assault weapon ban again

[drc]

I must admit that people who earnestly envision a war with the invading US Army sound rather scary. And bunker-in-the-back-yard cooky.

The second amendment seems (to me) to be a relic of another century, a time when we were preparing a revolution against the British.

But the second amendment is the law, and I don't argue otherwise. If people don't like a particular amendment, they can try and repeal it the standard, legal way.

[esd10]

one thing during ww2 the japanese emperor wanted to invade the usa but one of his commanders isoroku yamamto basically told him if they invade the US the american people are more a threat than our military and what he basically said was in america there is a firearm behind every blade of grass. So the 2nd amendment has protected us in the past with our right to bare arms that stopped a foreign invasion from happening so whats to say it would never happen again?

[drc]

Clearly, I'm not pro gun, but that doesn't mean I don't see valid reasons for people owning them. Though the the Japanese attacking San Luis Obispo doesn't seem like one

[esd10]

i'm very much pro gun and believe a law abiding citizen should be aloud to own what ever firearm with in reason to protect your family and property from the bad guys who wish to do you harm.

[steve B]

I've lived and worked in a few areas that weren't great. And I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been of any use.

I'm all for ownership, probably more for it than most. But it's got to be on reasonable grounds. A panicky "I've GOT to protect myself" is exactly the sort of attitude that gets people hurt. Especially family members coming home a bit late or something.
Short of the deranged the last sort of person who should own or use any sort of firearm is someone panicky.
(Btw the panicky totally wrecks your aim)

Seriously, if your neighborhood is that bad you really need to move.

I do think that some limits on who owns what are good. Sadly by my standards a couple commenters here wouldn't make the grade, while others would likely be allowed a very free hand. You decide which group you think I'd put you in........

But outright banning something based purely on cosmetics is just silly. -the actual wording of the now lapsed "assault weapon" ban was almost purely about cosmetics- is only valid if you put it in terms of whether that sort of weapon attracts a larger percentage of people who shouldn't be trusted. (I think it does, just like sports cars attract a larger percentage of people who might just drive faster than others) I don't know of anyone that puts it like that.

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then. That's right, 0.

When you buy an "AK-47" all you get is a lookalike. And a pretty poor one at that. (I've handled but not shot 3 real ones and one copy. The copy was worse than the one made in Bulgaria.)

The flip side for me is that any piece of hardware is just that, a chunk of metal and plastic and maybe some other stuff.

If my contractor builds my porch wrong I don't blame the hammer. (previous weapon of choice of the nut in NY)
If a card is trimmed I don't blame the scissors.
If someone gets shot I don't blame the gun. (Except in the actually unusual circumstance of one that's defective- It happens, not commonly, but it happens.)

Steve B

[drc]

One one side of my home is a blind guy with three cats and on the other side is an elementary school teacher. Never felt the need to protect my family or property from them.

Though I must admit, if the blind guy got a gun, I might be a bit nervous.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

No ESD the defenition wasn't " what a assault weapon is classified as a firearm that goes from semi to full auto " Full auto has been very tightly controlled since 1934 and no crimes have been comitted in the US with a legally owned full auto weapon since then.

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

[teetwoohsix]

When an individual stepped on to one of my fellow bus driver's bus and pummeled him unconcious with a 2 by 4, and left him lying in a pool of his own blood, I wished someone on that bus was a CCP holder with a loaded firearm to come to his rescue. He was lucky to live, with all of those staples in his skull.

We weren't allowed to carry ANY type of weapon, had we been able to carry SOMETHING, he may have been able to defend himself.

The only time I truly felt safe driving the bus was when I was transporting off duty security officers who were carrying a firearm.

The "assault weapon ban" is nothing but a political agenda, and has been in the works for a long time. Wake up people, damn. I'll save the history lesson, as "no one thinks those things can happen here" (but I encourage you to study countries that banned their citizens from owning firearms, and what followed).

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...wtown-massacre

Sincerely, Clayton (an individual who does not own a gun but believes in peoples right to defend themselves any way they see fit)

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

ESD is right. That is the very definition of an assault rifle - "capable of selective fire." Selective fire means it has the ability to switch from semi-automatic to fully automatic. Don't take my word for it. Look it up on Wikipedia.

The way the ban defined them was stuff like folding stocks etc.

That can also be found on wikipedia.

Selective fire is a form of full auto, and as I said has been tightly regulated since 1934. Although I don't think there were any selective fire guns made at the time.

Steve B