Pro AWB folks, please explain

[waylon]

Why do you support the AWB? After reading the actual definitions in the ban, I cannot see how anyone would be inspired to support it. For one, it has nothing to do with regulating the lethality of a weapon. Second, it focuses on cosmetics rather than on functionality. And last, it seems to focus ONLY on magazine capacity, not ballistics.

I would think that gun control advocates would be the MOST vocal opponents to this ban as it has very little impact on what they claim to be most concerned with, lethality. What have I missed in the argument?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

5. I can't really speak for them, but...

(Edited to add clarification)


The antis like it because it is one more step on the slippery slope. The antis are really interested in banning guns and confiscating them. Some claim to be for "reasonable" gun control, but won't define what reasonable is. I believe that these people are really just gun grabbers.

Okay, but if you think about it, who isn't for gun control? Does anyone believe that there aren't lines to be drawn, and that anyone may have any kind of weaponry whatsoever? Once we've agreed in principle to any restrictions on the kinds of weapons citizens may have, we've accepted that a lot of what we may have argued as fundamental rights questions are actually plain old policy questions. If that's so, then that slippery slope you warn of looms -- already behind us.

The antis don't care if there anti self defense measures have any affect on crime, they don't care at all.

Yeah, this is one of my beefs, too. There are all these notionally appealing (but poorly reasoned and empirically unsupported) policy recommendations floating around in government. All kinds of factions generate them -- not just pro-gun control folks.

(And I want to add that I don't think you can demonstrate that antis "don't care at all" about crime rates. Just say that you think they aren't very diligent in making sure that their proposals will actually affect crime rates.)


All they want is to continue the march towards a nation wide criminal protection zone.


Thing is, I haven't yet heard anyone say that his main reason for wanting gun control is to allow criminals free reign. I think the argument usually goes that measures that shrink the legal market for guns will lead to sharp reductions in the numbers of gun produced, and that this will in turn reduce the supply of guns available for diversion to the criminal sector. At least, that's how I understood it. I'm not an anti, and I don't want to put words in their mouths.


Mary

[FatSlob]

7. My rhetoric

All they want is to continue the march towards a nation wide criminal protection zone.


Thing is, I haven't yet heard anyone say that his main reason for wanting gun control is to allow criminals free reign. I think the argument usually goes that measures that shrink the legal market for guns will lead to sharp reductions in the numbers of gun produced, and that this will in turn reduce the supply of guns available for diversion to the criminal sector. At least, that's how I understood it. I'm not an anti, and I don't want to put words in their mouths.
*********************************************************

Well Mary, of course they don't want to give crooks free reign, my rhetoric got the best of me. However, I believe that the best way to defend against crime is to have an armed populace. Others think differently, that gun control will keep criminals from engaging in criminal behaviour.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Because there is no need for the weapons.

As they serve no real need or purpose, and the potential benefit to the public great enough, the ban should not only stand but be strengthened.

[Superfly]

3. I'll thank you not to prescribe my needs.

And I, for one, cannot wait for this piece of junk feel-good legislation to die later this year.

[DarkPhenyx]

11. OK, so...

...maybe you can tell me why you "need" an assault waepon. Noone else has been able to. Everyone of them fail miserably. If you can't do it don't even try.

[FeebMaster]

36. need

haha

[DarkPhenyx]

45. Yeah, it is pretty laughable...

...that in the absense of need there is no argument for scraping the AW ban. I giggle about that all the time.

[beevul]

65. Everything not prohibited is allowed.

Legally speaking, anything not prohibited is allowed. The burden in justifying a ban falls on those who support it, rather than those who oppose it haveing to justify any way shape size or form of "need".

That being said, how do you justify the AW ban(either in current form or strengthened)?

What great public good can be shown that it serves?

[DarkPhenyx]

80. Please keep reading...

...and you might catch up to the conversation.

[beevul]

95. I don't see how...

posting the questions farther down in the thread will add to thier relivancy, or your willingness to answer them - or not.



That being said, how do you justify the AW ban(either in current form or strengthened)?

What great public good can be shown that it serves?


The championers of any ban are the ones that "need" to show a "need" here, and in congress.

