinking, and a myriad other issues that have limits and regulations attached to them.

[slackmaster]

48. OK, why do you think the present limits are broken?

Prior to the AWB we already had limits and regulations on firearms design.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 and pursuant regulations set limits on barrel length, overall length, and other measures for rifles and shotguns regardless of the type of action. For handguns there are limits on size and weight. Calibers over .5 inch are generally destructive devices and as heavily regulated as machineguns.

My position is that we ARE at a nice median ground right now. I always ask people who think the line should be moved two questions: Where would you move it to, and why? If you're serious about this topic I think it would be prudent to work out those specifics. The pending demise of the AWB is a done deal. Anyone who wants to replace it needs to be very specific. Obviously the AWB we got did not fulfill the intent of its authors. They hadn't thought things through very well and failed to consult with technical experts. Without expert advise lawmakers cannot write good code on technical subjects.

[Superfly]

38. So, your answer is a rote recitation of the applicable

federal code? You must have photographic memory.

The bottom one (in the previous post) is still in production and available to sale to LEOs and military. It is not available to the public (post 1994) because it is an AR-15 (which is banned by name, and has nothing to do with the bayonet lug)

OK...which one of these should be banned and why?

[DarkPhenyx]

40. The bayonet lug also makes it banned. n/t

[Superfly]

41. The AR-15 is banned by name.

Then, a <generic> weapon that is made with 2 or more of the features listed is banned.

Do you want to answer the question above?

[DarkPhenyx]

42. NO, not particularly.

It's easy to design questions that will make someone fail.

The easy answer is the top one "cuz it scary looking" or the bottom one becasue it's the obvious answer. In either case it is irrelivant to the question at hand.

[Superfly]

43. Deflection, nice move...

The point I was going to make is that both fire essentialy the same bullet with each trigger pull. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same weapon and that is why the AWB is feelgood legislation that needs to die a horrible and *PUBLIC* death.

[DarkPhenyx]

44. surprise I disagree.

the code is full of feel good laws. none of them should be struck down based solely on that flaw. If the law is flawed, but essentially good, then you improve it. That improvement and strengthing needs to be horribly public. Loud and vocal and permenant.

You are leaving a few differences out between the two weapons presented, BTW.

[Superfly]

45. The thing is, the AWB *will* cease to exist next year.

and I, for one, will be happy when it does. This is a shitty law, not "essentially good" and fundamentaly flawed, and it *will* die next year.

There are no "loopholes" as you allege, rather, the law is poorly written and does nothing to "ban" weapons.

[DarkPhenyx]

46. and it shouldn't die.

It is an excellent idea that was poorly written. It should be re-written after it is re-instated to ban the weapons and made stronger. There is no public need for the weapons that were intended to be taken off the market. None at all. There is a public good served by removing them.

[Superfly]

47. Once again..need...I'll thank you not to dictate

your concepts of what I need to me.

[the_acid_one]

50. Broke the law...

...by following it?

Thats rich.

A law bans rifles named "ar-15" so they STOP making rifles named "ar-15".

A law bans having a bayonet lug AND a pistol grip. So they ditch the bayonet lug.

Sounds like "following the law" to me.

Now, you might not like the way they follow the law. But the fact is, they did. If they didnt follow the law the BATF would be on them like white on rice on a paper plate with maggots in it.

I certainly love the way you describe following the law as breaking the law through "technicalities and a loophole".

I'd certainly like to know which technicalities and what loophole.


I guess if nothing else...this ban certianly helped prove that firearms manufacturers are smarter then the idiots that passed it.

[slackmaster]

53. It did a lot more than prove gun makers are smarter than Congress people

It spurred development of a much wider array of ban-compliant (a.k.a. "post-ban") equipment than was available before the ban.

http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/uppers/post-ban/Default.asp

The ban led to a lot more people getting interested in sporting firearms and even competitive shooting, to say nothing of the gathering tidal wave of gun rights supporters who have also leveraged the coincident rise of the World Wide Web, email, etc. as communications media.

