How many uzis do liberals need to buy before the right gets scared?

[Generic Other]

I am considering becoming an armed law abiding citizen on Monday. I have never even held a gun in my hands, but I am considering buying a fully automatic weapon and a cache of ammunition.

Does that scare rightwingers? It should.

Maybe all peace loving liberals should consider doing so. What does it take? 24 hours to run a background check? We should all initiate this process on Monday regardless of whether we ultimately buy a gun. Make the numbers go so high that it looks like a record number of people are rushing to become armed and dangerous. Scare the pants off the idiots who support letting any nut who wants one own an assault rifle.

I wonder how many potential Al Q operatives will be buying their weapons next week having passed lame background checks on their way to Paradise?

I think they better raise the terror alert to high Orange on Monday. There are terrorists in the government, and they are planning attacks against us all.

[DoBotherMe]

1. I'm ready to arm too

if only to protect myself from this corrupt government.

[Generic Other]

2. I find the idea utterly repellant

however, I am also afraid of my government.

[DoNotRefill]

43. As the saying goes....

"If the Government doesn't trust me with my guns, why should I trust them with theirs?"

[Lefty48197]

131. Protect yourself? How?

If federal agents come to your door will you shoot them?

[DoNotRefill]

156. the more likely scenario...

is the modern version of the Brownshirts coming by...

[livinginphotographs]

3. I've been planning to get a shotgun for home protection.

Haven't really considered the need for armed revolution, though.

[glitch]

4. What an excellent idea - if we could get moveon to organize this kind of

protest it would freak them out. I wonder if they require a deposit.

[Generic Other]

8. I don't have a clue

BUT if you must pass a background check, you probably don't have to hand over money until you do.

My local gun shop sold the DC sniper his weapons.

[maxsolomon]

29. howdy tacoma!

downtown seattle here.

[Generic Other]

38. Now it won't scare you if every liberal in Tacoma buys a gun, will it?

Everyone else has 'em.

[benburch]

5. Not just guns...

Remember to buy a few thousand rounds of ammo too...

[DoNotRefill]

63. and magazines, too...

it does you very little good to have a great gun, many thousands of rounds of ammo, and one magazine.

[Generic Other]

80. So which one should I subscribe to?

Soldier of Fortune?

:evilgrin:

[DoNotRefill]

81. It depends on what kind of gun you get.

My favorites are:
"Drums R Us"
"50 ways to load your Luger"
"Insanely armed roosters and the chickens that love them"
"Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, but both can buy high capacity ammunition feeding devices online!"
"Guns and Hambones" (this one has some killer soup recipes)
"Soldier of Indifference"

Then, of course, you get into the true "gun porn", which I'm not willing to discuss.

[iverglas]

89. but of course

Then, of course, you get into the true "gun porn", which I'm not willing to discuss.

All one needs to do is google for that guy ... damn, what was his name? ... the shaved pubis/handgun, nipple/wrench guy whose, um, philosophy sends some of our colleagues into such transports of, um, platonic delight.

Damn, what was his name?? Polish up the gold star ... there we are: Oleg Volk, the charmer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=72740#73719
(click on the link in that post at yer own risk, if y'all happen to have any vague discomfort about the objectification of women and in particular about the association of firearms with the objectification of women)



Now I'm sure somebody will tell us that he's obviously not a real gun loon, he's a teeny-weenied whiny gun grabber masquerading as a gun loon.

But hey, he paints word pictures too. For the more platonically inclined among us: http://www.a-human-right.com/photos.html

[FatSlob]

108. Real mature there.

There you go again, talking about penises. How mature! I'm so impressed by your...well...ok, I'm not impressed at all with you. Oleg's pretty good, isn't he? Maybe you're just compensating for a lack of freedom.

[Lefty48197]

132. Ah yes, the KKK advocates gun control

that makes lots of sense. Lots of it.

[FeebMaster]

141. Ah yes, the KKK advocates allowing blacks to buy

whatever guns they want. That makes lots of sense. Lots of it.

[library_max]

150. You know what? Instead of you and FatSlob making up your facts,

why don't you actually find a source that says what the modern KKK advocates or doesn't advocate about gun control? Until then, we are arguing about pure fiction.

[FeebMaster]

153. You know this habit you have of responding to posts

without reading the whole subthread is kind of annoying.

If you think the KKK supports arming minorities, that great. Don't be too surprised if people laugh at you if you announce it in public, though.

[library_max]

159. I read the whole subthread.

FatSlob introduced the garbage argument that gun control is racist in post #108. As he invoked "Klansmen," Lefty48197 in post #132 made a sarcastic remark about Klansmen not being pro-gun-control. In #141, you replied to the effect that the KKK does support gun control. Hence my statement that both you and FatSlob have once again thrown out assertions without the slightest shred of fact or support.

[FeebMaster]

161. So you're saying the KKK supports

arming minorities then. That's interesting. I'm not a big follower of KKK business myself. Don't frequent their websites or anything like that. There is a fellow who posts here occasionally who seems to enjoy those sorts of websites. Perhaps you should discuss this intriguing discovery of the KKK's newfound support for the rights of minorities with him.

[Renaissance]

163. They try to have it both ways.

The grabbers say that supporting the RKBA is racist, yet conveniently disregard that nobody is stopping minorities from acquring guns.

An interesting paradox.

[library_max]

164. You've got it slightly backwards.

It's not necessarily racist to support the RKBA. But racists overwhelmingly do support the RKBA. That's a simple fact that anyone can observe. Spin and outright lies won't change it.

[iverglas]

166. pretty sad

So you're saying the KKK supports arming
minorities then. That's interesting.

It surely would be interesting ... if anybody had said it.

The issue in the reproductive rights debate is not abortion, it is the right to have an abortion. People who are pro-choice do not "support women having abortions" (let alone "support aborting women's pregancies", which would be the counterpart of what you said about "arming minorities"). They support women having the right to have abortions.

Perhaps you can tell where this little analogy is going. Perhaps not ...

The issue in the firearms control debate is not whether anyone in particular, or in general, should be "armed". It is whether people should be entitled to be "armed" in any particular way.

No one is "arming" anyone. People who reject firearms control are not "arming" anyone. They are very unlikely to support "arming" anyone.

Who's going to do all this "arming", if they do? Who is the subject of the verb in that "arming minorities" of yours?

It is entirely possible to oppose abortion and yet support non-interference in the right to have an abortion. Just as it is possible to oppose adultery or same-sex marriage and yet oppose interference in the right to commit adultery or enter a same-sex marriage, etc. etc. That's kinda what rights are all about.

It is entirely possible for the KKK to oppose "arming minorities" (or to oppose minorities arming themselves) and yet oppose interference in the right of minorities to own firearms.

Even the KKK can figure out that with rights being what they are, it just ain't possible to support the right to own firearms and yet also support interference in the exercise of that right by racial minorities. Not if they expect to be taken remotely seriously.

So your little question, once again, was just a bit of demagoguery.

No one at all has suggested that the KKK "supports arming minorities" -- and no one at all has demonstrated that the KKK supports interference in the exercise of that right by racial minorities.

Just like library_max said.

[FeebMaster]

168. Oh I'm sorry.

I should have said So then, you're saying the KKK supports the right of minorities to arm themselves. That's interesting.

[library_max]

169. It's pretty much the same pathetic distortion/fabrication either way.

:shrug:

[FeebMaster]

170. Hey, don't look at me

I'm not the one who thinks the KKK wants armed and dangerous minorities wandering around.

[iverglas]

175. and then he promptly

reverts to the actual pathetic fabrication in its original form:

I'm not the one who thinks the KKK wants armed and dangerous minorities wandering around.

Yeah, that would be kinda like how the mainstream christian churches in Canada, all of which support abortion rights, want women wandering around terminating pregnancies willy-nilly.

I don't see anything at all incongruous about saying that the KKK advocates no interference in the exercise of the right of members of racial minorities to possess firearms -- since, as I said, the KKK is perfectly aware that there is no legal/constitutional way to interfere in their exercise of that right without interfering in everyone else's exercise of it.

But heck, there's nothing like the horse's mouth, eh? (And of course everyone will realize that I link to the nasty site in question to establish the facts for which it *is* authority -- its own platform -- and do not offer it as authority for anything else, or even as a nice place to visit.)

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

Abolish all anti-gun laws and encourage every adult to own a weapon

The cure for crime in America is not take guns off the streets but to put more guns ON the streets. Violent criminals should be punished, but law abiding citizens should be allowed to defend their homes, business and families with out fear of the federal government treating them as the criminal.

Seems pretty unequivocal to me. And about as ungrammatical as the rest of it.

In fact, the KKK not only opposes interference in the exercise of the right to possess firearms, it supports every adult arming him/herself.