[FeebMaster]

Oh,

I have to laugh at need nazis. Their philosophy is so morally bankrupt, really, what else can you do? After all, laughing about them is better than thinking about them being in charge. What does a person need a car with a 400hp engine for when an 80hp go-cart will do? What does a person need a thick, tasty steak for when a tasteless gruel will do?

I suppose that once you become Minister of Needs, you'll sort out all the problems with people having things they don't need. How will you define a need I wonder? If 50% plus one of the people need something is everyone going to get to enjoy it or just the ones that need it? Maybe you'll do it on a case by case basis. Maybe you'll just decide that since you, personally, don't need something, that no one else needs it either. Personally I can't wait for the day, I'm sure it will all be very progressive.


*insert massively long rant about freedom and liberty and all of that good stuff. maybe make mention of the pursuit of happiness or something nah, what's the point*

[DarkPhenyx]

82. Unfortunately your argument against the "need" factor fails.

fails miserably in fact. Sad, but true. Then again it's very similar to every argument against the AWB that I have yet to see. So no worries. You are in large company.

[FeebMaster]

91. What argument?

I didn't make one. At least, I didn't intend to make one. If I did make one, then I am truly sorry. I was just trying to get the point across that I hate need nazis in general and that their philosophy makes me physically ill.

[DarkPhenyx]

96. Ah, so you admit that ...

...you can't defeat the need argument and so you choose to try and sidestep it instead.

[FeebMaster]

103. I admit only

that the need argument and it's proponents make me physically ill.

[DarkPhenyx]

105. losing will do that to you.

ask the carolina panthers.

[FeebMaster]

118. losing what? (nt)

...

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FeebMaster]

123. What's a slide rile? (nt)

...

[DarkPhenyx]

125. It would be a typo.

Meant to say slide rule.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

134. Yup!

That there is.

[Superfly]

68. I'll tell you what I don't need...

and that is I don't need to have to explain my choices and desires to you. I do not answer to you and your demand that I do is laughable.

You don't fuck with my rights and I won't fuck with yours, deal?

[DarkPhenyx]

78. No, no deal.

Sorry. You don't live in a completely free society, and you do not have any absolute rights and freedoms.

[MrSandman]

102. What is the neeed for an AWB...

[Superfly]

114. Maybe, but the day I answer to some pseudonym on

a website will be a cold day in hell.

[DarkPhenyx]

122. *ROFL*

too funny. thanks for amusing me yet again.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

137. And if I did, that would be none of your business.

Just like my desire to own an AW for whatever need I have is none of your business.

[DarkPhenyx]

140. and I like to smoke dope...

...which is none of your business.

[Superfly]

142. Are you smoking it right now...

because you're losing me....

[DarkPhenyx]

147. Not surprised.

C'mon, SF, you know better.

We've had this discussion before and actually come to an accord...unless I am mistaken. That is, of course, very possible.

[Superfly]

150. What color is the sky?

Answer: False...

Think about that while you're smoking out...

[DarkPhenyx]

153. Dude! It's a purple haze.

damn...you don't know that?

:roll:

[FeebMaster]

146. I hope

you have a need for it and not just a want.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

152. So are guns and alcohol.

then again fishing and alcohol is not a smart move either.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

157. So you have no argument against my points.

You decide to resort to personal, and flawed, attacks. Thank you for admiting that I win.

[waylon]

161. You have neither an argument nor the tools to make one

Still waiting on the original question, why support the AWB. And what is your definition of AW

[DarkPhenyx]

168. Because there is no reason not to.

Ther eis absolutely no reason to remove it.

[waylon]

172. Yes, there is... It doesnt DO anything...

Aside from taking sporting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[DarkPhenyx]

179. your opinion.

other opinoin says it take weapons, that sportsmen have no ligitimate use for, out of the hands of everyone who dosen't need them. As the sportsmen have yet to show a ligitimate need or even a good reason, to have these weapons then the ban should stand.

[MrSandman]

163. I fail to see a need for AWB's expressed...

The call for prior restraint demands justification.

[DarkPhenyx]

180. I have yetr to see a need for it to not exist.

A need for permissivness needs explaination as well. I think it's called asking for permission.

