Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2004, 07:57 PM   #1
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
Default Assault-Weapons Ban, R.I.P.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0409130630.asp

September 13, 2004, 6:30 a.m.
Assault-Weapons Ban, R.I.P.
Good riddance.

By Timothy Wheeler

The 1994 federal assault-weapons ban officially dies tonight. It was a bad job from the beginning, a fraudulent piece of legislation pushed through by hard-line gun-control advocates during the glory days of the Clinton era. To get it through Congress, its backers had to agree to a ten-year sunset provision. The law passes quietly into history at midnight.


Until the last minute, apologists for the ban have tried desperately to breathe life back into it, predicting doom if Congress failed to extend the law. A frantic Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.) was quoted in the New York Times as warning "The assault weapons are coming, they're coming next week."

Perhaps the most pathetic attempt to spin the law's demise came from a list of medical organizations claiming in a September 7 press release that gun violence (public-health-speak for armed hoodlums on the job) is "an ongoing home-security problem." Nice try.

The medical groups were mostly the same players from the medical antigun advocacy of the 1990s. They all banded together under the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP Network), run out of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. The group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and Doctors Against Handgun Injury, all groups whose official policies call for doctors to urge their patients to get rid of their guns.

So strong is the denial of the HELP network activists that they will continue to believe the world is ending, even though most Americans don't even know the law has expired. Here are a few predictions, based on the psychology of criminals and gun-control activists:

Gun crimes committed with "assault weapons" won't increase. Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed. As a National Institute of Justice study noted in July, using a broad definition of the term, assault weapons were used in fewer than eight percent of gun crimes even before the ban. The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun.

The HELP crowd and other antigunners will nevertheless maintain to the end that the ban's end will touch off a crime wave of epic proportions. The core delusion here is that all guns are evil. Gun-control advocates will therefore refuse to accept that their condemnation of "assault weapons" has no basis in fact. Even though as physicians they are trained in the scientific method, they will carry this conviction to the ends of their flat earth.

As the assault-weapon panic fades, gun-control activists will find another kind of gun to demonize. In fact, they already have. On California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk lies a bill to ban .50 caliber rifles, a target rifle fancied by well-to-do hobbyists. Gun controllers have ginned up a myth of .50-caliber rifles as the new weapon of choice for terrorists, just as assault weapons were supposedly preferred by criminals. In fact, there is only one reported case of a .50-caliber rifle ever having been used in a crime in the United States. Golf clubs are more frequently used as crime weapons than .50 caliber rifles.

Antigunners will deliberately continue to misrepresent "assault weapons" as machine guns. CNN did it back in May 2003, when it ran a piece on assault weapons but showed video of a machine gun. CNN was forced to issue a retraction when National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre pointed out the obvious lie.

ABC News did it again last week in a World News Tonight advocacy-news piece by Bill Redeker on the expiration of the ban. The segment quoted Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, who warned "we'll probably have more of these weapons in the United States than there are in Iraq in the hands of insurgents." Not true. Iraqi insurgents shoot fully automatic military rifles — the real thing. American target shooters and collectors whose guns were banned by the 1994 law only want to shoot their semiautomatic rifles, one bullet with each trigger pull.

Redeker further tried to mislead viewers into thinking machine guns are legal again by showing video footage of a 1997 North Hollywood shootout. In one of the relatively few modern crimes involving machine guns, two bank robbers fired on police with fully automatic rifles, not with the guns now legal again.

Intentionally misrepresenting assault weapons as machine guns is nothing new for the gun-control lobby. But if the public mood about the issue is any indication, the lie is exposed. Congressional leaders held fast to the end, citing their constituents' desires in letting the law die its programmed death.

The experiment failed. The myth of the deadly assault weapon can now be laid to rest, a victim of its own falsity.

— Timothy Wheeler, M.D., is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.

Boohoo and all that crap. thanks god that stupid ass law is dead.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 12:28 AM   #2
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
The assault weapons ban was an idiotic piece of shit.

