Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
maraxle:
I owned a few guns that my grandfather gave to me. None of this ridiculous automatic stuff with giant clips and such, just hunting rifles and a handgun. I told my parents to keep them because I don't need any guns in my house. I don't hunt, and I don't enjoy target shooting. Therefore, I don't see the point of keeping them around. I respect people's rights to have hunting rifles and maybe a handgun for protection (but that's a stretch), but I think that there is no legitimate use for an assault weapon in civilian hands. The former ban was too weak. It should have outlawed even the pre-ban models.
Crazy Cooter:
Guns in general will never go away. That's a fact (and I like that). But I think regulation should be here to stay as well. Is there any legitimate use for a flash suppressor, 30 round clips, and high powered assault rifles? Maybe I wasn't clear, but I kind of think this ban was a good idea and should have been continued. There has to be a line drawn somewhere or else I want my case of grenades dammit.
So I'm Pro-guns and Pro-regulation. Treat them like a roads speed limit. Be careful and be reasonable. But is allowing the ban on these specific items to expire reasonable? That's my concern. I don't think it is.
Tilzs:
--- Quote from: fredster on September 14, 2004, 02:08:37 pm ---What is the assult weapon anyway?
is it a weapon that is fully automatic? Is it a semi-automatic?
Was this ban a response to Columbine?
--- End quote ---
It bans guns with certain options on them that classifies them as "assult" weapons.
Fully automatic weapons are already banned so this law doesn't affect it
This assult weapons ban was in effect before Columbine.
Tailgunner:
--- Quote from: fredster on September 14, 2004, 02:08:37 pm ---What is the assult weapon anyway?
is it a weapon that is fully automatic? Is it a semi-automatic?
Was this ban a response to Columbine?
--- End quote ---
Assault rifles by definition are selective fire (full auto or burst fire) military weapons that fire a intermediate rifle cartridge. Such weapons fall under the National Firearms Act and civilian possesion is heavily by the federal government. They're legal to posess in several states, and the registered owners of such weapons have a stellar record of not commiting crimes with them. Since machine guns were registered in '35, there's been one case where someone commited a crime with one. He was a cop and should've known better. ;)
The '94 ban was placed on semi-auto replicas of true assault rifles, which are similar but have to be redesigned to prevent them from being easily converted to full auto weapons.
Columbine happened after the ban was in effect. Several of the parents who's kids were killed there have come out in support of allowing the ban to expire. The reality is this ban did nothing to prevent crime.
Floyd10:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on September 14, 2004, 01:39:37 am ---
--- Quote from: namzep on September 13, 2004, 06:25:08 pm ---I have not seen a single good reason that anyone could need an assault weapon.
--- End quote ---
It's just as easy to say "I have not seen a single good reason that anyone can give me to ban an assault weapon".
If the proliferation of assault weapons will lead to higher death rates, in your mind, then please tell me your foolproof plan for removing these weapons from the grasp of criminals who wish to use them to commit crime.
--- End quote ---
Don't really agree here, but It's all opinion so far, and speculation
--- Quote ---After you've given us that foolproof plan, then you can tell me all your reasons for why ELSE we shouldn't be allowed to have them, but until then, we, as americans, are free (as in land of the free?) to purchase things that may be detrimental to our health and to the health of others. I'll gladly give you the ability to ban all guns, no matter the type, when you ban:
--- End quote ---
WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH! slow down!
--- Quote ---1) alcohol (one of the top causes of traffic fatalities, right? AND bad for you!)
2) smoking of all kinds, ESPECIALLY the left-handed cigarettes, since second-hand smoke is attributed to cancer deaths in non-smokers
--- End quote ---
Not true. Marijuana (which is relatively harmless), Crack, Cocaine, Extacy, Shrooms, and more I'm not mentioning.
--- Quote ---3)automobiles (I have yet to hear of a traffic fatality that didn't include at least one of these death-mobiles...don't even get me started on the I.Q.'s of some of these "drivers")
4)knives of ANY kind - second-most preferred weapon used in armed robberies, and something that can kill, if used by someone with criminal intent
--- End quote ---
Close... Switchblades are illegal. Gravity knives is a stretch.
--- Quote ---5)rope - #1 weapon of choice in all strangling deaths, and something we should regulate due to the possible accidental "mis-firing" and subsequent entanglement in said weapon, thereby leading to death
See, there are many things that can kill you in this world, some more dangerous than others. These things CAN kill if criminals are allowed to have them. They are safe if in the hands of law-abiding citizens (although an accidental "discharge of the above items, as well as others not named here, has been known to occur).
You see no need for them, although many others do see a need, if only to satisfy the urge to possess it. You CANNOT legislate personal responsibility, and this is yet one more attempt to do so. You wish to have the criminal-minded among us conform to your laws, when by definition, the criminal is the person for whom bans and laws will be scoffed at and disregarded. When you understand the definition of the word criminal, you will be well on your way to understanding why bans will only ensure the law-abiding citizen will be complying, while the criminal uses the ban as an opportunity to be one of a minority capable of forcing their will on those who have complied.
--- Quote ---Well other than to mount them (Which is still bull in my opinion) there isn't any other reason to own them but to raise some hell.
--- End quote ---
Please stick to ensuring that your VIEWS do not infringe upon my RIGHTS. I may have to ask for a ban on your free speech. ::)
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version