[-..__...]

159. You're worried....

I'm sitting here a bit astounded that a thread here has actually made it to 150+ posts and only one deleted messages. This has to be a first

[DarkPhenyx]

149. What, dope?

My statement would be called a rhetorical argument.

[FeebMaster]

156. If you say so.

While I have your attention here, maybe you could tell us all what need a person could possibly have for five guns. It was asked way down at the bottom of this thread somewhere. Maybe you missed it.

[Hrumph]

75. Simple

To take part in the Service Rifle matches I compete in about once every couple months.

Just out of curiosity... Perhaps you can tell me what sorts of firearms you think people DO "need."

[DarkPhenyx]

84. Sport...

...does not count as need. People love fighting dogs for sport, but it is still illegal.

[leanings]

165. Rifle comps aren't illegal. n/t

[MrSandman]

167. Straw Man

[DarkPhenyx]

169. Ah yes...because you say so.

thanks.

[jimsteuben]

88. who needs an "assault weapon"?

What if riots break out, you call 9-11, and get a busy signal? Like Los Angeles in 1994.

http://tinyurl.com/ywxrx
http://tinyurl.com/3h2sa

I hope that I never need any kind of weapon, just as I hope that I never need to use the fire extinguisher in my closet.

[DarkPhenyx]

90. AW's are actually more of a danger in a roiot...

...than they are a help.

[MrSandman]

93. Tell the LA shopowners

[DarkPhenyx]

98. OK, I will.

Hey, LA shopowners? You should have had a good shotgun or a handgun. OK?

[Columbia]

101. Aye DarkPhenyx

Darn, my shop burned down during the LA riots anyway. There goes my livelihood and here comes bankruptcy.

Thanks DarkPhenyx!

[DarkPhenyx]

111. Yer welcome. n/t

[Columbia]

124. That was sarcasm

But it's truly enlightening to know you don't care about those threatened shopowners.

[DarkPhenyx]

143. *l*

so was my response. not surprised you missed it.

your answer was insipid and useless though.

other weapons would have been far better for defending your store than anything covered under the AW ban. Please. You aren't even trying on this one.

[Columbia]

148. Like what?

I think semi-auto rifles are much more effective tools against multiple enemy targets attempting to close with and engage you.

A shotgun or handgun would be at an eminent disadvantage to a semi-auto rifle.

[DarkPhenyx]

162. Gee.

Every personal experience I've had proves otherwose. So do most shooting videos. Shotguns give you multiple close range tagets in one shoit. Bolt action has a higher acuracy rate. Handguns have a beter ability in very close combat.

[MrSandman]

109. The AR's did the job, but

Thanks anyway

[DarkPhenyx]

116. the AR...

...which is a versihn of the M-16, is a useless piece of shit. It throws a slug no better than a .22 and is less accurate on semi-auto.

[Columbia]

117. M-26? What's that? I want it!

Oh and if it's so useless, why ban it?

[beevul]

128. Reminder: The .223 round...

travels forever.:eyes:

That is all.:evilgrin:

[DarkPhenyx]

129. When was the last time you actually used one?

Hell, ban it because it is a piece of shit and you can chalk it up as a "consumer protection" law.

[FeebMaster]

133. Don't forget

to throw in the obligatory exemption for the police and other government agencies.

[DarkPhenyx]

136. Of course.

Some things are a given. But I'd issue an AK to my police forces.

[waylon]

139. What the hell are you talking about?

[Superfly]

145. Please refer to post #140 for your answer...

[Columbia]

135. Actually

I've never used an AR-15. I have used an M16A2 however. That was about six months ago and it served me well (when kept clean).

So, which is it? Ban it because of perceived lethality or because perceived obsolescence?

[DarkPhenyx]

138. Both.

The m16 is a piece of shit and need to be replaced in the military.

[Columbia]

141. Really?

Please enlighten us on your extensive experience with the M16 series rifle in combat.

And FYI, your answer of "both" is contradictory.

[waylon]

144. LOL, keep going

Like the chinese made AK's do ya.... Im quite sure you are familar with both, and everything else brought up.