There are some weapons which need to be regulated, but their criteria were absolutely ridiculous. I don't care if someone has a rifle with a pistol grip and a large magazine, that's just a souped-up rifle. Fully automatic machine guns, yeah, those should be kept out of some peoples' hands. "Assault weapons" was far too vague a term and too loosely defined.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 01:00 AM   #3
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Guns dont kill people, hamburgers do.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:21 AM   #4
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,066
What are those things military stick a bayonet on at the shooting end, pump grenades out at lots of bad things with, and occasionally fire a couple bullet rounds from... What are those. Paperweights?
__________________
Originally Posted by Drysdale
"Fair enough. I don't agree with anyone all the time."
Originally Posted by Davek
"*blink* *blink* *blink*
*bliiiink* *bliiiink* *bliiiink*
*blink* *blink* *blink*
[fixt]

Mistyglen 68 Half Elf StormWarden (retired)
ex-Mystic Blue, ex-Sundered Heart, ex-Heart of Fenris
Redback's stuff
Redback 72 WoodElf Ranger (Lucid Devotion)
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:31 AM   #5
Ritt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 119
Those would be guns Misty. Coincidentally, the topic of discussion. Care to join?
Ritt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:45 AM   #6
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default :p

Be happy that ban is gone. In Britain they took most of the guns and banned people from having them.

No wonder burgleries and muggings skyrocketed.

Criminals will always be able to get guns, but when you ban private gun ownership like Canada and Britain have you are in a lot of trouble.
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 08:24 AM   #7
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,066
"..Coincidentally, the topic of discussion."

extract from Ritt
Nothing gets past Ritt there. Well, maybe that sentence could read "Coincidentally, guns are the topic of discussion." but that would be cranking the I.Q. threshhold a tad too high. Being off topic is not something I am guilty of in my preceding post.
__________________
Originally Posted by Drysdale
"Fair enough. I don't agree with anyone all the time."
Originally Posted by Davek
"*blink* *blink* *blink*
*bliiiink* *bliiiink* *bliiiink*
*blink* *blink* *blink*
[fixt]

Mistyglen 68 Half Elf StormWarden (retired)
ex-Mystic Blue, ex-Sundered Heart, ex-Heart of Fenris
Redback's stuff
Redback 72 WoodElf Ranger (Lucid Devotion)
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 09:19 AM   #8
Inmountains
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,501
Banning "assault" weapons would be like banning "fast" cars! Of course you aren't going to see an Indy or Formula 1 cars on the 10 Freeway, just like people should not own Gatling Guns or Anti Aircraft Missile Launchers. But there are 'stock' cars that can easily do 150 or more that can be bought off the Show room floor. Why? Who needs to go that fast? Who needs an AK-47? Because there are tracks you can take you car on and see how fast it can go. And because sometimes it is fun to go out on a range and use something other than a 22 or a .38 pistol. Every single firearm ever made has been used in an "assault" of some force. Shoot, even a box cutter or a sharpened plastic knife can be used to slit someone's throat. The assault weapons ban was WAY too vague, and poorly written. We have thousands of firearm laws on the books, and no amount of laws will keep the firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. So it comes down to the simple question, "Should law abiding citizen's be denied the right to own some type of firearm protection?"
__________________
"Nature demands of us that we pay attention." Lee H. Whittlesey in Death in Yellowstone
Inmountains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 09:23 AM   #9
Ebino
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by AresProphet
I don't care if someone has a rifle with a pistol grip and a large magazine, that's just a souped-up rifle.
Yeah, that's more of a "Why-don't-you-come-over-for-tea weapon" than an "Assault weapon". It's a gun. It's primary function is to assault somebody/thing. (Defend, some would say. Via assualt, I would reply.) I'm sorry, but the terminology on both sides of this argument gives me the giggles.

Incidentally, despite otherwise conservative leanings, I tend to support most gun control measures.