So gosh, it looks like the KKK does "want armed minorities wandering around". (The "dangerous" bit of the supposedly sarcastic statement about the KKK and armed minorities is just a red herring, of course ... kinda like how I might accuse a lot of folks here of "wanting armed and dangerous internet posters wandering around" ... and they'd tell me they're not dangerous ... .)

And just as I expected, I don't find a single thing in that platform advocating differential treatment in anything based on race. They're extraordinarily stupid and evil, but on that point they're the proverbial blind pig.

[FeebMaster]

176. Aww, that's cute. You believe it too.

[Generic Other]

95. gun porn?

I can use my imagination.

[DoNotRefill]

155. No need. Here ya go:

http://www.villagephotos.com/viewpubimage.asp?id_=9918394&selected=937575

Shortly after midnight on Monday, September 13, 2004, I converted a "post ban" rifle into "semi-automatic assault weapon" configuration. This link goes to a picture of the finished result. Notice the festive "Winnie the Pooh" sheets in the (otherwise empty) crib where the Assault weapon is resting.

Unfortunately, I had to destroy my new "Semiautomatic assault weapon" shortly after I took that picture. While Federal law restricting these may have sunsetted, my nether regions would have been kicked if the highest law in my house (AKA She Who Must Be Obeyed) woke up and found her $100+ Zwilling Chef's Knife electrical-taped on the end of my stinky-butt rifle, and ESPECIALLY if she saw that stinky-butt rifle in Eva's crib. If I get caught, the promised "blood in the streets" may start with me, as S.W.M.B.O. might indeed stick said "bayonet"/chef's knife into me. I doubt S.W.M.B.O. would take the time to tape it to the rifle before punishing me. Please note, however, that I DID have the foresight to wrap the handle of the chef's knife in a paper towel so that there would be no sticky tape reside to tip her off.

If S.W.M.B.O DID tape the knife to the rifle and then stick me with it, that would probably be the first "un-random walk-by bayoneting" in this State's history.

[genius]

6. I would advise parents against this but all other liberals might buy

a batch of the things and then count and collectively send letters to the right noting how well armed our side is.

[apnu]

7. One

And their collective heads would explode at the very idea of an armed liberal.

To them, it would be such a dire contradiction of reality that the act of armed, pro-gun, liberals would call into question everything they know about their black-and-white world view.

Its the kind of brain popping first year logic students suffer when they deal with things like: If FALSE then FALSE is a TRUE statement. And, FALSE if and only if FALSE is also TRUE.

Both statements make total sense if you ponder them for a while, but on the surface, society teaches that FALSE is FALSE and TRUE is TRUE, and so the above statements should be wrong or at least invalid.

I, for one, would find it funny to watch the NRA get real confused if its ranks were suddenly bloated by liberals and progressives.

[onenote]

9. if the naacp

launched a campaign to encourage every african american family to get a gun, the repugs would become supporters of gun control in about 10 minutes.

onenote

[Generic Other]

11. Heh heh heh

onenote, you are a true rabblerouser!

[DoNotRefill]

19. historically...

fear of minorities has been the driving force behind gun control laws.

From New York's "swarthy immigrants" (that was the legislature's term, not mine) to Florida's Supreme Court ruling in the 1940's that gun control laws only applied to minorities, not white people, racism has ALWAYS been the root of gun control. Read Scott v. Sanford, the so-called "Dred Scott Decision". Taney states that African-Americans cannot be citizens, because if they were citizens, they could own guns. Imagine how different Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement would have been if every time the Klan assholes went to terrorize a family, three or four of them got their asses shot and killed. The Klan wouldn't have lasted 5 years, much less 5 decades.

[Generic Other]

26. Interesting post!

I had no idea. So as a minority, I have yet another good reason to spend the grocery money. Or maybe if I go to one of those banks that give guns away to people who open accounts...do you think they will have AK7s. I really want something Amurrican!

[DoNotRefill]

27. Ummm...the AK-47 was designed by a guy named Kalishnikov....

and was the weapon of choice for the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. It's about as un-american of a gun as you can get.

:)

[Generic Other]

39. You would never know my dad was a combat infantryman

Okay, I admit it. The world would be less safe if I had a gun. But why should that stop me? It never stops anyone else who shouldn't have one!

[DoNotRefill]

42. then if you get one, learn to use it.

it's just a tool. If you give a five year old boy a running chainsaw, somebody's gonna get hurt. Same deal with a gun.

[Generic Other]

96. If you give a five year old a running chainsaw?

My five year old was the only one who could program any of the gadgets in the house, but I do understand your point.

[Wcross]

97. The world would be less safe?

Are you planning to commit homocide or are you planning to defend yourself? If you feel the world wouldn't be safe with your owning a gun, perhaps you should refrain from ownership.

[iverglas]

90. even if it is total bullshit, eh?

Ask google for "George P Mahoney" "your home is your castle". (I'd done a bunch of the work for you, but then some ignorant "racist roots of gun control" site crashed my netscape, so we're all spared the verbiage because I don't feel like doing it again.)

George P. Mahoney is the guy to whom you owe Spiro Agnew -- Agnew having been the "moderate" Republican who defeated the vicious right-wing racist anti-gun control Democrat for the position of Governor of Maryland.

"Your home is your castle", and you're entitled to a bunch o' guns to defend it from all those unwhite people trying to move into the neighbourhood.

This seems to be a case of the myth overtaking the reality, as has become increasingly common in the Internet age. Not much out there to counteract the "racist roots of gun control" nonsense and misrepresentations and spin. Here's a bit of a primer:
http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

... the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

Ironic, ain't it?

A Democrat losing to a Republican because the Democrat was more racist and more of a gun loon than the Republican.

How can that be? Isn't it gun control that loses elections for Democrats???


I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I've asked numbers of times, that you might be interested in.

The roots of sexual assault legislation are entirely misogynist. Rules against rape were never originally intended to protect women, they were intended to protect men's property interests, i.e. their entitlement to the exclusive sexual, and thus reproductive, services of the women they chose to produce their heirs. This is a simple historical fact, of course, and not any wild-eyed feminist theory.

So should I, a good feminazi, be demanding the repeal of sexual assault prohibitions? After all, those laws were designed to oppress me: to prevent me from choosing my own sexual partners (because the partners would be liable to dreadful punishments for interfering with another man's property rights - somewhat of a turn-off).

I guess we'd both better get ourselves some big guns, given how the folks who tend to do nasty things to people of colour and women also tend to have 'em, eh? I mean, we certainly should not imagine that we're entitled to expect that our society afford us any protection against those folks.

Dog forbid that we should actually look around us at the modern real world and notice how the gun control and sexual assault laws in today's society just aren't quite what those racist and misogynist forebears of ours may have had in mind, and might even be of some benefit to us ...

[hansberrym]

105. The post civil war era was one of the most progressive eras in terms of

legislation designed to put the races on equal footing. However, there was a sharp backsliding and many of the laws passed such as the Civil Rights Acts and Freedmen's Bureau were struck down by the Supreme Court, it took until the 1950/60s to get things rolling again.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Civil%20Rights%20Cases



Was the second Freedmen's Bureau Bill racist?

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,...and to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , are refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)



And the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were acting on racist impulses?

Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[Lefty48197]

134. That's 14 decades, and counting

racists running around with guns, while the NRA defends them.

[library_max]

151. If you guys could just get out of the 18th and 19th Centuries

and look at the facts on the ground now, it'd be helpful.

The driving force behind gun control laws is the thousands of Americans that are killed each year with guns.

Gun control is now a progressive issue, whatever it used to be 140 years ago. The politicians, activists, and groups that support it are progressives and Democrats. The politicians, activists, and groups that oppose it are conservatives and Republicans, and no small few of them are also outright racists, such as Ted Nugent and David Duke.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. The politicians who opposed Reconstruction and the anti-slavery amendments were Democrats. So, does that make George W. Bush a champion of civil rights and John Kerry a racist in the modern world?

[Lefty48197]

133. True.

true.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

10. You know what?

I have been considering the exact same thing! It's too bad political inclinations weren't required on the form. :)
Seriously though, I have NEVER even considered the idea of owning a firearm. But, the way things have been going.............:shrug:.
Besides, it is our constitutional right!

[Generic Other]

14. The last gun I had came in a plastic holster with a cowgirl outfit

I had this feeling I wasn't the only peacenik liberal feeling this way.

That assinine Patriot Act would spy on us for reading "dangerous" material at the library, but the gun laws won't even allow them to keep a LIST of the names of who buys one.

That kind of idiocy is reason enough to buy a BIG BIG RAMBO gun.