[DarkPhenyx]

155. Ever fired an AK in combat conditions? n/t

[waylon]

164. LOL no, but im quite sure you have...

what havent you done?

[DarkPhenyx]

171. A great many thing.

I've never given birth for example.

[waylon]

174. You mean, until the abortion debate..... right? LOL

Im quite sure you have vast experience with that issue also.

[DarkPhenyx]

183. In fact I do.

On both sides of the argument. The decision to keep and trhe decision to abort. Both decision were not easy, nor were they taken lightly. Now, waht was your point again?

[Superfly]

173. This should be good....

[alwynsw]

175. We're all atwitter to see this!

[MrSandman]

158. So listing them as an AW

is a POS law

[waylon]

130. Who are you tryin to BS? You dont know what an AW is....

No difference between an AW and any shotgun, pistol or deer rifle, other than cosmetics/capacities.

Keep tryin though

[DarkPhenyx]

160. *l*

thank you for playing. go to bed now.

[waylon]

166. no no, thank YOU for turning a serious question into a ....

monument of ignorance and bullshit.

[DarkPhenyx]

178. There actually is a difference.

It is a great deal of rhetoric that makes the difference seem to be null and void. Kinda like the difference between WMD's and WMD programs. Please, I beg you, don't use their argument style when it serves your purpose. It only make you no better thanthey are.

[waylon]

182. Clearly you dont know the differences, and you have taken their tactics

to heart. Rhetoric seems to be your only weapon, ineffective as it is.

[DarkPhenyx]

186. as the lack of any argument at all...

...is the defense of the anti AW-ban crowd.

[alwynsw]

185. What is your basis for that claim?

More dangerous to whom - the rioters? I would hope so if that's the case. Wait! Let's use a shotgun loaded with 00 buck. The shooter doesn't get a square hit or chooses a target too far downrange. Yeah, that's better. Instead of single projectiles, we have up to 30 of them with the potential to strike innocents.

[DarkPhenyx]

187. failed logic again.

at what range are most guns fired in self defense? what is the legal context for self defense?

[waylon]

4. The same could be said for cars

Could it not? We dont NEED them, they serve no real purpose that couldnt be fulfilled by other means. And the casualty numbers could be reduced much more by banning cars than banning guns.

I would argue that there is a purpose for guns but the car analogy will suit me for now.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. And I'll agree with you too, except...

Unfortunately cars are necessary in the modern economy. If you can come up with a good way to make them unnecessary then I'll be happy to agree with your point. UNtil then you are wrong.

[waylon]

14. No, cars arent necessary, they are preferred

We can get from A to B by walking. If you didnt have a car at your disposal, you wouldnt have a job 30 miles away. Unfortunate yes, but not having a car wouldnt stop the world turning.

[DarkPhenyx]

15. Actually it would.

or at least it would as the world exists now. Cars would cause many common diseses now to not find cures. they would cause a serious rise in human mortality. Poverty, starvation, et. al.

Unfortunately they are necessary these days. I seriously wish they weren't.

[waylon]

17. That is stretching logic a bit

How would banning cars cause poverty, starvation and a rise in human mortality? Mind you, Im not talking about all means of conveyence powered by internal combustion, only cars.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. How many people are delivered to ER's...

...with life threatening diseases and injuries every day in POV's? Mothers giving birth?

[MrSandman]

22. Okay, don't ban cars...

What is the need for a car which will exceed 75 mph.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. I agree.

So, what's your pooint?

[MrSandman]

31. Need is not the end-all

[DarkPhenyx]

35. No, it isn't.

However it is a big part of the argument. w/o "need" other factors take precident.

[MrSandman]

37. So the need for a strengtened AWB is...

[DarkPhenyx]

42. Correction of the problems in current legislation.

however, in the absense of that level of review it is better to leave the current legislation in place rather than scrap it all together.

[waylon]

46. How should it be corrected?

Id like to hear from someone knowledgeable about guns, particularly AW.

[DarkPhenyx]

50. That is the catch.

No changes are going to please the Gun Lobby though. That's the real catch point. To be honest, I don't have the answer. This is something to be worked out by a group.

