http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY&NR=1

Notice how Biden spoke about the ban, yet the gun shown was LEGAL under the ban, as the guy mentioned. Wake up gun control nuts, including YOU Sen. Biden!

I believe that when you hear someone in the ranks of government say that guns should be outlawed that they are part of the New World Order bunch and don't want Americans to be able to fight for their freedom.

I am totally against gun control.

I am for educating kids with loving discipline.

I think gun control is wrong. People control (Proper and authentic eucation) works better and doesn't violate constitutional rights in the process.

Biden is wrong wrong wrong.







Read the documents of the United States right here.

Click on the one you want to view.


The Constitution of The United States of America

The Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments

The Other Amendments

The Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence

The Story of the Actual First US President; John Hanson

We got guns, they got guns, all God's chillun got guns!
I'm gonna walk all over the battlefield, 'cause all God's chillun got guns! - The Marx Brothers

UH excuse me again, but you thought that the man that was proud of "His Baby" was OK to display and brandish a weapon??? An assualt weapon?

Who is stupid enough to think an assualt weapon is for anything but killing humans, Oh yeah right sport shooting---Well they need you in Iraq for that!

Give me a break! :wtf:

Assault weapons are just for hunting, and, well,... fun!!

I mean, what's more fun than filling defenseless animals with lead from a machine gun?
The small critters get tricky though - not much left afterwards.


"Not much meat on the Thanksgiving turkey this year, Ma. I used the BIG gun!"

No ... I did not say that. That guy is an idiot.

BUT

The right to bear arms is for the defense of ourselves and our families and our nation and constitution.

No one has the "right" to be an idiot.

Assault weapons are NOT toys, and anyone who views them as a TOY is a hopeless moron.

Mark my words.

There will come a time in the very near future when people will regret it if they don't have a way of self defense.









Read the documents of the United States right here.

Click on the one you want to view.


The Constitution of The United States of America

The Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments

The Other Amendments

The Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence

The Story of the Actual First US President; John Hanson

Anyone who hunts for "fun" or "sport" is a nut case.

To kill anything for fun is seriously demented.

That does not mean we should throw the 2nd amendment out the window.

I stand my ground. I am not for gun control as written.

Assault weapons are not toys.

Niether is a seat in the House or the Senate a toy.

Niether is the Presidency a toy.

But there are people occupying those positions that are playing with our constitution and our Bill Of Rights.

Those are not toys either.

The secret is for people to grow up and be responsible.








Read the documents of the United States right here.

Click on the one you want to view.


The Constitution of The United States of America

The Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments

The Other Amendments

The Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence

The Story of the Actual First US President; John Hanson

If there was some reasonable way to ensure that only the people who have grown up and become responsible could, and did, own guns we would be ok...we'd be living in a dreamworld but we'd be ok.

Guns are simply too easy to get. Wait times are too short, assuming they apply at all. Just walk into the nearest gun show or pawn shop.

And if this country ever gets so bad that I, of all people, need a weapon like that to defend myself against my own country, then you can have it. I'll move. :Y:

tkdveg,

I sincerely hope it does not get that bad .... !

BUT

With all the buzz that is in the wind ......



I wish I had the finances to take my family and get out of here, cause I see darker times coming.

Bush and Cheney are too erratic.


:unsure:








Read the documents of the United States right here.

Click on the one you want to view.


The Constitution of The United States of America

The Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments

The Other Amendments

The Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence

The Story of the Actual First US President; John Hanson

Rev Wally, I respect you and I am very happy that you see no reason to defend the nut and "his baby!"

I understand your fears totally about what may be coming and the need to bear arms, etc, I really do.

However, Rev Wally, I don't care how many tanks, rpgs, heavy weapons every miltia has put together buried or otherwise in this nation, there is no way that they can resist the Federal Govt in a military crackdown.

Those literally millions of weapons we all have or many do are nothing compared to a few tanks, and the technology of our military!