[DinahMoeHum]

12. Bumpersticker: Make Love, Not War - But Be Prepared For Both

:evilfrown:

[spinbaby]

13. We have an AK47 and a Beowulf in the basement

Neatly locked up in the gun safe. Okay, so I don't know how to operate them, but I'm sure DH would be glad to teach me.

[Generic Other]

16. You have Grendal's Mother in the basement?

How did I ever get along without one?

:shrug:

[displacedtexan]

15. What a great idea!

Remember that great quote: If we all joined the NRA and voted at the annual meeting, we could put them out of business!

[Vickers]

17. I have guns, ammo and a CCW

:)

[Generic Other]

21. What's a CCW?

a crazy cowboy?

[Vickers]

71. lol, sorta! Carry concealed weapon permit.

Nice to have even if you don't want to carry a gun (covers non-firearms weapons, too).

Regards,

Crazy Cowboy Vickers

[DoNotRefill]

82. CCWs vary by state.

in many places, a CCW only applies to handguns. So you can have that .45 in your pocket, but the pocketknife next to it is illegal. Strange, but true.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Ma'am...

I respect your sentiments, but you're seriously misinformed as to the state of the law.

If you buy a gun, PLEASE get some training so that you can handle it safely.

[Generic Other]

20. How so?

You have enough cash and you pass a quick background check, you get a gun, right? Isn't that how it works? And Ashcroft has made sure they don't keep records of the purchases. Isn't that also correct?

As for training to use the thing? I don't intend to use it. If ever I need to, I will get on-the-job training. Why should I learn to be a responsible gun owner? None of the rightwingers are. What an oxymoron.

I wanna be as scary to rightwing gun nuts as possible.

[DoNotRefill]

25. You say:

"I am considering becoming an armed law abiding citizen on Monday. I have never even held a gun in my hands, but I am considering buying a fully automatic weapon and a cache of ammunition."

In order to buy a fully automatic weapon, you need to do a hell of a lot more than what you describe. All of this is predicated by you having an absolutely spotless criminal record. No DUIs, no resisting arrests, no drunk in public, no serious traffic violations, et cetera. First, you need to find one to buy, which isn't easy or cheap. For example, last time I checked, an AK-47, which would sell on the world market as a single unit for around $100 brand new, costs $12,000. Then you need to get BATFE Form 5320.4 (called a Form 4)and fill it out. Then you need to get two photographs made and attach them to the Form 4. Then you need to get 2 fingerprint cards made. Then you need to go to your local sherrif or chief of police (the head dude, not a deputy or any cop) and get them to sign your Form 4, which many are unwilling to do. Then you need to attach a check for $200 to pay the BATFE Transfer Tax as required by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Then you send the whole kit and kaboodle (approved form 4 with pics, signed by the seller and the cops, fingerprint cards, tax check) to BATFE in Chicago. They'll remove the check there, and then send it off to BATFE's NFA branch (currently in West Va, IIRC). The fingerprint cards will be sent to the FBI, and intensive background checks will be performed by a multitude of three letter agencies. BATFE's part takes, on average, 3-6 months to complete. Once it's complete, they'll issue a $200 tax stamp, attach it to the Form 4, and send it to the Seller, who can then and only then transfer the gun to you.

I suspect that you've been listening half-heartedly to the debate about the Assault Weapons Ban, and got your terminology messed up.

[Generic Other]

30. I can do all that

Just because I am ignorant is no reason to deny me my constitutional rights.

:)

Actually, it's nice to know there are SOME hoops to prevent terrorists from arming themselves.

[DoNotRefill]

33. Are you a minority

Other than being female, of course, which is really the majority...

If you are, you're most likely going to have a VERY hard time getting your CLEO sign-off.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is literally the last Jim Crow law on the books. That's why the CLEO requirement is there...to prevent minorities from getting this type of gun.

[Generic Other]

What??

Japanese Americans held to different standards than other Americans? Surely you gest? ;)

[DoNotRefill]

47. Nope...

Very, very few minorities buy this kind of gun because the CLEOs tend to refuse to sign off for them. It's blatantly racist, but it's true.

[Lefty48197]

135. I think he was talking about Mexicans

God knows we can't let THEM get their hands on White weapons.

[DoNotRefill]

157. that's EXACTLY why New York's gun control laws were passed...

to keep "swarthy immigrants" from getting guns. BTW, "swarthy immigrants" was their term, NOT mine.

Of course, then you've got that case from Florida in the 1940s, where their Supreme Court held that a white could not be convicted of violating a gun control law, because the purpose of the law was strictly to disarm minorities.

You said it facetiously. Unfortunately, you were right on the money.

[DoNotRefill]

40. BTW, if you REALLY want to scare the RWers...

you've GOT to be able to hit your target. If they shoot at you, you need to be able to shoot back and hit what you're aiming at. Otherwise a gun is just a noisemaker.

[Generic Other]

54. I'm a deadeye with a spitball

You are really trying to talk me out of attempting to exercise my new legal rights.

Spoilsport. :P

[DoNotRefill]

59. No, actually I'm all for it.

it's just that the rights are not new, and you need to exercise them responsibly. Responsibly means so that you and nobody else gets hurt, unless it's legally justifiable to hurt them.

BTW, around 2/3 of all gunshot fatalities are deliberately self-inflicted. Guns don't cause suicide (any more than spoons cause obesity) but they are very popular as a means of killing yourself, to the tune of around 16,000 a year.

[Generic Other]

69. So I'm really only a danger to myself?

Twice as likely to kill myself as be killed by another? Well, that's rather a sobering thought.

[DoNotRefill]

73. well....there are 100 million legal gun owners in the US....

and in 2001 only 16,000 committed suicide. So the odds are pretty slim...

If you're thinking about committing suicide, don't buy a gun, get therapy. If you don't want to commit suicide, and get a little bit of training, guns aren't particularly dangerous.

BTW, just as an aside, did you know that more infants die from drowning in 5 gallon buckets than are accidentally (or deliberatly) killed with guns?

Kind of makes you think....

[library_max]

160. Where do you get your 100 million figure?

The figures I've seen range from 44 million to 60 million gun owners. Lots more guns than that, of course.

[library_max]

171. Guess I can give up waiting for an answer to that question . . .

[Dogmudgeon]

22. Here's the plan:

1. Join the NRA.

2. Go to meetings.

3. Talk angrily about "those right-wing bastards who are subverting the Constitution!" especially while on the shooting range.

4. If white, bring Black and Hispanic friends.

5. Vote.

6. Repeat.

--bkl

[Generic Other]

31. Won't they shoot at me?

I don't think you are looking out for my interest buddy.

But thanks for the great image! LOL.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Nah. If they shoot at you, they lose their gun rights.

eom

[guitar man]

41. don't forget

if you're at the gun range, you would most likely have a gun too. Big talkers are a little hesitant to point a gun at someone who an point one back!

[mosin]

88. You've been spying on me!

1. Join the NRA.

2. Go to meetings.

3. Talk angrily about "those right-wing bastards who are subverting the Constitution!" especially while on the shooting range.

4. If white, bring Black and Hispanic friends.

5. Vote.

6. Repeat.

I've been doing that for years!

[One_Life_To_Give]

23. 150 million

"How many uzis do liberals need to buy before the right gets scared?"
150 million liberals packing Uzi's might get their attention.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. ME TOO!

When the revolution begins...we should be prepared! I guess I'll go and delete a post I just started on the same subject! I think an AK 47 is in my future. :( I HATE guns. :cry:

[AmerDem]

28. Heads up!

Just be aware of the shit the FBI and others have been doing lately. Monitoring internet sites for " domestic disrupters" has been high on their list.


Don't flame this shit out of me, it comes from a good place and I totally know where you are coming from!

[Generic Other]

36. a domestic disrupter

My husband calls me that too!

So, if a rightwinger buys an assault rifle, they are good Americans, but if I buy an assault rifle, I am a terrorist? I don't get it. What's the difference?

[mhr]

32. Tune Up The Truck We're Buying Uzis And AK-47s First Thing Monday!

eom

[Ladyhawk]

46. You'll need conversion kits to make them fully automatic.

But, then they'll be illegal, so don't do it.

[Hubert Flottz]

34. I'm buying a Duct Tape dispenser too!

I'm afeard of the frogmen from hell Tom told me about!

Edit} I hunt with my Dodge Magnum!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhr]

44. We Liberals Just Want To Have Longer Bayonets For Fat Freepers

Quite practical we are, as always!

[DoNotRefill]

45. "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money!"

to get me outta this!!!!

[Generic Other]

74. You think they are going to put me in jail for THINKING about buying one?

I thought people bought and traded them at the local swapmeets.