[waylon]

54. Which group?

the fact is, there are no reasonable answers

[DarkPhenyx]

58. There are always reasonable answers.

The point is that there are precious few good answers that please anyone, let alone everyone.

[waylon]

64. Id just like ONE reasonable answer

so far, all i have heard is that the reason for the AWB is that....oh yeah, no one has profered that.

If someone could please expalain to me what the logic behind this ban is, I would be satisfied.

[DarkPhenyx]

77. OK, here it is.

AWB's are not needed in the American system. Removing them removes a set of weapons from our society that we do not need. Just like switchblades and grenades. Does it fix the problem? No. Does it help? Maybe. Can it do more if properly written? Absolutely.

[FeebMaster]

79. What about

people who need switchblades and grenades?

[DarkPhenyx]

86. Establish the need...

...and I'll buy your argument.

[waylon]

94. Until you can define what it is, there can be no need established

I defy you to explain what separates grandpa's deer rifle from what you term an Assualt weapon.

[DarkPhenyx]

100. Magazine feed in a long rifle.

That's a good start.

Semi auto, or full auto, in a long rifle as opposed to a bolt action.

[waylon]

115. Oh you are so wrong

Magazine fed is not part of the AWB unless you mean capacity, nor is semi auto...or full auto. Full auto falls under other legislation.

This is indicative of your ignorance.....
"in a long rifle as opposed to a bolt action."



Do we need to address this guy any more folks?

[DarkPhenyx]

120. As I said the AWB need work...

...till somthing better is offered it need to stand.

[waylon]

81. Ok, why arent they needed?

I can offer self defense as an answer as to why they are, but I would like to know why you can assert with such conviction why they arent needed.

[DarkPhenyx]

92. AW's are actually less use in self defense...

...than a decent shot gun or a good pistol.

Next argument?

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

108. Nope.

[Columbia]

112. Then you have no authority telling me what I need for defense

Neither does Jeff Cooper for that matter. ;)

[waylon]

107. That is an assault weapon. You are mistaken

A decent shotgun, and a pistol, both fall under the AWB. See, its about cosmetics, magazine or clip sizes.

My Mossberg becomes an assualt weapon after I take the saw to it.

next argument

[DarkPhenyx]

110. Actually they dont't.

That would be rhetoric.

[DarkPhenyx]

104. all I need to do is show that...

...your argument is flawed. after that i have no more need, or desire, to discuss that point.

[waylon]

119. wrong again

you need to prove the need and efficacy of the ban, or it will go down the tubes

[MrSandman]

57. There has been ten years for review...

is that not the purpose of sunset provisions?

[DarkPhenyx]

60. That and...

...sucking up to strong PAC's in order to get controversial legislation passed.

[MrSandman]

62. It got passed...

If it is controversial, shouldn't proponentd be ready with a review indicating need?

[-..__...]

73. Problem with the current legislation...

Is that it seeks to correct a problem that doesn't exist. Sound bytes from the Brady Campaign/MMM/VPC stating "need" as justification for legislation is a poor example and excuse for their cause.

[waylon]

26. How many lives are lost BECAUSE of POV's? n/t

wanna trade?

[DarkPhenyx]

28. Yes, I know that too.

But as there is a need for POV's in the modern world, but not for AW's, I would posit that a single loss by AW's is equal to...oh...10,000 POV deaths? Rough guess. Other opinions might vary.

[waylon]

40. Fuzzy logic

And no, there is not a NEED for cars, there is a desire for convenience. Horses still work, just messier.

Not sure how you equate one death to 10,000. Are you making a value judgement on that? Death from drunk driving isnt noteworthy, but death from an AW is?

The disturbing fact is, you probably have the actual ratio correct. There ARE about 10k car deaths to every AW death in this country.

[DarkPhenyx]

43. Ah...not so fuzzy.

How many lives were saved by AW's?

[waylon]

47. Is that the test? Thats easy.....

how many lives were saved by microwaves?

[DarkPhenyx]

49. How many lives have been cost by MW's?

as opposed to simple stupidity.

For what it's worth I cook on a stove and rarely use a MW. I woudln't miss it.