It is only the common sense and loyalty of those soldiers that might refuse to fight their countrymen that would save the day in a scenario you fear!

The right to bear those arms may save your family during those times from gangs and thugs BUT the Govt will have their way if and when they wish too. A politcal solution is the only thing that will stop a Govt that far out of control!

I fear that we may be beyond the hope of a political solve, but I do pray I am wrong.

The true hope is ultimately in the Hand of Jehovah, God.

:mellow:







Read the documents of the United States right here.

Click on the one you want to view.


The Constitution of The United States of America

The Bill of Rights with the first ten amendments

The Other Amendments

The Articles of Confederation

The Declaration of Independence

The Story of the Actual First US President; John Hanson

Empty rhetoric right out of Biden's mouth. That's like taking the "We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" rhetoric out of Bush's mouth. So the guy is passionate about what he believes in, and cares about guns... what's the problem? I don't see a problem with that at all. Everyone is different; therefore, not everyone has the same mindset as you, and enjoys the same pleasures as you.

Something that you, in addition to Sen. Biden, failed to address, is that gun in which he called "His baby" was, in fact, 100% LEGAL under the 1994 "Assault weapons" ban.

In 1994, the United States Congress passed a gun ban called the Federal 1994 Crime Bill, which, according to the supporters of the ban, targeted assault weapons, and high round magazines. According to the definition of the bill, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. It said nothing about guns being automatic, or their strength. Why, you ask? Because automatic guns are already heavily regulated and significantly more expensive than their semi-automatic counterparts. More specifically, “It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.” (Full Auto Weapons). As a matter a fact, a lot of the guns targeted by this ban weren’t even as powerful as many of the rifles one goes hunting with. For example, an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), fires a .223 caliber round. This is a much weaker round than many of the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. On September 13, 2004, the ban expired, and was not reinstated by the United States Congress.



There are a lot of different reasons why people own guns, which include "Assault weapons." People can, and do, own guns for sport. A good example of this is Target shooting. Not only has it been incorporated in many different Olympic competitions, but it’s also has always been very popular in the United States. Guns are also a vital part of hunting. Hunting, again, is a very popular pastime. Because of the dangerous world we all live in, one day any of us may need them to protect ourselves against a potential threat, or like some people believe, maybe even our own government, god forbid if we ever get to that point. With this said, guns are also a great crime deterrent. When a criminal thinks you might be armed, he is less likely to choose you as a victim. The right to defend yourself from criminals is a basic human right, and a gun is one of the best tools to protect yourself, as well as your family, from crime. Also, many gun owners collect various guns, which in their mind, and in the minds of many, are very valuable pieces of history. Finally, “The founding fathers believed that gun ownership was necessary for a country to truly be free. If the government distrusted the people so much as to disarm them, then that government no longer truly represented the people. In other words, in our structure of government, the power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people.” (SAF Gun Rights Frequently Asked Questions). Regardless of whatever reasons one has against gun ownership, and why Americans choose this path, they are just opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but as long as the Second Amendment exists, which is a fact, gun ownership will be a fundamental right.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

The Right to Keep and Beat Arms.

A long, yet very worthwhile report on the 2nd Amendment. Certainly hard to "Debunk" any of the information in this report.

You, obviously, fell for the rhetoric of the gun control advocates, because of your assuming/thinking that "Assault weapons" are BIG guns that inflict great harm. Fact is, you CAN use these "Assault weapons" for hunting; i know a number of people that do. Small game, of course, since the size of the round. .223.

For many people out there, hunting is a way of life. People hunt for numerous reasons. I don't think i, or Washington for that matter, has any room to dictate what someone else does with their life.

-Noonanda, at the forum, CGCS.

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment

Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

-Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

-Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

-Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."

-James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

-Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."

-Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."

-Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."

-Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

-Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

-Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

-Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."