My brother-in-law who is a goofy WW2 re-enactor just bought an anti-aircraft gun that arrived in 2 UPS trucks. In a million pieces. He's putting it together in my mother-in-law's garage. He made the local newspaper. They asked him why he would want to mount a machine gun on his WW2 jeep and he said "Because I could." And yes, eccentricity does appear to run in families.

Yup. I want something bigger than he has. Because I can.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Nah, not for thinking about buying one...

just for conspiring to obtain one without the required paperwork, if you do that. It's called a "straw purchase", and is actually a pretty serious crime.

seriously, gun laws are screwy. There's a case where a guy was asked if he knew where somebody else was. He told the guy, who was an BATFE informant. The informant then went and found the guy and discussed something illegal with him. The guy who told him where the other guy was, despite not knowing that there was illegality afoot, was convicted of conspiracy to violate the gun laws.

[Generic Other]

83. I can fill out the paperwork

Why bother to do something illegal? I'd just be exercising my rights.

Really, I don't think I am a threat to my country. I'm just mad that we are relaxing gun laws so that guns fall into the hands of morans like me.

[wrffr]

112. Go try it out. Really.

They're not changing the laws to make it possible for people who were previously disallowed from possessing firearms to now have them.

Personally, I think you _should_ go to a range, rent a gun (even something small like a .22), and get a little training by a firearms instructor. You might even surprise yourself and enjoy it.

I've found that when people are afraid of guns, it's largely because they're unfamiliar with them and don't trust themselves to be careful and responsible enough with them.

Ask yourself this, if you were holding a firearm in your hand right now, do you think you'd be more likely to freak out and start shooting people randomly or would you be more likely to be more cautious and responsible about it?

Check out this article about a liberal art critic who'd never fired a gun before visiting a shooting range.

[Ladyhawk]

48. How can a conscientious liberal get around a lame background check? :) n/t

[DoNotRefill]

53. OK, now you're getting to the point of conspiracy to commit...

a straw purchase. I strongly suggest you stop. The Government has a VERY dim view of this kind of thing. Trust me on this.

[RapidCreek]

49. Ruger Super Redhawk 480 with 9 1/2 inch barrell

or the 7 1/2 for the little ladies purse. There is no substitute...The finest in fascist killers.








RC

[Generic Other]

58. Is that gun sitting on astroturf?

Is that legal?

[RapidCreek]

62. Only if your wearing rubber spikes.

RC

P.S. That's what we fascist hunters call a gun rug, little lady. :)

[RapidCreek]

68. Or better yet...Model 500 S&W Magnum

72.5 ounces of warm fuzzys that can ejaculate 5 50 caliber pieces of lead into your favorite fascist as fast as your finger can pull the trigger. Uh oh oh oh Uhhhhh....

http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/firearms/2003/9/top_gun/index2.phtml

[Generic Other]

98. God, it includes a sanitary napkin!

Do they come in pink?

[blm]

50. I always wondered what the right would do if a million, peaceful black men

made a political point by buying the same type of weaponry that the wingnuts boast of owning. All over the US, in every county. Mass purchases.


All of a sudden, you'd hear the rightwingers complaining about who owns what guns. "Now see here...there OUGHT to be a law..."

[Generic Other]

61. Since they've made felons of so many black men

I think it will be up to liberal little old ladies with knitting needles.

[wrffr]

111. Actually, I think you'd be surprised.

The NRA helped arm and train blacks following the civil war and accepted them with open arms. The KKK hated them because of that.

I'm all in favor of responsible gun-ownership by anyone, no matter what their race, gender, or political affiliation.

[akodo1]

124. what about armed gays?

or you know what would really get them excited? If flaming homosexuals bought handguns, then kept them hidden, so the right wing bashers wouldn't know who was safe to bash and who wasn't!!!!

oh wait.... www.pinkpistols.com

Now, there are an estimated 25 million gun owning households in the USA. I bet there are already 1 million black legal gun owners.

[forgethell]

51. You don't really think that will scare

the nuts, do you? After all, they are already armed, and they know how to use their weapons. But go ahead, maybe it will scare the IRS.

[RapidCreek]

60. Sure it will...they own guns because they are fearful bullies

It gives them a percieved advantage. When those they seek to bully have that same tools they do....they no longer have an advantage, percieved or otherwise.

Know how to use them? What, you think there is some deep deep science involved in loading a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger? If there were, infantrymen would be required to carry a Phd.

It ain't rocket science.

RC

[Generic Other]

66. rocket science...genesis go BOOM!

just like gun!

:)

[forgethell]

I thought they wanted to 'bully'

rabbits and deer. I think you are over-generalizing, maybe even stereotyping here. There are probably a number of reasons to own guns. Me, for instance, I just like to shoot. What's wrong with that?!

[akodo1]

125. percieved advantage?

"It gives them a percieved advantage. When those they seek to bully have that same tools they do....they no longer have an advantage, percieved or otherwise."

hey, thats the very reason why it is good to own guns, because the criminals or the KKK are generally only interested in easy victims, throwing the possiblity of guns into the equation scares the hell out of them. Thats why defensively, the person usually only needs to just show a gun to send em running

[scaredamurikan]

52. What do I need to do to get one of these "rambo" guns?

I live in TN and the B*sh Regime scares me.

I want to be armed.

All I have now is an old pellet gun.

[Hubert Flottz]

56. If we start buying all those guns Bush will claim the "Conomy"

has turned the corner!

[scaredamurikan]

64. Yes he will

and the people won't like the fact he has resorted to selling machine guns to save the economy

[Walt Starr]

55. I'll get a few

Might as well, we may need them in the coming years.

[scaredamurikan]

57. I was thinking some for myself as well

As long as it's legal wouldn't hurt.

All the right wingers have them.

Baseball bats aren't good against machine guns.

[scaredamurikan]

65. How expensive are these kinda guns?

$200? $400?

Any special checks or taxes?

I've had hunters say to buy a gun you need a background check.

[Generic Other]

75. They'll get cheaper when they are legal

Blue light special at Wal-Mart.

[slackmaster]

92. Are you really misinformed or just pulling peoples' legs here?

Expiration of the AW ban won't change the prices of or procedures for buying fully automatic weapons.

[Generic Other]

99. I am misinformed

I did not know the difference between fully automatic and schtick when I started this thread. I am not thinking of buying anything illegal. I only want to exercise my Constitutional right to have the biggest baddest gun on my block.

I would never have thought I needed one except that the Republicans have scared me to death with their terror alerts. What do they expect? They want to put more and scarier weapons on the street. I want one. Then maybe I won't be so scared.

[slackmaster]

100. Knock yourself out

If you really want the biggest, scariest gun on the block there is no substitute for this:

[Generic Other]

101. What the heck is that?

They don't sell those at my local gun shop, do they? If so, I'm gonna have to go for a smaller model. Can't fit that one in my garage.

Wow. What a photo! It's really beautiful in a horrific way.

[slackmaster]

115. That was Atomic Annie

The one and only 288 mm howitzer designed to fire nuclear ordnance as a projectile.

Frankly your concern about the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban seems over the top to me. I thought fast-forwarding the level of silliness in this thread to the "Why not just give us all nukes?" level would serve as a catharsis.

The expiration of the AW ban isn't going to put more dangerous weapons out "on the streets" than are already there. In the hands of a violent psychopathic criminal any gun is bad news. A semiautomatic rifle with a bayonet lug and a pistol grip isn't any deadlier than the same rifle without those features. Other than the magazine capacity limit, which itself is nearly irrelevent because of the large number of old magazines in circulation, the AW ban is all about cosmetics.

[akodo1]

126. more $$$, try 800+

contrary to some of the comments here, the assault weapons ban dealt only with 'semiautomatic assault weapons' not full autos or machine guns. Those will go for $10,000 for something like a tommygun.

So you want to own an uzi or something. That is going to be over a grand, but you want to get a nice AR-15 (semiauto version of the M-16) with a collapsable stock? try $800. Want to get an AK type weapon but no dumb thumbhole stock, and possibly a bayonette? try $600. That's about what people were paying for the 'neutered versions' of these guns when the ban was on. Now, preban weapons that were grandfathered in used to cost double the given figures, those will drop in price, but that's about it.

figure 1 dollar per round the magazine can hold after ban. a 20 round mag will cost 20 dollars, a 30 rounder 30 bucks

[Mick Knox]

67. Even after the AWB Ban drops - no full auto

you wont be able to legally buy a fully automatic Uzi without going through absolute hell and red tape - not to mention cost. The AWB doesnt affect fully automatic weapons, those are banned other different laws.

Just a FYI for you so on Monday you dont walk into a Gun Store and ask for a "fully automatic Uzi" and receive a chuckle in response.

Also, the state you live in may affect whether you can get an Uzi at all. State laws will not be affect by the AWB.