[waylon]

59. Now we are getting somewhere...

Explain your need for a stove

[DarkPhenyx]

74. Don't really need one.

I actually learned to cook over an open fire. I also don't need a knife to eat a steak. Teeth are great for that.

[waylon]

76. You have an answer for everything

Cook on an open fire, own guns, wearing the same britches for 20 years....how DO you do it?


Hmmm, methinks your logic backfired on ya!

[DarkPhenyx]

89. No, I don't have an answer for everything.

I stil can't tell you how to exceed the speed of light, though instinctively I know it can be done.

How do I do it? Simple. I'm me.

[Columbia]

87. Good

Please send your guns, stove, knives, all food unrelated to daily rations, and all clothing beyond one set to me for proper disposal.

Thank you citizen.

[Columbia]

151. Still awaiting said prohibited items...

[alwynsw]

9. True assault weapons have been very tightly controlled since 1934

The '94 ban affected not one single AW.

I'm with Superfly. Please do not attempt tp prescribe my needs.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Explain your need...

...or fail like theothers. It's a simple task really...which noone has passed yet.

[waylon]

16. Why do we have to explain a NEED?

How is that requirement helpful? It doesnt make the ban any less invalid.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. Sure it does.

If there is an actual "need" then there is far more weight bend your argument than if it is a simple want. Take marijuana. Lots of folks want it legal. T'aint legal because there really isn't a "need". Some folks have a need even, and it still isn't legal, completely legal, for them.

[Columbia]

21. Let's turn the tables on this one

How would you like it if someone tried to dictate your needs to you? Do you need that new flatscreen TV? How about a car that goes over 65 mph? Do you need to buy new clothes when you can mend your old ones? Do you need to have a computer or internet access?

I'd say all those things are strictly desires that have no basis in necessity whatsoever. In fact, I'd go as far as that AW's are much more of a necessity for protection of self, family, and community than any personal frills one partakes in on a daily basis.

If you don't want your needs dictating by others, stop trying to dictate our needs please.

[MrSandman]

24. Beat me to the speed deal...

;-)

[DarkPhenyx]

27. ok, I'll answer.

"Do you need that new flatscreen TV?"

No. This would be why I don't own one.

"How about a car that goes over 65 mph?"

Again no.

"Do you need to buy new clothes when you can mend your old ones?"

No, I don't. BTW, I still wear jeans I had back in highschool. I'm 36 years old.

"Do you need to have a computer or internet access?"

Yes. It is also a want. Need for work, want for personal use.

"If you don't want your needs dictating by others, stop trying to dictate our needs please."

People tel you what you need everyday. Don't fool yourself. Since I answered your questions please answer mine.

Yes, I know you can't.

[waylon]

32. I think the point is, we dont need to define our needs, do we?

I commend you on wearing the same britches for 18 years, btw.

AW are not MORE lethal than other guns. You have been taught that AW, or guns in general, are somehow intrinsically evil. Dont fool yourself. Guns, like cars, are tools, nothing more and nothing less. My 15 yo is also afraid of driving, but I wont let his fear rule the day.

[DarkPhenyx]

48. I happen to own five guns.

I've been a shooter since I was 6.

AW's are more lethal, when properly defined, in certain situations. Handguns are more so in other situations.

[waylon]

51. Wrong answer....

A hacksaw and a hose clam turns grandpas shotgun into an "assault weapon" No more lethal than before, just illegal!

I own many guns myself. That inspired the question. Why is my 308 less of a danger than an AR 15? Certainly not stopping power or range or accuracy. Cosmetics?


Why are assualt weapons more lethal?

[DarkPhenyx]

56. You want my answer to be wrong.

You also ignore other factors in the modifications to the 308 that have nothing to do with it's ammunition.

[waylon]

66. Like what other factors, cosmetics?

That is the issue, cosmetics is what the AWB is all about!!!!

It has nothing to do with lethality.

[Superfly]

69. Do you have any idea what you are talking about

or are you just going to spew Million Mom March talking points?

"AWs are 'more lethal'", etc.

[Columbia]

52. With friends like you...

So if something is more lethal, it should be banned right?