/shrug
Ebino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 09:39 AM   #10
korast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,846
Theres no good reason to own a gun except to kill stuff.
korast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 10:27 AM   #11
Eglath Astaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 530
Send a message via ICQ to Eglath Astaldo
Personally, I would rather have people owning rifles/shotguns/assault weapons then handguns. The rare(ish) cases of people going out and commiting crimes with them is going to be far less then the horrific accident/suicide rate among children and teens from handguns.
__________________
Defender Eglath Astaldo
Lord Protector of Mithaniel
Defender of the Phoenix Flame
Eglath Astaldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 11:03 AM   #12
Xanthaar
Toon Army
 
Xanthaar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, United Kingdom
Posts: 234
Attica. Guns are pretty much illegal in the UK, unless for certain types for certain purposes etc. And that's the way we like it, thank you. If you're happy to have guns freely available in your country, that's fine, but you're making wrong assumptions for countries elsewhere.
__________________
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." - Neitzche

Geordie News
Xanthaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 02:57 PM   #13
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
So Kerry all over TV yesterday was slamming Bush on allowing the assault weapons ban to die, even though it was out of his hands and even though all the democrats wouldnt touch the subject either.
He waits til the day the bill is set to expire and he starts frothing at the mouth.

His staff freaks out becuase gun owners do know that an assault weapon is not an automatic weapon like an ak 47 or an uzi as Kerry is describing.

CNN CROSSFIRE HOST AND KERRY CONSULTANT PAUL BEGALA: "I think politically it’s unwise for John Kerry to be going after the gun control issue. Honestly, I think it’s a political mistake."

ED ROGERS: "He should listen to you."

BEGALA: "He should, but he doesn't." (CNN’s “Crossfire,” 9/13/04)
Im sure Kerry is glad he has CNN broadcasting the inside info on his campaign since he hired them.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:36 PM   #14
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Isn't Kerry STILL A SENATOR?!?! If he was so in favor of the ban, why didn't he author/propose a bill to extend the ban? After all isn't that what he is paid, by our tax dollars, to do?
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:43 PM   #15
Lith Ahntalon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,193
Send a message via AIM to Lith Ahntalon Send a message via Yahoo to Lith Ahntalon
Originally Posted by korast
Theres no good reason to own a gun except to kill stuff.

Laugh, never killed anythig with a firearm until I was 10 or so. Since the age of 4 I shot firearms for "recreation" with my father. Skeet shooting, target shooting, etc. To this day the number of rounds I put through a firearm for recration or work far exceeds the number of rounds I have fired to "kill stuff." The ratio is easily millions to one. Good critical thinking there Korast, talk about something you actually KNOW something about next time.
__________________
Right mind, right action.

Last edited by Lith Ahntalon; 09-14-2004 at 06:00 PM.
Lith Ahntalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 05:57 PM   #16
AtticaX'Layan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 458
Default Indeed

Originally Posted by Xanthaar
Attica. Guns are pretty much illegal in the UK, unless for certain types for certain purposes etc. And that's the way we like it, thank you. If you're happy to have guns freely available in your country, that's fine, but you're making wrong assumptions for countries elsewhere.
You are looking at a duel citizen from N. Ireland, I can indeed make judgements about Britain as my buisness. As I said guns are pretty much banned in Britain, so crime rates soared.

What has the gun ban really done for the UK? Criminals can easily get guns, but the average citizen can't own one to tell a burgler to get out of the house.

And a lot of folks from the UK agree with me on that, Xan.
__________________
Attica X'Layan
Karai Tunaria
Naarga Ktulu
Nuzzley Bardstomper
AtticaX'Layan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 07:40 PM   #17
Usna
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 226
You are looking at a duel citizen from N. Ireland,
Wouldn't that make you a triple citizen (assuming by dual you meant US and UK). If you were born in NI you are entitled to citizenship of the Republic also. Even if you enjoy the 12th celebrations
Usna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 10:09 PM   #18
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Despite being the overwhelmingly liberal hippie I usually am... I support a good deal of freedom with gun ownership. History proves that complete gun control leads to more problems than it fixes. But with that said...

Banning "assault" weapons would be like banning "fast" cars! Of course you aren't going to see an Indy or Formula 1 cars on the 10 Freeway, just like people should not own Gatling Guns or Anti Aircraft Missile Launchers. But there are 'stock' cars that can easily do 150 or more that can be bought off the Show room floor. Why? Who needs to go that fast? Who needs an AK-47? Because there are tracks you can take you car on and see how fast it can go. And because sometimes it is fun to go out on a range and use something other than a 22 or a .38 pistol. Every single firearm ever made has been used in an "assault" of some force. Shoot, even a box cutter or a sharpened plastic knife can be used to slit someone's throat. The assault weapons ban was WAY too vague, and poorly written. We have thousands of firearm laws on the books, and no amount of laws will keep the firearms out of the hands of the bad guys. So it comes down to the simple question, "Should law abiding citizen's be denied the right to own some type of firearm protection?"
Would you have anything against letting certified firing ranges allow you to rent a gun, any gun at all, so you can shoot to your hearts content, even if you were prohibited by law from owning those guns?