You might be able to get a semi Automatic Uzi - but if that is the case I would suggest looking into better and more accurate 9mm weapons.

[HippieCowgirl]

70. I've been armed for a looong time.

I got my first .22 rifle when I was 16. I now have a revolver I use for target shooting. I keep it locked in a safe when I'm not using it.

If you're really serious about purchasing a gun and ammo, please don't be an idiot - go get training on how to safely shoot, clean, and care for your weapon. It will last longer and shoot better if it's cared for properly. If your state has a licensing requirement, or concealed carry permit available, Get it.

Cars kill more people than guns, but we also train and license drivers, insure the vehicle and register it with the state. There is no excuse for not doing exactly the same thing with guns.

[OnionPatch]

76. Always have been armed here

and always will be. Too bad this is the kind of world we live in, but it's reality. Those are my thoughts, but my husband actually enjoys collecting guns, as liberal as he is. He knows very well how to shoot them. Fortunately, he's really anal about gun safety, too.

[Generic Other]

79. Isn't it illegal NOT to be armed in parts of Texas?

:)

[pbeal]

72. There are so many misconceptions in your post.

The "Assault Weapon" ban never addressed fully automatic weapons the law concerning fully automatic weapons is quite different than the 1994 assault weapon ban. Fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled for civilians since 1934, and new fully automatic weapons have been prohibited to civilians since 1986.

So if you want a fully automatic Uzi you first have to find someone who has a pre 1986 Uzi who wants to Sell it and then submit to a FBI background check and prove that you have a
""reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence".

The 1994 assault weapon ban really only addressed fire arms that "Looked" dangerous and high capacity magazines, it didn't "ban" weapons or magazines made before 1994.

The waiting period is 3 days not 24 hours and each state has a different procedure for enforcing it.

In any case these laws obviously do not apply to People who have no interest in following the law and its just as easy to smuggle illegal guns into the country as it is to smuggle illegal drugs.

[Generic Other]

78. Whatever. I just want one of what they are making legal on Monday!

Any big scary thing will do. It's my constitutional right to have the biggest baddest gun money can buy.

Ignorance shouldn't stand in my way! It hasn't ever been a criteria for rightwingnuts.

[FatSlob]

109. Right! Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions!

[wrffr]

114. If you want the biggest, baddest gun money can buy...

It has nothing at all to do with what's becoming available again on Monday.

The features that were banned ten years ago have nothing at all to do with how dangerous the firearms were. Most hunting rifles are more powerful than the firearms that have the banned features.

One of the features that was banned was a collapsible stock. Under the ban, you could have the stock collapsed all the way or extended all the way and that was completely legal. But if the stock could change from collapsed to extended, it was illegal. Dumb.

I actually _will_ be buying a new rifle with most of the "evil" features on Monday. Not because they make the rifle more dangerous, but because I'm annoyed at people who don't know anything about guns freaking out over silly things. It's aggravating having people who don't know anything about your hobby step in and make useless laws for no good reason.

[skippythwndrdog]

84. What's stopped you until now?

The AWB didn't affect full auto and select fire weapons. You can buy one now. Just pay the $200.00 fee, endure the background check and find a used one for sale. There's been no slaes of new production full autos and/or select fire weapons in th U.S. since 1988 when Reagan signed the law concerning that.

[Generic Other]

85. I don't want a "used" gun

I want one of the new fangled ones that will be legal on Monday.

I'm sick of rightwingers pointing their hate in my face. I want a big phallic looking gun that says "Make my day."

[slackmaster]

86. You could just buy a post-ban Uzi now

And put a traditional folding stock on it Monday.

[Generic Other]

87. According to the rightwingnuts, the ATF is gonna come for me

Even though I have never picked up a gun in my life.

Strange that wingnuts don't like the idea of an idiot like me being armed. I guess I scare them as much as they scare me.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com//forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11673&sid=c0690a42cbb286554477fbe1f673f51d

[nofurylike]

91. looks to me like they got THE point. great discussion, GO! n/t

[Vanguard]

93. You can't buy fully auto weapons without a class III license.

I should have braced myself for the Tsunami of stupid that hit me when I opened this thread.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generic Other]

102. Yup, that's me tsunami of stupid.

I know nothing about guns. I am as ignorant as they come on this subject. But when has that ever stopped a real red-blooded American from shooting off his or her mouth?

Obviously, I don't support allowing more dangerous weapons to be sold on the American streets.

But by next week I may become an "armed" tsunami of stupid. And with more scary weapons than ever thanks to my rightwing government.

Why shouldn't I take advantage of this legal opportunity to buy WMDs? I need them. I'm scared. Terror alerts have unhinged me! Duct tape won't protect me. I need a cold metal security blanket.

I can pass the background checks. I have the money to pay for anything I buy. And I would certainly obey the law. But there is no law against stupid people owning guns. A whole bunch of Republicans are allowed to own them.

[slackmaster]

103. What specifically are you concerned about, Generic Other?

Obviously, I don't support allowing more dangerous weapons to be sold on the American streets.

Neither do I. Can you please drop the playful sarcasm for a moment and be more specific?

[Generic Other]

104. If the government thinks we should all have assault weapons who am I

to argue?

I will buy one for no other reason than the fact that my rightwing neighbors have them.

I don't want to know how to use it. I don't want to use it.

I am just mad that the government operates under a double standard: scare us with constant terror alerts, then unleash terrors on us.
Apparently law enforcement doesn't want these guns on the street. Two thirds of Americans don't want these guns on the street. But Tom DeLay and Bill Frist want these frigging things on the street.

So, they've managed to scare the shit out of me. I'm thinking I need a gun to ease the fear.

Like I said previously, my ignorance on the subject is no impediment. There's no law that can prevent me from buying a gun. I have no criminal record. Nothing should prevent me from exercising my rights. Rank stupidity isn't illegal. Otherwise the jails would be crammed full of Republican politicians.

I want to purchase an assault rifle on Monday. Maybe two.

[Wild Bill]

106. dumb law to begin with.

Take this quiz to see the differnce between guns that are produced and available today and the ones that will be legal to produce on Monday.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

[Columbia]

107. Why would you be scared?

Does this scare you?



Because this is pretty much all you are getting extra on a new rifle on Monday (you can still get it from a used one, but it'd cost you more).

[slackmaster]

116. I agree with you completely on the use of "terror" by the Bush admin

Anyone with their eyes open can see the whole thing is designed to keep people in a state of fear in order to control them. George Orwell may turn out to be the greatest prophet of the 20th Century.

But frankly I think your concern about the AW ban is overblown. If the availability of semiautomatic firearms makes the country more dangerous than it would be without them (a premise I don't agree with), the AW ban completely failed to address that threat.

Apparently law enforcement doesn't want these guns on the street. Two thirds of Americans don't want these guns on the street. But Tom DeLay and Bill Frist want these frigging things on the street.

Delay and Frist are betting that the voters who respond in a predictable way to the inflammatory questions in surveys that produce the "two thirds" or "80%" results don't think or care enough about it to derail the GOP's strategy to keep control over Congress. They're pandering to the preponderance of single-issue "gun" voters in their home states who would pillory them if they acquiesced to pressure from a handful of mostly Democratic Senators and Representatives, who represent states like New York and California which seem alien to Texans and Tennesseeans, who have made it a personal crusade.

Frankly I think if voters were given truly objective, honest presentations of the pros and cons of the so-called assault weapons ban before being asked their opinions the results would be a lot closer to 50-50, and if surveys included a measure of intensity of feelings you'd find that most people really don't care about it enough to make the issue a big factor in how they vote.

I want to purchase an assault rifle on Monday. Maybe two.

Diving back into your hyperbole, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "assault rifle" or why you would wait until Monday to buy one if you really want to own one. Nothing that matters is going to change between now and then, unless you absolutely must have a semiautomatic rifle with a bayonet lug. If I had a lot more money than I do and lived in a state that permitted citizens to own machineguns I'd probably own several by now.

On edit: It's very early, I'm just starting my coffee, and the spell checker and avatars aren't working at the moment. Please visualize Marlon Brando brandishing a gun next to this text and forgive any spelling errors.

[Generic Other]

117. Have had time to sleep on this gun issue

Your comments about how little difference the AWB has made in keeping dangerous weapons off the street is certainly disheartening but doesn't address the fact that crimes using these weapons declined by two thirds when they quit selling new ones.

When I first started this thread yesterday, I was disgusted that
the government (more specifically the GOP) which has kept us in a continual state of fear and reduced both our sense of security and our freedom in the name of fighting terrorism, could then turn around and overturn the one law on the books meant to curtail dangerous assault weapons.

I never considered owning a weapon before yesterday.