[beevul]

85. Playing the devils advocate...

"I happen to own five guns."

Do you need all 5?

If so, why do you need them?

[FeebMaster]

113. Let's face it.

A person really only needs one gun. You can only shoot one at a time after all. If it turns out later you need a different gun, well you can always turn your current one in and get it.

[Columbia]

33. Well done

How about I take away all those things you don't need then? Really, besides food and basic shelter and clothing, you don't need anything.

"People tel you what you need everyday. Don't fool yourself."

Fool myself? Who tells me what I need? The gov't? Marketers? If the world truly went by your standards then you'd have to explain a reason for needing everything you want to own and everything you want to do. That is not the essence of liberty, but that of totalitarianism.

[DarkPhenyx]

53. So...do you need...

and I mean really really need a AW? Detail why you do. You'll be the first person to do so, BTW.

[Columbia]

61. Yes, I do

Because they are effective tools for protection of self, family, and community.

My answering of your question, however, does not absolve the authoritarian idea that my needs need any explanation whatsoever.

[Columbia]

126. DarkPhenyx, where are you?

[leanings]

184. We don't base our laws

on some list of things that government has determined that we "need" or "don't need". That's not how a free society works. We're supposed to evaluate whether or not a pursuit or item should be illegal based how harmful it is to society as a whole. AWB advocates have failed repeatedly to make any argument that AW's pose any threat to the commonweal. The data ain't there, and that's why advocates have to fall back on this weak-ass "needs" argument. You say you like to get high? Great! Doesn't hurt me a bit and the harm to society is negligible. It shouldn't be illegal. Let's look at some stuff that's legal but is harmful to society:

Jack Daniels

Cable Television

Marlboros

Twinkies

Motorcycles

Slot machines

Every single one of those items/pursuits is responsible for far more harm than AWs. But we don't make them illegal, because risk in our society is balanced by a tradition of personal liberty that holds that anyone can do whatever the hell they want as long as it's within reason. Your task, as an advocate, is to show why it's unreasonable to own an AW. And if you're intellectually honest about the "needs" argument for an AWB, then you need to immediately drop the issue and start trying to ban Harley Davison and the WB. Those institutions are far more harmful than my AR.

[waylon]

23. That doesnt work

All forms of marijuana are illegal, not the same with guns. Asking why one style of gun is needed while exempting others from that scrutiny is hopeless. The inevitable answer is that the AWB is not needed!

[DarkPhenyx]

29. Only in your opinion.

Logic and a good undersanding of guns in general would defeat that agrument.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

20. "Explain your need to ban the weapons."

What firearms are acceptable? The AWB is about features: semi-auto,
pistol grips(not to spray, but due to the lack of a drop at the butt of the weapon)bayonet lug(very few bayonet attacks), flash suppressor(deflects flash from the shooter), grenade launcher(BTW, grenades were already regulated as destructive devices). Weapons with these features are used rarely in crime. If they were unavailable, would a Rem. 740,742, 7400, be unavailable? If these were unavailable would an 8870 be unavailable? A BAR? A Model 94? A Mossberg 500?

No, AWB proponents first need to define how banning these features will reduce crime. Then a case can be made why these weapons NEED to be banned.

"...noone has passed yet."

[DarkPhenyx]

30. "flash suppressor(deflects flash from the shooter)"

Mmmmm, no it dosen't. Nice try though.

You'll also notice I said the AWB need to be strengthened.

[MrSandman]

34. Then what is its danger?

So the Rem 7400 should be included?

[DarkPhenyx]

39. Maybe not.

This is why I say the AW ban need to be strengthened and improved, not just scrapped because it has a few flaws. Review of existing law is how we move forward as a society.

[MrSandman]

41. No one has proposed scrapping the AWB...

Just not enacting a new law...for which no need has been shown.

[Superfly]

70. Ahem...I propose scrapping the AWB...

It's BS legislation and it serves absolutely no purpose.

