Machine gun ban being lifted in US....

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 28 Sep 2004 12:52

And whose fault is that? Talk to your local congressman about that.

Funny, the Police can't afford to issue them, yet any poor white trash can. Funny how that works.

And honestly, a flaming ball of gas can do more damage than that weapon. And gasoline can be purchased on every corner in America.

You label a weapon a weapon and suddenly it is bad. Yet everyday household items can be deadly and are labeled, Draino, Aluminum Foil, plastic bags, etc...

Hate the criminal, not the weapon.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 12:53

It's important to protect the right to have an AR-15 if you should want one.

Want to do something about needless deaths, support mandatory 2 year prison sentences for driving while operating a cell phone. At least a gun has a safety, there is no safety behind the wheel on the phone.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 28 Sep 2004 12:55

Chris Rock had the best idea for how to deal with this situation.

"Make bullets $5000 a piece". Then see if people still want to kill each other over crack money.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 12:57

lightingbolt wrote: Cops don't even have these weapons due to under funding.

Next time someone is running on a tax cut, tell them you would rather have armed police and a well equiped firedepartment instead of the $100 tax cut. There are consequences to not paying higher taxes, underfunded public systems is one of them.

ShredPirate · Post by **ShredPirate** » 28 Sep 2004 13:29

ok i see now.

when are we gonna get to use the guns from Eraser?

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 28 Sep 2004 13:50

lightingbolt wrote:Cops don't even have these weapons due to under funding.

I contend that Cops don't have these weapons because they already kill too many innocent people "by accident" with the guns they have.

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 28 Sep 2004 14:11

who said cops have to be under-armed? look at what you can buy for a mere 6kwith a deparment letterhead http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displ ... um=5577189

hooooooooooly shit

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Sep 2004 10:27

The AWB was mostly hype, just like Tsiangkun said.

The most important differences will be the drop in prices, and the return of high capacity magazines.

There were always loopholes which enabled you to get them anyway.

------------------------------------
Sheriff Joe bought a .50 cal machine gun a year or two ago.
I think it's worth the money, cuz smugglers and coyotes are pretty well armed here.

My friend over on the west side told be about some coyote neighbors who would shoot their AK47 in the air (or at someone) on occasion.

The Mex. army regularly "wanders" Humvees full of heavily armed troops coming into Arizona territory, sometimes escorting those smugglers/coyotes.

Citizens should have access to any weapon that is comparible to whatever your invading neighbor has.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 30 Sep 2004 10:30

Jews should be armed at least as much , or more than groups that "dislike" them, if they want to stay out of boxcars.

-n

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 30 Sep 2004 10:53

I like big clips and I can not lie
those other hunters can't deny
when an ity bity prey
comes walking my way
70 shots makes sure it dies.

No serious, I like big clips, and the guns that use them. I've been shooting since I was 5, and had my first gun a long time before that. I don't see the point in banning a certain class of weapon because it looks intimidating. My 222 is shooting the same ammo as a banned M16 . . . Same with my SKS 7.62X39mm . . . it's still shooting the same bullets as an AK-47.

To make the guns legal I had to . . .

I took the blade off the barrel. (Does any one think the blade makes this gun dangerous ?)
I replaced the stock with a wood stock ( Yeah, so I can't fold it up anymore ... still fits in a trench_
I replaced the stock magazines with 7 round clips.

Now I have the same damn guns that were banned, only it's legal to hunt with. I'm planning on grabbing myself a few more large magazines before they get around to banning them again. Freedom ain't gonna protect itself ya know.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 30 Sep 2004 11:25

Freedom ain't gonna protect itself ya know.

Well said.