-James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "

-Samuel Adams

I have not fallen for anything, thank you very much. When you can convince me that guns like these are beneficial, I'll fall...dead maybe. The exception to the rule is the happy hunter who really just likes venison, and who is trying to help keep the deer population curbed. If the only owners of these weapons were innocent hunters or Olympians, I wouldn't have a problem (as much - I am a veggie for a reason).
The real issue is whose hands they are in. The number of weapons that end up in the hands of 'less savory individuals' greatly outnumbers the ones using them for food or sport. Hell, we're just GIVING them to half the world, and teaching them how to use them. Then later, when we are no longer friends, they use them against us.
The world is a wacked-out, dangerous place, and the more guns like this there are the worse things will get. They are all dangerous, and trying to convince me by using technicalities about caliber size won't get you anywhere, because size doesn't matter! :tongue: )

Utopia - here I come.
:Y: Peace: it's the only way to go! :Y:

What a crock, oh the size of the round and some friends love to hunt doves with them etc?

Can't you just tell the freaking truth that they love the rush of firing automatic assualt weapons??!!!!

I have fired them all and what a feeling of power, it sures beats the Dallas Cowboys!

Stand on it is your American right and don't stray from the truth of any more than that, but don't expect us to buy the smaller rounds and really they are great for hunting squirrels?

We are friends in the Democratic party and can argue points, but don't insult your friends!

Gun are an emotional issue. Most Americans are not extremists on this issue and neither am I. I would uphold 2nd Amendment Rights without being extreme and allowing everyone to have assault weapons and armor-piercing ammo.

Giving everyone a gun does not guarantee liberty. Just look at Iraq :dripple:
On the other hand I don't want all the firearms under the control of Bush/Cheney and their goons and none in the hands of citizens either.

:Y:

Exactly my point ... !

:good:

QUOTE (FellowDemocrat @ Jul 26 2007, 02:48 PM)

You, obviously, fell for the rhetoric of the gun control advocates, because of your assuming/thinking that "Assault weapons" are BIG guns that inflict great harm. Fact is, you CAN use these "Assault weapons" for hunting; i know a number of people that do. Small game, of course, since the size of the round. .223.

I'm not against responsible gun control. If you live in the country it could be your only source of protection. Most get the assault phrase from the disbelief that they are automatic but that requires some altering. By the way you can get the ammo in both .223 and 7.62 depending on the weapon. The mini 14 can be found in both and the AK and SKS are usually 7.62 which is the NATO round.

I was raised around and with guns and never shot anyone or pointed it at anyone until the Army. I don't own one now but when I move from this city to the back woods or mountains I will.

I agree with peace but I also believe in survival and in many cases a gun maybe your only hope. Especially when the nearest cop is 45 minutes away.

No one wants your guns, you just have to be responsible. But, why do we need assault weapons?

Well Patsy I'll break my word to dbciii about not posting here so as not to hurt his image of what this site should be to answer your question. No one is trying to take my gun since as I said I don't have one. And no one has a need for an assault weapon.

But let's be clear on what an assault weapon is. Just having a pistol grip does not make it an assault weapon. It makes it a semi automatic rifle with a grip. It will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger but so will any semi auto.

I am against conversion kits to turn one into an automatic and against gun manufacturers that make the conversion easy. I am against banana clips which hold 30 rounds but if you demand a clip that only holds 5 rounds than outlaw 9 mm also. There clip holds between 15 and 18 rounds and a clip in those can be changed as quickly as any AR, AK or SKS.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, they should enforce the law. They should enforce background checks and they should clarify the meaning of assault weapons beyond the presence of a pistol grip. Numerous target rifles have those and it is still legal to by a .50 cal. with a five round clip.

And just to make myself clear I am not a gun nut. To be honest I had my fill in Vietnam. But I am against lawmakers who pass laws on something they know little about to satisfy public demand. Especially since they already have laws that would do the same thing if they only enforced them.

So to answer your question, no one needs a true assault weapon and there is no doubt that armor piercing rounds are meant for one reason only and should be outlawed, not just the ownership but the manufacturing.

I think this says it all.