But if uninformed, untrustworthy, incompetant rightwingnuts all over America have guns, am I taking a risk remaining unarmed? Those people talk about killing liberals all the time. They are pinniung targets on our backs as I speak.

Why shouldn't I give in to the paranoia the right has fostered?
A year ago, I would have scoffed at the very idea of gun ownership. Now I'm not so sure.

Once the government allows new assault weapons to be sold, the price will decline dramatically. They'll end up in teenagers' hands. In criminals' hands. I feel sorry for cops who will have to deal with the effects of sunsetting the AWB.

And then there's the stupid ones like me who will buy one thinking it will make me safer.

Funny that even the most staunchest defenders of guns on this thread don't seem to want me to have one. I appreciate their concerns; I take heart in the fact that liberal gun owners are slightly more responsible than their rightwing counterparts. Not that I think my ignorance of guns is much greater than that of the average rightwing gun buyer. I just don't know how to use the equipment. They don't know how to use their brains as evidenced by their political positions.

The vast majority of assault weapon purchases will be made by the same stupid uninformed people who would vote for Bush and buy pitbulls to guard their trailers from terrorists.

Why shouldn't I be scared?

[FeebMaster]

118. Well I'll try with you

although it was a bloody train wreck the last time I tried explaining this.

but doesn't address the fact that crimes using these weapons declined by two thirds when they quit selling new ones.

Actually, it does. In 1994 when they passed the AWB they created a legal definition for assault weapon. Before the ban was passed, all of these weapons that ended up being affected by the ban came with enough features to be classified as assault weapons. Usually they came with bayonet lugs and a threaded barrel and/or flash suppressor and sometimes a collapsible stock. Now, after the ban passed, they stopped putting bayonet lugs, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, and collapsible stocks on these weapons so they were no longer legally considered assault weapons, they're generally called post-ban weapons to differentiate them from pre-ban assault weapons.

So when they're talking about crimes committed with assault weapons since the ban went into effect they're only talking about crimes committed with pre-ban assault weapons. They aren't counting post-ban weapons because post-ban weapons aren't assault weapons. So really what that 2/3 reduction in AW crimes is saying is that there has been a 2/3 reduction in crimes with weapons manufactured before 1994. do you understand?

[Generic Other]

119. In other words, the only difference between a pre and post AWB weaponn

is a few cosmetic features? An upgrade in the speed of firing?

Doesn't matter. That still scares me. I just don't see why the government that forces me to take off my shoes at an airport encourages me to buy and use weapons this dangerous with little or no oversight.

It blows my mind that if I fill out the forms and do the background check, I can have a weapon and use it with absolutely no training other than a quick reading of the owner's manual.


Anyway, thanks for taking the time to educate me. I have some thinking to do on this gun issue.

PEACE

[Trashman]

120. Your still not getting it

"An upgrade in speed of firing." Preban and post ban have the same speed of firing. No difference there.

Feebmaster pointed out that the ONLY difference between a preban and a postban rifle is that the preban has;

1.a bayonet lug, this serves to hold a bayonet,

2. and/or a collapsible stock. This allows you to adjust the length of the stock. Short armed people are more comfortable shooting shorter stocks and long armed people usually like longer stocks,

3. And/or a threaded muzzle. This is the part of the barrel that the bullet leaves. with a threaded muzzle a flash suppressor (which doesn't eliminate the flash, only reduces it) can be taken off.

4. Prebans were made before Sept 14 1994.

Preban rifles are the rifles that were made before the 1994 AWB. hence the name Pre-Ban. They can have these features. Postban rifles don't have these 3 features above, But EVERYTHING else is the same.

You can legally buy preban and postban rifles today before the AWB sunsets. Company's like Colt and Armalite still make rifles that would fall into the preban status, but they are not allowed to sell these rifles to you or I until the AWB sunsets. Police and military could always buy these weapons. Police and military have options to get fully automatic/ select fire weapons that are currently made. You and I cannot buy these legally. However if we get the correct paperwork, including background checks and pay fees we can but fully auto select fire rifles that were made prior to (I believe the year is 1986) Sorry that I don't know the correct year. I have no interest in buying a fully auto rifle.

I strongly suggest that you are anyone else who is not familiar with firearms take a firearms safety class. Even though some people have strong feelings against firearms. Firearms safety knowledge can be important. ie. What if one of your children found a firearm and was playing with it? Wouldn't you want to know how to safely take this away from the child and how to safely handle it until the police are called? I also strongly suggest that firearms safety classes are taught in schools to protect the children. Not to promote gun ownership but safety. Similar to sex ed in the schools.

[FeebMaster]

121. Well

I don't tend to call them cosmetic features personally. Clearly bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, threaded barrels and flash suppressors each have a purpose. Those purposes just don't make the weapon any more or less deadly as far as flinging bullets goes.

None of the features would change the speed of firing. Nothing about the AWB at all affects the speed of firing.

My point was to simply to explain why crime with those weapons declined by 2/3 after the ban went into effect, assuming that 2/3 which you provided is an accurate number. That was the only part of your post I was addressing. Do you understand my explanation?



Doesn't matter. That still scares me. I just don't see why the government that forces me to take off my shoes at an airport encourages me to buy and use weapons this dangerous with little or no oversight.

I don't really see how the government is encouraging anyone to buy weapons at all. If you ask me, most of the gun control we have is there just to discourage people from buying weapons.


It blows my mind that if I fill out the forms and do the background check, I can have a weapon and use it with absolutely no training other than a quick reading of the owner's manual.

Yes it is mind blowing. They shouldn't require background checks.

[slackmaster]

128. You're still missing a key point

An upgrade in the speed of firing?

Post-bans fire at exactly the same rate as pre-bans: ONE round per trigger pull.

I just don't see why the government that forces me to take off my shoes at an airport encourages me to buy and use weapons this dangerous with little or no oversight.

The government seems to me entirely neutral on whether or not you should buy and use a firearm of any type. If you want one, buy one. If not, don't worry about it.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to educate me. I have some thinking to do on this gun issue.

PEACE

Peace be with you as well. Thank you for being polite.

[GuntotingAMERICAN]

129. The "ban" is a perfect example of the media decieving American's

Well, you are right, is it mind blowing that they make us take off our shoes and keep tabs on all of us so they can do background checks.

I am 17 years old and this is one of my rifles.

I also own a chinese SKS, it is a pre-ban with a bayonet and folding stock in addition to a yugoslavian bolt action 8mm mauser, model M48a.
There is really no difference between a pre-ban rifle and a post ban rifle.
---ALL--- internal mechanisms are exactly the same. Meaning the gun fires as the same rate(one pull, one shot), at the same velocity, same accuracy, ect ect..
The "ban" bans only the names and some simple cosmetic features. For example no rifles after 94' made by colt were designated the AR-15. They were called the Colt Sporter. My rifle is called a CAV-15 Trooper.
The only difference between my rifle and a banned one is a Flash suppressor. The purpose of a Flash supressor is to reduce muzzle signature when fired. The Military uses them because it allows soldiers to stay hidden when firing, mainly at night. It also protects the night vision gear, because a big fireball emission could damage the sensitive equipment and hurt the users eyes.
It has nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon, period.
Obviously the bayonet lug is irrelevent, if someone wants to stab someone, the lack of a bayonet lug on their colt sporter is not going to stop them.. It also put folding/telescoping stocks on the list, in addition to grenade launchers which was added to scare the public.
Grenade launchers were added to rifles like the Yugo sks because they work as a flash hider and a nade launcher, but you need the actual launcher, which is hard to find, to install on the end of the barrel, then you need the grenades, which have been restricted since 1934 as destructive devices, and you need a crimp cartridge to fire it.
You would be better off making a basement pipe bomb and throwing it, a lot better off.

The other part of the ban was about the manufacturing of high capacity magazines. The media is bringing police chiefs to center stage who are lieing outright to the public saying that criminals will now have 30 round magazines(which they call clips, that makes my blood boil.) They don't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip, jeez.
MILLIONS of these magazines were manufactured before the ban, and you can still buy them new in the rapper for 20 bucks for the AR-15 series of rifles and they get as cheap as 5 bucks for other rifles like the G3/Hk91 or Fn FAL(both semiautomatic battle rifles). There really is no shortage of them, i buy the British steel ones for about 15 bucks a piece, they work great!

If you want to learn more about the ban go to www.awbansunset.com
I am against the ban 100%, it is just feel good legislation in a area where the constitution gives congress no authority to trample on.
The VPC, a gun control activist group even said the Ban will be supported because of the uneducated Americans who think it bans automatic weapons. Education is the KEY to keeping our rights.

I hope my post was useful to someone.

[Generic Other]

130. You can buy a scary thing like that when you are only seventeen?

Is that really true?

