Ken^2

Assault weapons are not fully automatic weapons. And banna clips have nothing to do with the ban either. I suggest you find out more about guns before you run your stupid anti gun mouth.

i agree with the previous poster mostly (although not quite as violently)...you have an amazing way of simplifying an issue down to a point where its impossible for you to be correct about any point you make. i have no particular stance on anti-gun law, but I definitely think that dumbasses all too often point to guns as the reason for american violent crime. it may be a reason (and i stress MAY), but it is definitely not the only reason.

if you don't dumb it down, 99% of the population won't be able to understand you.

so by extension you're saying that most, if not all, of the opinions presented on this site are, at the time of posting (by yourself) deemed to be 'dumbed down' and therefore inherently flawed.

...

makes me want to read more often. you're not only wrong, but you know it!

i'm posting to the lowest common denominator.

ps. it sounds like the 1st poster is definately in need of a gun. I'd hate to have all that rage, and no gun to shoot with.

omg. stfu.

In an effort to appease tristan, heres my official take on the assault weapons ban. The ban itself is largely cosmetic. I am more concerned with the message that it sends, although I do agree that guns shouldn't have bayonet mounts, nor a grenade launcher.

My only question is this. Instead of outright repealing the law, why not append it to be more fitting to the "assault weapon" title?

As much as the NRA likes to argue otherwise, gun ownership is not absolute. There needs to be boundaries and limitations on what a civilian can own in the interests of self defense and sport. A point beyond which the individual right to own a gun is overshadowed by the public need for safety.

well done.

Wow! The ban was never meant to inconvience the privledged class. They have always been able to get any weapon they want leagally including full auto. The men who created the constitution wanted all civialians to bear arms. They also knew arms were too expensive for some, so they gave the right to bear arms in lieu of, you must bear arms like the swiss have done. Ben Franklin said those who would sacrifice libery in the name of saftey deserve neither. By the way I studied and got a degree in political science and I researched the lives of the men who wrote the constitution.

The actual quote is "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

I do not consider gun control to be the loss of an essential liberty; just guidelines as to what is acceptable and unacceptable within the framework of the 2nd amendment.

Second, I would argue that the benefits gained from defining gun ownership are neither little, nor temporary.

Fully Automatic Weapons were Banned in 1932

Missouri Law states that for deer Hunting a 5 Rnd capacity magazine is the maximum. (However Magazines that hold more are extremely helpful for zeroing in your scope as you do not have to adjust your shooting position to reload and can adjust zero quicker at the range.)

For Turkey and Duck the shot gun can only hold 3 shells.

So your logic is skewed because If you attempted to "hunt" with a Fully Automatic Rifle with a 30 round magazine (regardless of how scary some politicion thinks it looks) You would be in Violation of at least 1 federal firearms law 1 state firearms law and a minimum of 2 state hunting laws.

And as A hunter the 7.62x39 (fired by the ak47) is in my opinion weakest round I would use as it would not produce a clean kill ( you do not want the animal to suffer) a 30-30 or .308 would be more humane

You will at most get off 1 maby 2 shots on any deer
before they have ran out of range or have found cover

well this guy needs some edgumakation.if you were smart you would know that full auto weapons are very well regulated here in the usa.You have to pay $200 and the firearm is then registered with the nfa branch of the atf.You then need to know that may 1986 was the last time you could purchase one of these weapons NEW. this law in effect proh. the transfer of automatic firearms made after may 1986.weapons made before can still be purchased.You also need to read your laws as most states do not allow more then 6 rounds when hunting (banana clips are out) They also do not allow automatic rifle to hunt with.people like you are the dumb a$$es that should put there brain in motion before there fingers.Would you please be a little more educated when writing comments.

WELL I JUST HAD TO WRITE ONE MORE TIME.i HAVE ONE THING ON MY MIND.THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR A RIFLE IS 16" FOR THE BARREL AND 26" OVERALL LENGHT.(CORRECT ME IF WRONG)SO A COLLAP. STOCK WHEN CLOSED MAKES THE RIFLE 26" +/- 1". WHY ARE THEY BANNED ITS STILL LEGAL LENGHT.WOW DIANE IS REALLY SMART ISNT SHE.

some people just don't know how to read.