I'll outline a few other things then I have to go.

Handguns-

Pros: Most likely to be purchased for self-defense. Easiest to use, inexpensive.

Cons: By far the weapon of choice for criminals. A handgun in the home is relatively likely to injure someone living in that home. Can be concealed easily. Has no other purpose than shooting human beings.

Rifles/shotguns-

Pros: Require a certain amount of training to use. Are by far used mostly for hunting. Lacks as much human-killing potential as a handgun (can't fire so fast, or in close quarters). Can't be concealed easily.

Cons: Inadequate for defense. A trained user can put it to deadly use killing people in a crowded area (the proverbial lunatic in a bell tower), much more devastating than a handgun.

Assault rifles (AK47 M16 Uzi or other variants)-

Pros: Possibly the only weapons to which the "defense against authoritarian government" argument can even remotely apply.

Cons: One of these in the wrong hands can wreak utter havoc. Nobody should be allowed to privately own something designed with the express intent of killing as many people as possible in as short a period of time.

Conclusion:

Keep the big guns in the hands of law enforcement and military, and heavily regulated firing ranges. Allow ownership of rifles and handguns with a permit, but limit some types (who really needs a Desert Eagle .50?) without strict regulation. Magazine capacity should be something to limit but don't overdo it (since the real criminals will find a way around that anyway).

Guns are a necessary evil, as sad as it is. One thing I might like to see is more firing ranges run by law enforcement agencies, especially if they'll let people try out more exotic types.

Like I said, the ban was shitty, but at least it was an attempt to do something about the issue. Frankly, I don't know why they made such a crappy law to handle the issue. It's pretty easy to simply make a list of the most common weapons out there right now and decide on the specific guns.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 10:46 PM   #19
Eglath Astaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 530
Send a message via ICQ to Eglath Astaldo
Its a very difficult issue for me because, even though I'm a liberal, I have pretty much always been against most gun control. However, last year my friend ended his life w/ a .44 that his dad kept in the bedstand. Handguns really should not be allowed in the home in my opinion. They are by far the most dangerous type of weapon to everyone. Anyone willing to use an assault weapon to massacre people is probly going to find a way to accomplish their sick goals anyway. Everyone knows the stat that a handgun is far more likely to injure an innocent w/ a handgun then a burglar..so the point sounds trite.

Think of this too. If a robber comes into your house with a gun it is most likely to scare you into handing over everything you have or to defend himself. Most robbers don't want to commit a murder. Most are there to take your crap and go, as silently as possible. If a robber sees you with a gun then they are much more likely to use theirs. If they don't have one, ok you saved your stuff, but in all cases you still have to be willing to end a human life. Also, a much better form of self defense is a dog. Big or small, a barking dog is going to scare off a vast majority of criminals. Dog's do 3 things. 1) Big dogs can harm a burglar 2) All dogs can make a lot of noise that alerts neighbors and the homeowner, exactly what the burglar doesn't want 3) A dog bite is a damning piece of evidence in any sort of case where the police are trying to prove if someone was in the house. Getting biten by a dog can trace someone to a house very easily, not to mention possible blood left in the house from the bite.

I see no viable reason to keep a handgun in your house. I support owning them and keeping them at a range/locker. I myself want to buy one now that I'm legal, but I would never keep it where anyone but myself can get to it. Before I moved off to college we had a 90lb dog who isn't very aggressive, but barks like hell at night for anything. I already saw one guy running away from my dad's car at night when the dog started barking. Much better then going out and waving a gun at him.

EDIT: Added paragraph spacing
__________________
Defender Eglath Astaldo
Lord Protector of Mithaniel
Defender of the Phoenix Flame
Eglath Astaldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2004, 11:34 PM   #20
Zolspaz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 619
KILL KILL, DIE DIE!

You're all going to DIE from Bullets because guns will now look like
evil GUNS!

And Gun's before, "looked like" Fuzzy little furry things on cute people!!