[MrSandman]

71. Leave it be till 9/04

[Superfly]

72. But I want to buy my new M-4 NOW....

(In the best voice from Willy Wonka ...Veruka...possible)

[MrSandman]

83. O yeah, I forgot the collapsible stock...

M-4, cool

[Columbia]

97. *** WARNING - Possible Offensive Imagery Within ***

*** DISCLAIMER ***

This image was not meant to alarm any possible collective hoplophobes who may or may not be reading this thread, but merely as an informative and educational image to describe related items already in discussion.

[MrSandman]

106. I did remember the grande launcher...

[MrSandman]

177. Do you NEED that grenade launcher...

LMAO ;-)

[Columbia]

44. How would you do this?

What would you strengthen and improve it?

Make it apply to all semi-auto weapons and make it permanent?

Why would you do this? Is there evidence that criminals will turn in all their scary weapons if this is done?

[leanings]

170. What, oh wise one, is the purpose of a flash suppressor?

Does a metal cone somehow make a two foot flame disappear? That's some mighty powerful ju-ju.

[waylon]

176. yes, i believe it does n/t

[alwynsw]

63. Why answer a rigged question?

Maybe I have a paychological need - as Linus needs his blankie.

/sarcasm off

[FatSlob]

6. My take

Certain people who support the AWB or any other ban are only doing it because they support any step on the slippery slope to confiscation. They tell us they support "reasonable gun control", yet can't say what it means. They can't tell us what new laws would be enough. Of course, the AWB of 1994 has nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with cosmetics. If they can get "ugly" guns banned, how hard will it be to get grandpa's .30-06 banned later as a "sniper rifle"? Democratic ideals don't jibe with this either. Democratic ideals are about personal freedom, not prior restraint and the disarming of good people. However, our party is a big-tent party, as is the Republican party too. Both have to be, as there are only two major parties in the country, and each needs as many people in it as possible to retain power. The Republicans have their anti politicians like John McCain and Bob Taft, while we have people like Diane Feinstein. I honestly can't say why some rage against the right to defend self and country, I just know that they do. Thus ends my treatise on this matter.

[waylon]

8. I would think that there have to be moderates...

that support AWB for SOME reason. I cant believe all pro AWB folks want a complete ban on guns. There has to be some logic behind support for it.

[FatSlob]

10. I haven't been able to find it.

After all, the AWB is only about cosmetics. Even if it were about lethality, I should have access to any gun I choose.

[-..__...]

55. [i]There has to be some logic behind support for it.[/i]

Because it's an issue they can easily scare and confuse the sheeple with. I know more than a few AW owners who don't know the difference between a "pre-ban" or "post-ban". They don't know which magazines are legal to own, and which ones are not. There are some that don't know that the ban is scheduled to expire this September. Add to the mix the skeet, $10,000 custom engraved Bennelli over-under, "what-do-you-need-that-fer" crowd who should know better, and it's not hard to understand why the average gun fearing soccer mom can be buffaloed in to believing the AWB is good "common sense" legislation.

The anti-gun organizers haven't had very much success since the 94 ban.
They've had a few minor victories at the state level, but nothing to really cheer about. That leaves the AWB (and the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act"), as their reason d'etre. Losing both (or even just the AWB), would cause irreparable harm to their donations, membership, agenda and influence (lacking as it already is).

Think how easy it is to sway simple minds by standing on a podium along side a line-up of high ranking police brass while waving around a "black rifle" while shrilly and erroneously exclaiming nonsense about
"Uzis and AK's flooding the streets" or making unfair examples of "the DC snipers". P.T. Barnum would be envious of the 3-ring-circus and con-job these people peddle.

So it becomes that the AWB is pretty much their last stand. And for that reason expiration of the AWB should be a concern for all gun owners. As much as I'd like to put a collapsible stock on my AR, or be able to purchase 30 round magazines at bargain prices, I see that as a secondary concern when the real goal should be trouncing the anti-gun organizations.

[waylon]

67. Well done. n/t

[alwynsw]

181. This definitely needs banning.

Until we get bigger ballparks. (Props to D_S for the image.)

[Wickerman]

188. Locking

Well, this was a disappointment. The thread invited proponents of the AWB on to explain why they supported the ban. One soul came on to discuss and he was torn apart by more posts per minute I have ever witnessed. Casualties on all sides. Most disappointing.