[quote]

In an effort to appease tristan, heres my official take on the assault weapons ban. The ban itself is largely cosmetic. I am more concerned with the message that it sends, although I do agree that guns shouldn't have bayonet mounts, nor a grenade launcher.

My only question is this. Instead of outright repealing the law, why not append it to be more fitting to the "assault weapon" title?

As much as the NRA likes to argue otherwise, gun ownership is not absolute. There needs to be boundaries and limitations on what a civilian can own in the interests of self defense and sport. A point beyond which the individual right to own a gun is overshadowed by the public need for safety.

[/quote]

Let me get this right, the assault weapon was meet to stop crimes, which were used in less than 1/10 of 1% of the gun related crimes. The same guns are still manufacturered but under different names, and gun violence has been on the down trend before the law was enacted. It would seem that only thing the ban did was limited bayonet stabing, which has never been recorded.

Some people amaze me. If you think guns are inherently evil or for hunting only, First, get a life. Second, guns were meant for killing. Third, we have the right to own them for defense of the country, why should we trust our own military, don't they need our help also. Fourth, as a police officer I am in support for civilians to own whatever guns they want, which many of my fellow officers believe as well. Fifth, if you don't like it then get out of our country and stop changing the law for your own agenda.

1. I have a life. Thanks for the concern though. <3

2. I thought they were made for & from love.

3. Let me grab my tinfoil hat. Onos! the militaries a coming to get me. Screw voting, i'm gona grab me gun.

4. Police officers rock. It'll be great if everyone you stopped over had a gun. I know, it'd probably make you feel all special and safe inside.

5. Changing the law for my own agenda. I gota remember that one next time the NRA or any lobby firm calls me. I'll be sure to have the line ready.

As the voice of reason in this thread I feel obligated to add my voice to the growing din.

Let me start by saying this. I'm a republican. I'm white. I grew up in a small country town. I went to college. I now have a corporate job. Sounds about as stereotypically American as it gets, eh?

I think that it is good that Americans own guns. I don't know a lot about gun law, but fortunately one does not need to know much (or anything) about the political mess that is current gun control legislation in order to have an informed viewpoint on the issue. I don't know anything about the law that Ken was originally referring to, nor do I give a shit. Current and past gun control legislation is a political sham and I believe (even though the Democrats and the NRA have competing statistics) that no gun control legislation passed to date has had much of an effect on crime rates.

Owning guns is great, but let's keep it reasonable folks. I think we may all agree on that point - it's good to have some amount of gun ownership, but it's also necessary to limit the scope of what guns private citizens can own. Specifically what limits should be put on gun ownership I don't know (and don't care too much about) but limits themselves are not unconstitutional. Why? I think many of us misunderstand that second amendment. Turns out that courts over the recent past have ruled that the second amendment has actually nothing to do with an individuals right to bear arms - rather, it deals with the State's ability to maintain an armed militia. Let's all go to http://www.govlawweb.com/pubs/govlaw/govlaw_10.html?section=14 now kiddies and do some background research.

And please, when someone happens to mention a subject that you care about, actually read the question and don't just start spouting off confused second-hand dogma. None of the above posters actually came close to discussing what the original intent of this thread was.

btw - gg no re tx

Someone honestly is in need of serious education about the Assualt Weapons Ban... Stupid fucking liberal bastards.

Alot of you have no clue about assualt weapons. They work exactly the same as their civilain cunterparts. An AR-15 is banned but a Mini 14 is legal. They work the same and shoot the exact same bullet, .223. Why is one banned and the other isn't? Cosmetics. Bayonet lugs? If you knwo of ANY criminal in modern times using a bayonet, I'd love to hear that sotry. Rifle grenades have been regulated since 1934 so whether or not a rifle can fire them is not relevant. And a 7.62x39 round is balistically similar to the .30 round. The 7.62 is acceptable for hunting deer with. If you expect to police to keep to safe, you're a joker living in a joke world. A home invader could get inside, kill the occupants, and take what he wants and be gone in the 3 to 20 minutes the cops would take to show up. You can't say to an invader "Excuse me sir, would you mind waiting a minute or two while I dial 911?" You say, "You picked the wrong house today, jackass." BAMMMMM! The police show up and do the detective work. It's your job to keep you and yours safe. Don't blame anyone else if you are derelect fo your duty and you pay the price for it.