GRAWR!


Fool's!




Z..
Zolspaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 12:42 AM   #21
Lith Ahntalon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 1,193
Send a message via AIM to Lith Ahntalon Send a message via Yahoo to Lith Ahntalon
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Would you have anything against letting certified firing ranges allow you to rent a gun, any gun at all, so you can shoot to your hearts content, even if you were prohibited by law from owning those guns?

Yes, nothing like the pride of ownership and developing a feel for the way YOUR firearm shoots.

I'll outline a few other things then I have to go.

Handguns-

Pros: Most likely to be purchased for self-defense. Easiest to use, inexpensive.

Cons: By far the weapon of choice for criminals. A handgun in the home is relatively likely to injure someone living in that home. Can be concealed easily. Has no other purpose than shooting human beings.

Disagree, more people drown and die each year than from accidentally discharged firearms. To use effectivly a handgun has a much steeper learning curve than rifles and shotguns. The can and are used regularly for target shooting and even hunting, my brother got his first dear with a single shot pistol.

Rifles/shotguns-

Pros: Require a certain amount of training to use. Are by far used mostly for hunting. Lacks as much human-killing potential as a handgun (can't fire so fast, or in close quarters). Can't be concealed easily.

Cons: Inadequate for defense. A trained user can put it to deadly use killing people in a crowded area (the proverbial lunatic in a bell tower), much more devastating than a handgun.

Rifles and shotguns will kill more more quicklyt and effectively than your average handgun. Your average deer rifle will punch through my class 3 body armor like a hot knife through butter. There is a reason police carry shotguns, EXCELLENT psycological tool (there mere racking of it will grab EVERYONE'S attention) and you can do things with a shotgun you cannot do with rifled weapons.
Assault rifles (AK47 M16 Uzi or other variants)-

Pros: Possibly the only weapons to which the "defense against authoritarian government" argument can even remotely apply.

Cons: One of these in the wrong hands can wreak utter havoc. Nobody should be allowed to privately own something designed with the express intent of killing as many people as possible in as short a period of time.

Agreed, not without extensive background checks if you meant fully automatic weapons, do not see a problem with semi-auto versions.

Conclusion:

Keep the big guns in the hands of law enforcement and military, and heavily regulated firing ranges. Allow ownership of rifles and handguns with a permit, but limit some types (who really needs a Desert Eagle .50?) without strict regulation. Magazine capacity should be something to limit but don't overdo it (since the real criminals will find a way around that anyway).

Guns are a necessary evil, as sad as it is. One thing I might like to see is more firing ranges run by law enforcement agencies, especially if they'll let people try out more exotic types.

You will NEVER see this, too much liability to the law enforcement agency to run a range.

Like I said, the ban was shitty, but at least it was an attempt to do something about the issue. Frankly, I don't know why they made such a crappy law to handle the issue. It's pretty easy to simply make a list of the most common weapons out there right now and decide on the specific guns.
__________________
Right mind, right action.
Lith Ahntalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 02:55 AM   #22
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
Sorry to hear about your friend, Eglath, but it really doesnt support an anti gun argument. If he had done it by hanging, would you be outlawing ropes?

A gun, like any other tool, should be handled responsibly. I dont have the desire to keep guns any more, but I feel better knowing the option is available.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2004, 06:00 AM   #23
Segis
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 328
Only full auto weapons should be banned.

Pistol grip or no, high capacity mag or no, anyone with good training will be effective with a weapon. Overall, the ban was worthless because it was too broad (I do agree some of those weapons didn't need to be around).

Banning weapons only keeps the good guys from legally obtaining them. Criminals rarely obtain their weapons legally.

I own one pistol and one rifle. I will use deadly force on any intruder in my home that will not immediately surrender, or if I see he has a weapon. If he's forced an entry into my home, he's already proven he's willing to harm anyone inside to accomplish his goals.

I will not be a victim. And I will not allow my family to be victims if I have the means to resist (meaning I can still breathe).

Incidentally, I still plan to buy a National Match AR-15, commonly referred to as a "black gun", for competition shooting. May be easier to get now, or cheaper.
__________________
Segis
Retired Storm Warden of Affliction
The Second Amendment, the original Homeland Security Act!
Segis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.