[slackmaster]

136. Excellent question Generic Other!!!

Good to see you are thinking.

Federal law says you have to be at least 18 to buy a long gun from a federal licensee. Federal law does not cover transfers of used firearms from one individual to another, as long as both live in the same state. A parent, older sibling, or friend could buy a long gun and give it to a 17-year-old legally, but the purchase from a dealer has to be done by someone 18 or over.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Longguns and longgun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some state and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If state law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement. <18 U. S. C. 922( b)( 1), 27 CFR 178.99( b)>

State laws vary on sales of used firearms.

See http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b2

[wrffr]

142. Don't forget about strawman purchases...

It's illegal for person A to purchase a firearm from a firearm dealer in order to give it to person B who is disallowed from purchasing the firearm themself. The exception is if you're the parent of who the firearm is going to.

It'd be legal for a parent to purchase a firearm for their underage child, but illegal for an older friend to purchase the same firearm to give to the same child.

[slackmaster]

148. I believe you mean straw purchases

It'd be legal for a parent to purchase a firearm for their underage child, but illegal for an older friend to purchase the same firearm to give to the same child.

I believe the legality of that transaction would depend on state law. Federal law does not prohibit people under 18 from possessing or owning long guns, only from buying them from federal firearms licensees.

[akodo1]

143. 18 +

he most likely had his parents buy it for him, some places you can buy that when you are 18, IIRC, but most you have to be 21. Which in itself is dumb because we should become legally recongized adults ONCE,not in stages

[slackmaster]

149. About those stages of adulthood

Age 18 for most purposes, and age 21 for alcoholic beverages and handguns, define adulthood under federal law. But that's not the end of the story:

You have to be 25 to run for the House of Representatives.

You have to be 30 to run for the Senate.

You have to be 35 to run for President.

I guess we don't consider people under 35 to be full-fledged adults.

:D

[wrffr]

123. Clarification and an offer...

It's not that we don't want you to have one, we just think that owning a firearm isn't a decision to be made lightly. If you're going to be serious about firearm safety rules and be responsible with it, by all means, go ahead. If you're going to treat it like a toy, purchasing a gun is a really bad idea.

At the firearms-related forum where I found the link pointing here, the two overwhelming themes that were coming up in the discussion were general amusement at people talking about things they clearly have no idea about and the idea that you guys just don't understand that we're actually in favor of more people responsibly owning firearms even if we disagree politically. More responsible firearm owners who understand and value the 2nd ammendment is a win for all of us, not just "rightwingers". With few exceptions, those of us on the right don't hate or fear liberals, we just disagree with you.

You live in Tacoma, right? Here's my offer to you. I live down in Portland, a couple hours drive away. If you're interested and are willing to drive down here, I'll take you to an indoor range, provide firearms safety and basic marksmanship instruction, and pay all the necessary fees including range fees, gun rental, and ammo costs. All you have to do is show up with an open mind. I'll even pay for dinner where we can talk about gun control/rights issues or whatever else you're interested in.

[Generic Other]

137. Owning a firearm isn't a decision to be made lightly?

Oh come on. That's absurd. Conspicuous consumption and impulse buying is a great American tradition. That's how come I have a Flo-Bee (vacuum-cuts hair) and a Clapper ("clap on/clap off"). If I ever thought about it before I bought something, I wouldn't own anything.

Thank you for your offer. Don't think my sarcasm and silliness means I haven't gained some insight from the responses to this thread. I now know what kind of gun I can legally purchase come Monday, which is a start. I admit I know NOTHING about guns, never having owned one, held one, known anyone who was a gun enthusiast, etc. But that apparently is not a criteria the government uses in determining whether I can be a gun owner or not, is it? In fact, many of you sound much more responsible than the government in this regard.

And I'm not against a person exercising their right to own one. I just never have. I had truly never considered purchasing one until last week when my own government after three years of terrifying me decided I'm not paranoid enough. They had to relax the gun laws.

Who's in charge there anyway? A bunch of chicken hawks who worship guns, bombs and death. And who hate Democrats like me. People like Zell Miller. The contorted look of hate on his face when he gave his electrifying speech at the GOP convention scared the bejabbers out of me. After witnessing the behavior of guys like him and Heston, I must now add to my worries about rampaging criminals, sociopathic teenagers, and overly aggressive trigger happy cops, a bunch of senile old men in Depends pointing their guns at me! And I'm supposed to feel safe?

If this law is so trivial and meaningless, why is everyone here so excited to see it lifted? It sounds like a law only meant to make me feel safer without restricting much of anything that is truly dangerous, so it shouldn't matter if it's lifted. To the vast majority of us who don't own guns, however, the action seems to indicate the government calling open season on its citizens.

Can't you see how scared these laws make those of us who don't own guns? We don't see the responsible gun owners. All we see are the criminals and the cops using them way too often to kill. Not to mention their use in Hollywood to entertain us while killing things.

Lots of liberals have started asking ourselves questions about our positions where guns are concerned. When I hear people shooting guns on the streets at night, when kids pack them to class, when the dumbest rightwing Republican card carrying NRA, gun toting nutcase (see Michigan Militia, Terry Nichols' brother, and Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine") has them, it makes me think I am failing to provide adequately for my own defense. Because I am the one these people hate. And as I've discovered since the current administration has been in power, my government also hates me.

When I go to the gun shop to buy my weapon, will anyone there be half as concerned about safety as people here have been? Will they prevent my senile old neighbor from buying one? The teenager down the street who plans to take it to school? The home invasion robber who plans to visit my neighborhood? Will they urge these folks to take safety classes, to learn to use the weapon responsibly? They apparently failed to do so when all the rightwingnuts went and bought theirs.

Ted Bundy? The DC Sniper? The nutjob white supremacist who attacked the Jewish pre-school in Los Angeles? These people all bought their guns in my fair city.

I think liberals across the country (especially ones who know nothing about operating them safely) should purchase guns in massive numbers. Talk about ratcheting up the level of terror a notch.

I really didn't mean to keep this thread alive by continuing to respond. My thread was moved to this decidedly pro-gun forum from GD where there are lots more who think like me.

At this point, I'm fairly certain Monday will come and go without me bringing home a gun. It will take at least until Wednesday or Thursday at the earliest to do the background check. And by then, I might change my mind and buy a hummmer instead.

PEACE

[akodo1]

144. good questions

"I admit I know NOTHING about guns, never having owned one, held one, known anyone who was a gun enthusiast, etc. But that apparently is not a criteria the government uses in determining whether I can be a gun owner or not, is it? In fact, many of you sound much more responsible than the government in this regard."

Isn't this the same criteria if you decided to have a child? There is no required course, no test of basic knowledge.

Same thing if oyu want to start your own newspaper or political party or hold a rally for or against a topic. There is no test to make sure you are not a raving hate monger racist.

"If this law is so trivial and meaningless, why is everyone here so excited to see it lifted? It sounds like a law only meant to make me feel safer without restricting much of anything that is truly dangerous, so it shouldn't matter if it's lifted. To the vast majority of us who don't own guns, however, the action seems to indicate the government calling open season on its citizens."

Shouldn't we rejoice whenever a meaningless trivial law is removed?
As for trivial and meainingless, this silly law meant a lot of companies had to enact trivial and meaningless changes on guns, which means reworking the production line. That costs a lot of time and money.

as far as 'to the vast majority of us who don't own guns, however, the action seemed to indicate'

Well, isn't part of your responsibility as a good citizen to be somewhat informed on issues. Just like I hope you read the newspapers for news and can identify what continent a given country is on, I would have hoped people ignorant on guns would have taken a minute to learn a fact or two. Thing is, lots of antigun people seem to rejoice in their ignorance. Hence this is why it takes 50 pages of text for the simple realization that this law does not effect machineguns and that this law is meaningless to sink in. You must admit you have been pretty stubbornly sticking to your preconceived notions. I am glad you are finally moving beyond them, weather you 'like guns' or 'hate them' at least now you are informed.


"an't you see how scared these laws make those of us who don't own guns? We don't see the responsible gun owners. All we see are the criminals and the cops using them way too often to kill. Not to mention their use in Hollywood to entertain us while killing things."

When do you ever see responsible usage of anything. Do you often seen responsible drivers on the news? No, you see the accident caused by a single drunk driver or speeder. Same with movies, you see the action star breaking law after law as he weaves his car down a one way street, smashing fruit stands and sending stacks of chickencrates flying.

Don't you think if someone who was totally ignorant about driving sat down and watched a months worth of news and rented the top 10 action movies from blockbuster, they would come away with the conclusion that automibiles are death machines?