The only ones who benefit from "gun control" are those who would take our constitutional rights away for their own agenda no matter what that may be and the criminals who will have guns when the government strips them from the rest of us under the guise of protecting us. What a sad joke. And people buy into this crap.

I think this, in essence, describes the neocon movement which took root in 1913 with the implimentation of the Federal Reserve. The neocons have blatantly made their ambitions very clear. Bush has said he would prefer to be dictator. Cheney is without any doubt a criminal who dodged indictment by entering the 2000 race as Bush's VP nominee/choice.

Anyone with any logical sense can see very clearly that they have, in fact, betrayed their constituents.

More logic which is evidence that we need a leader who will practice logic and intelligent decision making ... not to mention REAL leadership. And let us not forget that we, the people, are the 'employer' and 'boss' of the administration. Not vica-versa.

I do not own a gun, but am in the market for one or more for the intent of self preservation and protection if need be. And I will support only those who will defend my constitutional rights as written by the founders. PERIOD.

Obviously, you have fallen for the typical gun control advocate stereotype that these "Assault weapons" are massive, dangerous automatic weapons, mainly carried by drug dealing thugs, who constantly defy the law, and commit crimes on a massive scale. Fact is, like i have already mentioned, the 1994 ban said NOTHING about a rifle being automatic. Automatic weapons have been highly regulated since 1934, and were NOT touched by the ban. Again, a weapon was considered an "Assault weapon" if it had two or more of the following characteristics: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet LUG, flash surpressor, or a grenade launcher. It also outlawed 30+ round mags. In addition, the vast, vast majority of the people who own these "Assault weapons" are law abiding Americans, not law defying thugs.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Size doesn't matter? How about we compare, just for sharts and giggles, a 50 caliber rifle to a .223 caliber from one of these "Assault weapons?" Funny, the 50 caliber wasn't even touched by the ban, either! :D

You're right, the world is a dangerous place, with many wacked-out people living in it. But, that, alone, doesn't justify pissing on the constitution, and enacting a bunch of gun bans that DON'T work! I have yet to see one statistic that clearly shows a link between any gun ban and reduced crime. As a matter a fact, it's the complete opposite, and just about everywhere that has strict gun control, has high crime rates. Where are all of the doomsday scenarios that the Brady Campaign and other gun control advocate groups were predicting? Where are they? Why haven't they happened? If you believe so much in gun bans, then why don't you move to Canada or any other gun control infested country. It obviously works pretty well over there. ::Sarcasm::

I'm not going to make an attempt to convince you on this issue, since your mind is obviously not open to it; all i can do is simply state the facts.

There are a number of things that you can hunt with the caliber range that these "Assault weapons" offer.

While i do like the rush of firing semi-automatic rifles, especially the M4A3 "Assault rifle," i can't say that about their automatic counterparts. Not only can i not afford one, since they're MUCH more expensive than semi-automatic rifles, but i don't know anyone that owns one.

I don't expect you to buy anything; instead, i expect you to, as an American, not want to trample on one of your constitutional rights, which many countries do not have the luxury of having. I simply brought up the caliber size to explain how these "Assault weapons" aren't as bad as one suggests.

I don't think i have been insulting in any way.

C'mon Wayne, it isn't even possible to compare America to Iraq; that's like comparing apples to oranges. I have much more faith in you to not make a comparison like that, bro.

Think of it like this: What if, like many on the left are suggesting could happen, America turns into a tyrannical dictatorship, with Bush in charge. Your last option is to defend yourself against your government, thanks to YOUR constitutional right, the 2nd Amendment. Kinda like Star Wars or possibly V for Vendetta.

Personally, i don't want Washington dictating how anyone prays, what they do in their bedroom, what any female does with her body, or what guns i have in my gunsafe.

I will respectfully disagree, Patsy. Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, the Brady Campaign, and other gun control advocates want my guns. They claim to support gun owner's rights, but when they go and start banning guns, that claim gets thrown right out the window.

I think the best course of action is, like Bill Richardson has said, prevention. We should focus our attention on preventing those who shouldn't have guns, felons and those who are mentally instable, from being able to get them.