The AWB was a weak and poorly timed attempt to divide an conquer.

[the_acid_one]

54. I'll second that....

:toast:

I never would have gotten involved in firearms if not for the AW ban. I wanted to get them before Uncle Sam got his licks in.

I also probably wouldnt have gotten involved in politics.

A year ago, I didnt care. Now that I see what's at stake I am starting to get involved.

[MrSandman]

56. Banning hi-cap mags

also breathed life back into the .45ACP and spurred development of 10mm/.40. Why have a 10+1 9 when there are 8+1.45s w/ same general dimensions?

[MrSandman]

55. The DoJ provided the numbers

"2% of inmates carried a military-style semiautomatic or machine gun"
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Not a very big "Bite out of Crime."

And everyone knows criminals will be first in line to return so-called assault weapons.

[DonP]

8. It ain't about "need"

I hate that word "Need", as in "No one needs" ... .

My group has decided that you and your group do not "need" the car you want to buy and that you may not buy the house in the neighborhood you want to live in until we determine if you really need to live there.

Our group, guiding the appropriate benevolent government regulatory bodies, will determine what type of car you need and what kind of car will make people feel safer. You driving record is irrelevant. We will determine, for the common good of course, what you should be driving and give you permission to purchase that car and that kind of car alone.

We will also tell you where you should be living. Oh wait we used to do that and called it "redlining".

If I haven't broken the law in any way, why should I have to prove a "need" to you or anyone else to own a legal product?

I own a very nice collection of WW II battle rifles that I don't "need". All of them are far more powerful than what people refer to as assault weapons that use a medium sized cartridge. Last time I looked the rifles and I present no threat to the security of my neighbors or the community at large.

[DarkPhenyx]

10. Need is important in the discussion.

Saying otherwise is dis-ingenous. Need comes into play in most of the decisions made by the courts and the government.

[the_acid_one]

49. Right? No, Their opinion just coincides with yours.

That doesnt make it "right".

Lets start out with an essay on what individuals "need".

Water.
Food.
A liveable enviornment. (IE, presence of oxygen, no poison gases floating around, etc)

Hell, you dont even "need" your legs.

If you're so concerned about people only having what they "need" and not having access to "assault weapons", go live in prison. There's no guns there, and every other weapon is banned to.

Just imagine how safe prison must be...

Can you imagine?

Oh, wait, No, prison sucks and it's horrible and violent. Do you want to know why prison is horrible and violent?

Hint...it's not the easy availabilty of weapons. It's because society dictates the ammount of violence.
Not the weapons available.

The pro-gun stance is simple...It's about citizens having the freedom to own weapons if they want to, you can choose not to.

The anti-gun stance is just the opposite. It's about forcing your beliefs down everyone elses throat. Anti-choice on sexual preferance, anti-choice on abortion, anti-choice on prefered weapon. It's all the same.

You're welcome to your opinion, I'm welcome to mine. But keep your opinions out of my business.

At such time when "assault weapons" are used in more then say...oh...10% of crimes, as opposed to now, where they're used in about 1% of crimes, then maybe there will be a sound basis for the ban.

Want a ban on semi-automatic rifles? Great. Provide a better reason for it then "citizens dont need...."

Untill that happens anyone who is pro-AW ban can go fuck themselves right to hell. ;)

[MrBenchley]

3. And what a steaming pantload it was, too......

[slackmaster]

5. $3 fine for that one

Two dollars for not just one but TWO frivolous ellipses, plus another dollar for lack of content.

[demsrule4life]

6. So the rules only allow four dots?

need to know payday not till friday. :)

[slackmaster]

7. Four dots only if the first one is a properly-placed period

The only formal uses for an ellipsis are to indicate that part of a quoted piece of text has been omitted, or to indicate that a quoted speaker hesitated or trailed off without completing a sentence, e.g. "What's that giant ant-like creature coming over the..."