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 30 Sep 2004 16:41

indeed

atze · Post by **atze** » 01 Oct 2004 03:06

some of you americans are so funny!

when was the last time anyone of you used their semiautomatic to protect your freedom?
you guys make it sound as if there's an invading army on your doorstep. seriously paranoic.

and whie we're at it, should everyone be allowed to have a rocket louncher in their back yard to shoot down the next hijacked plane?

i can well understand a machoist fascination with guns, i had a bb gun when i was small and had fun shooting targets. but wtf would i need an ak47 for?

a question: any of you owning guns. could you live without them? like, i could live without footbag if i had to. sure it's nice shredding, but if banning footbag would make the world a better place i could live without it.
so assuming you all could survive without owning a gun and it would not seriously lower your enjoiment of life in general, why not ban the fuckers and make the world a better place?

to see that a strict ban of weapons reduces killings, just look to europe.

to tell you the truth, i'd much rather be robbed by a criminal with a knife than with a criminal with a gun. and if it's easy to get guns, the chance that your average criminal has one rises.
that's why saying it's criminals that kill and not guns may be true but is very naive when being used as a argument for allowing easy access to guns.
humans being agressive in nature, people will always hurt eachother, but you can cause infinetly more harm if you have a gun at your disposal.

anyway, hope you guys enjoy your freedom, i know i'm enjoying mine and i don't need a gun in my house to do it.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 01 Oct 2004 06:48

you guys make it sound as if there's an invading army on your doorstep. seriously paranoic.

The guns aren't for use against an invading army, the 2nd makes it clear what army these weapons are to be used against.

i can well understand a machoist fascination with guns, i had a bb gun when i was small and had fun shooting targets. but wtf would i need an ak47 for?

There is this misunderstanding that because it has a cool name like AK-47 that the gun is more dangerous . . . it's just a rifle. Good for varmint hunting and deer.

to see that a strict ban of weapons reduces killings, just look to europe.

Or compare the crime rates in states with CCW laws to those without to see that criminals don't want to rob someone holding a desert eagle.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Oct 2004 11:52

Great Britain's crime rates have spiked considerably since their gun bans in the mid to late 90's.

------------------------------------------------------
Britain the most violent country in western Europe
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
(Filed: 25/10/2003)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... stid=50048

-------------------------------------------------------

Gun crime spreads 'like a cancer' across Britain

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedeb ... 11,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2687311

Stories like this are really sad. When someone comes to your house to rob you, you have to allow them to do whatever they want. You can be jailed for resisting.

This type of legal environment just has to crush their spirits, it's a lose-lose. You can't even defend yourself.

Maybe the smart move is to break into a thief's house to assault him BEFORE he breaks into your house.
If the thief resists you(in his own house) , then he may get more jail time than you.

-n

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 03 Oct 2004 12:02

For what it's worth,
Here's is one Australian crime analysis:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/conte ... p?aid=8073

The conclusion is just opinion, but the numbers are interesting.

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Oct 2004 16:57

I think that report misses a great deal of things that have changed in Australia during the time since gun laws were changed. In particular we had a change of government the year after the massacre in question occured and many people believe that the new government has done a lot to increase crime and to adopt a much more "american" repsonse to crime.

It's obviously not an "experiement" that has been conducted under scientific conditions since so many other variables have changed.

Why don't you look at New Zealand as an example instead?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 04 Oct 2004 09:59

Yeah, I saw something about New Zealand also. I wasn't sure if a "New Zealander" was in the discussion.

You have the local Aussie angle so I you know what numbers can be cooked to say there is more or less crime.

How does the new government allow more crime? I dont hear much Aussie news.

---------------------------------------

-n

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 04 Oct 2004 15:26

I'm from Aotearoa (New Zealand). We toughened up on assault weapons; semi-automatics and handguns (you can still get them but only with a special license) and experienced a nice drop in gun related crime.

I think though, that one of the key factors behind this is the way we enforce gun laws in general. Firstly we're a nation with a long tradition of hunting and our gun groups are all about protecting hunting preserves and promoting safe hunting practises, not about having everyone allowed to be aswell armed as the Army. Secondly, to get just a normal gun license is difficult, not prohibitively so in my opinion but, there really are background checks and they do ring up your referees. Thirdly, in contrast with the US, unlawful possession of a firearm is a serious crime which gets you in more trouble than possession of marijuana.

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 04 Oct 2004 18:01

There is no way to tell that gun laws help reduce crime.

All those people dying of "hit and runs," stranglings, beaten to death, drownings, stabbed etc etc may have been killed because the perp couldnt get a gun, but he still killed them.

All in all, guns dont kill people-people kill people.