I believe i have explained why anyone who's responsible should have an "Assault weapon." I also believe that i have explained why all of the stereotypes about these "Assault weapons," and why we shouldn't have them, don't make sense.

Yes, you're right... just having a pistol grip does not make a weapon an "Assault rifle." It's two or more of the characteristics that i previously mentioned. Something these "Assault weapons" don't have is the option of a three round burst, with one pull of the trigger, which military weapons have.

I'm not even aware of any conversion kits that make these weapons fully automatic. I thought they were illegal.

Many of these gun control groups, and/or people, want to outlaw pistols, also. Look at the recent pistol ban in S.F. and the long standing pistol ban in D.C., which were both scrapped due to them being un-constitutional.

Fully automatic weapons are not illegal. I can walk into a gun store, say the Scottsdale Gun Club, which is within 10 miles of my house, and buy one. Not only are they MUCH more expensive, but it has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

I completely agree with paragraph five. Thanks for your service, by the way.

I'll give in to the armor piercing ammo. Before i do so, i want to know exactly which ammo they're speaking of; i don't want them throwing in any ammo into a ban that isn't armor piercing.

Well said, Wally! :clap:

Like i have previously mentioned, i believe we ought to focus our attention on prevention. I, too, was raised around guns, and by those of lifelong members of the NRA. I'm well aware of the calibers that each gun has. I was just using the .223 as an example. I completely agree with your last paragraph. As a matter a fact, i want to post it again:

Dance, dance, dance, etc?

It is an American right, but stand on the right and quit with the phony arguments of size, usage etc.

There are more important issues for me than your RPG rights to feel the rush or whatever, but don't forget who your friends are and we might ask you to compromise on this in the future.

Al001 and I both have earned the right to comment on these weapons! We both know how to make any of them automatic in 30 minutes with a file or minor parts!

Just stand on your American right until your assualt weapon is stolen and used in my school and then you take the life sentence for being stupid enough not to protect it like it was that crazy dudes baby!

Damn stinking Ape!

I wouldn't consider any of the information i expressed to be phony, as you say. You just proved one of points: if a criminal wants a gun, they're going to get it, regardless of whatever ban is enacted into law. And to think, i was the one who was said to be insulting. Lol. Funny, really. Not that i care, i mean this is a political forum. It's not like i'm going to lose any sleep over what someone, who i have no idea who they are, says something insulting about me. Just for your information, i won't compromise on any of my rights. If you're for one, you have to be for all of them. Otherwise, one would appear to be quite hypocritical, eh?

By the way, i would hardly consider myself to be dancing. I have addressed all points, unlike those on the other side of this issue, including Senator Biden.

Size DOES matter

Somebody mentioned a 50 cal. Not being knowledgeable on guns and the nuances of what is legal, i don't know if this sniper rifle is available to civilians. But it is not automatic, nor semi-automatic.

Warning: VERY graphic images. Don't look if you are offended by carnage. But this does illustrate the upper end of what the term "small arms" embraces. I don't think the Founders thought we should all be walking the streets with these.


Taking Out Afghanistan Snipers with a 50 cal Rifle

Live camera shots of US snipers taking out Taliban with 50 caliber sniper rifles in Afghanistan.

These video shots are not made through the shooter's telescopic sight... they are made looking through the spotter's scope. The spotter lies right next to the sniper and helps the sniper to find and home in on the target.

The sniper is using a 50 caliber rifle. A 50 cal. round is about 7-8 inches long and the casing is about an inch in diameter. The bullet itself is one-half inch in diameter and roughly one and one-half inches long.

Pay close attention to the beginning of the video. A Taliban is laying on top of the peak in front of you... when you hear the shot fired... watch what happens. Our sniper is about a half mile away... or more. It is not known if the sniper team is Marine or Army.


Sniper



My point? There are legal constraints now on some types of weapons, as well there should be. It should be possible to have reasonable controls while acknowledging the right to hunt, target-shoot, and defend oneself, without the rampant paranoia that the opponents of any form of control seem to exhibit. Whenever an argument is based on the premise that "that will lead to..." it becomes spurious. Like opposition to stem cell research because "it will lead to human cloning."

Those arguments are the favorites of zealots. They oppose something on principle, and then trump up doomsday scenarios to support their claim. Like "they will follow us home."

Had people had a crystal ball to foresee what bush would do with the authorization to use force, if necessary, to deprive SH of his supposed WMD programs, they would have been correct in opposing the authorization based on "give him an inch and he'll take a mile." I, for one, respect those who voted for the resolution based on the facts presented to them and a reasonable expectation that their president was not a madman. It turned out badly, to be sure, but to have used speculation to deny him what should have been just a bargaining chip would have been wrong. And to use speculation to oppose reasonable limits on availability of guns is also wrong.

To al1001: I never tried to pre-censor anyone; just asked whether some of the topics served to elevate Al Gore. If people still want to use this board for debate on "the issues" - well, fine. Some of what prompted my remarks was some pretty obscure "issues" that might reflect on the site as "just a bunch of kooks." Serious discussion of a topic as thorny as gun control is not one of those.

I was the one that mentioned the 50 cal. but I never said it was automatic or semi-auto. It is illegal to own an automatic weapon but it is easy to convert a number of them to automatic. The 50 I have seen for sale in local gun shows as both single shot and with a 5 round clip but it must be re-chambered by bolt action and it was for sale to the public. An I have also seen up close what a 50 will do.

My point is to simply enforce the laws that already exist. And by the way in the two years I spent in Vietnam I never put my weapon on auto. It was a waste of ammo and you would seldom hit your target.

Had people had a crystal ball to foresee what bush would do with the authorization to use force, if necessary, to deprive SH of his supposed WMD programs, they would have been correct in opposing the authorization based on "give him an inch and he'll take a mile." I, for one, respect those who voted for the resolution based on the facts presented to them and a reasonable expectation that their president was not a madman.

This part I must respectfully disagree with. They voted by what they heard not by any research. U.N. inspectors were in the country and found nothing. The statement SH was trying to buy Yellow Cake from Africa was already proven false and the one question no asked was the one that everyone should have jumped on. When Bush said he knew exactly where the stock piles were...why wouldn't he tell the UN inspectors. They asked many times but he refused to tell. And the bill they signed was not a bargaining chip even though so many claim it was after the fact. It was unlimited control of the events.

So I gather this 50 cal is legal for civilians to own? I didn't mean to suggest you said it was auto or semi-auto. That feature would not make a lot of sense for the sniper usage.

That makes both of our points, I think. The ban on "assault weapons" restricts some legitimate hunting weapons and misses something like this, for which I cannot imagine ANY legitimate use other than as shown in the video.

I guess I could see, perhaps, gun clubs being able to have them for people to target-shoot with, as entertainment, or sport, or whatever it would be, Heck, I might like trying it out, maybe shooting pumpkins or something.

But the idea that is is freely sold at gun shows, and can make its way into the hands of an Oswald, or McVeigh, or whomever does not set well with me.

So while I don't know how it can be done fairly and apprpriately, I do favor efforts to come up with reasonable restrictions without a lot of hand-waving by zealots at either extreme.

I agree they were gullible, and had access to independent information sources that could have served at least in part as that "crystal ball."

Whether they were lazy, inept, gullible, or naive is subject to debate. It probably varies amonst them, but "all of the above" is probably the answer in some mix for all.

Someone on another site just yesterday made the assertion that (candidate x) "voted for the continuing brutal occupation of Iraq." Well, I am certain that is not what x thought at the time, nor, realistically could many reasonable people have forseen the absolute depravity of the administration AND refusal to provide oversight of the congress. Culpable? Yes. But a co-conspirator? Hardly

With the administration currently in power, I would resist ANY effort to tighten gun control. Paranoia is justified for now!