[akodo1]

145. forgot to add

"When I go to the gun shop to buy my weapon, will anyone there be half as concerned about safety as people here have been? Will they prevent my senile old neighbor from buying one? The teenager down the street who plans to take it to school? The home invasion robber who plans to visit my neighborhood? Will they urge these folks to take safety classes, to learn to use the weapon responsibly? They apparently failed to do so when all the rightwingnuts went and bought theirs. "

Yes, the vast vast vast majority will. Aside from the fact that the dealer is required by law to use some degree of common sense (he cannot sell to those under 18, or those who are talking like they will use the gun for a crime -my ex wife will shut the hell up when she sees me with this!-) most gun store owners are nice, helpful people who know the future of their stores depends on getting new people to join the sport. This means they are more than ready and willing to sped a lot of time hand=holding and to steer a person toward saftey courses and basic training.

Also remember, why wouldn't even the most EVIL gun dealer want to sell you not only a $800 rifle and $100 of ammunition, but add to it a $10 saftey booklet, a $30 saftey video, a $30 training video, $5 of paper targets, $10 for hearing proteciton $20 for eye protection, $20 for a half hour hands on safty course, and a $10 all week range pass. Simple business says these are good things to sell, even if he cannot talk you into buying the $20 bayonet to attach to your gun or the $30 tactical sling or the $80 lockable gun case, etc etc etc.

[akodo1]

146. forgot to add

"When I go to the gun shop to buy my weapon, will anyone there be half as concerned about safety as people here have been? Will they prevent my senile old neighbor from buying one? The teenager down the street who plans to take it to school? The home invasion robber who plans to visit my neighborhood? Will they urge these folks to take safety classes, to learn to use the weapon responsibly? They apparently failed to do so when all the rightwingnuts went and bought theirs. "

Yes, the vast vast vast majority will. Aside from the fact that the dealer is required by law to use some degree of common sense (he cannot sell to those under 18, or those who are talking like they will use the gun for a crime -my ex wife will shut the hell up when she sees me with this!-) most gun store owners are nice, helpful people who know the future of their stores depends on getting new people to join the sport. This means they are more than ready and willing to sped a lot of time hand=holding and to steer a person toward saftey courses and basic training.

Also remember, why wouldn't even the most EVIL gun dealer want to sell you not only a $800 rifle and $100 of ammunition, but add to it a $10 saftey booklet, a $30 saftey video, a $30 training video, $5 of paper targets, $10 for hearing proteciton $20 for eye protection, $20 for a half hour hands on safty course, and a $10 all week range pass. Simple business says these are good things to sell, even if he cannot talk you into buying the $20 bayonet to attach to your gun or the $30 tactical sling or the $80 lockable gun case, etc etc etc.

[wrffr]

154. I'd have the same advice...

...about purchasing a firearm for anyone, no matter their political affiliation. I don't care if you have an addiction to buying every last thing you see on the home shopping network, but buying a firearm is a more serious acquistion than that. If you don't think you're capable of being responsible enough with it, you shouldn't buy one. But if you're willing to take the time to educate yourself and will treat it seriously, I'm all in favor of it.

Should journalism training be _required_ before people should be allowed to purchase typewriters and other 1st Ammendment tools?

A big part of the reason people are excited to see it go is because it was an absurd law that was designed to make people _feel_ safer without actually doing so, all while taking away our freedoms for arbitrary reasons. It's chipping away real freedoms for a false perception of safety.

And many people will be getting new firearms with the "evil" features or putting them on firearms they already own simply because overly-excited, ignorant ninnies who have nothing better to do don't want people to have them. I have no need for a bayonet mount, a flash suppresser, or a collapsible stock, but I'm damn sure going to ensure that the next firearm I purchase will have those features on it as a "fuck you" to people like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy.

If the evil-and-despised Bush administration were blatently preying on people's fear and ignorance in order to ban sales of new typewriters that have umlaut keys on them, wouldn't you, while thinking "wtf? what the hell is wrong with these ignorant pricks?", head to the store and buy one while you still could, even if you never used those keys?

Part of the reason I purchased this rifle earlier this year, which was manufactured in 2003 and is completely legal under the AWB, is because of it's ability to make anti-gun people wet themselves with irrational fear at the very thought.



It's also a good opener to explaining firearm laws/issues to mention that I have a completely legal semi-auto AK47. It's also a hell of a lot of fun to shoot targets with. And to answer your other question, no, I don't actually drink that much, but the magazine cracks me up. ;)

I agree that you guys don't get an accurate view of guns and responsible gun owners and that's a big reason why I think you (and everyone else) should visit a shooting range and become a little more familiar with things. Knowledge helps get rid of irrational fears and helps people judge situations better.

Like someone else mentioned, the gun shop you visit will be more than willing to hand-hold you through the process, teach you firearm safety skills, and suggest other training you can take to educate yourself more on the topic. They're also legally prohibited from selling a firearm to someone they believe might use it in a crime. The NICS check you're required to pass will deny you the purchase if you've ever been convicted of a felony, domestic violence, have ever been involuntarily commited, and some other stuff like that.

I'd actually strongly suggest you visit a nearby shooting range and try a few guns out, starting with a .22 before heading straight to the gun shop and buying one. They'll be more than happy to help you learn and enjoy yourself.

I'd actually wager that you know at least one gun owner without realizing it because many of us don't advertise it. A lefty friend of mine at work was stunned to find out recently that I own several firearms because I didn't fit his preconceived stereotypes of what a "gun-owner" is. I'm even a card-carrying NRA member, but you wouldn't know it by just looking at me.

Personally, I'd have no problem with liberals across the country purchasing firearms as long as they were willing to educate themselves about their use and safety issues and be responsible gun owners. I'd actually encourage it.

As you can see, I can blab a lot about firearms and gun control/rights issues as well. I hope I've at least given you something to think about. If you're interested, a good book that looks at some of the deeper questions on the morality of gun control laws and other firearm issues is Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" and I'd _highly_ recommend that people check it out.

There's a lot more I could say, but I think I'll leave you with these thoughts--

Ultimately, a firearm is just a tool. It's use, whether for good or evil, is dependant upon the person using it. Prison is an extremely dangerous place, not because of the weapons available inside, but because of the minds of the people there.

There's a difference between predatory violence and protective violence and the government is neither omnipresent nor does it have a monopoly on the latter.

The 2nd Ammendment was largely created to safeguard the right of individual people to keep and bear arms, not just for personal defense, but also as a check against the possibility of a tyrannical government. Do you really feel comfortable having the Bush (or any other) administration (or one political group) having a monopoly on all firearms in this country?

[akodo1]

127. sorrowful woman

"Your comments about how little difference the AWB has made in keeping dangerous weapons off the street is certainly disheartening but doesn't address the fact that crimes using these weapons declined by two thirds when they quit selling new ones."

Heres the deal, the assault weapons being used in crime were only 2% of the guns. Now, instead of using assault weapons, the criminals are using 'almost assault weapons'


Gun A

Gun A is an 'semiautomatic assault weapon' as far as the ban is concerned. You could not buy it yesterday, but you can buy it tomorrow

Gun B

Gun B is NOT an 'assault weapon' as far as the ban is concerned, You COULD buy it yesterday, and you can still buy it tomorrow.

The thing is there used to be just Gun A 'semiatuomatic assault weapon' catagory. If someone owned a gun exactly like gun B, and used it in a crime, it would have been labeled 'semiatuomatic assault weapon' and included in that 2%. Of course, not many people bothered with the tiny differences, so guns like B were uncommon.

Once the ban was in effect, 0.6% of gun crimes used 'semiautomatic assault weapons' of the type targeted by the ban, and 1.4% of gun crimes used 'semiautomatic almost assault weapons'.

So in the end there was no real change, the figures just make it look that way due to silly definitions.

I may not agree with a lot of what the right does, but I do agree with letting the ban expire.


"Once the government allows new assault weapons to be sold, the price will decline dramatically. They'll end up in teenagers' hands. In criminals' hands. I feel sorry for cops who will have to deal with the effects of sunsetting the AWB. "

The price of Gun A type weapons crept up and up as the limited supply of pre ban guns got sold, and will now drop, but they still will be around $800 to buy, so you don't have to worry too much about teens buying them on a whim. Not unless they are willing to give up cloths shopping, movies, and XboX games for at least 6 months.

You should buy this one



there are also yellow, red, and pink ones but I cannot find good pictures of them right now

[Generic Other]

138. Sorrowful woman?

Go to Iraq if you want to find the faces of sorrowful women.

I am an American woman. I don't ever have to feel sorrow. I take anti-remorse pills.

Welcome to DU.

[MissMarple]

110. Oh, honey, you have no idea.

:D

Additionally, given a quiet moment, I can hit what I aim at.

[Columbia]

113. Hi MissMarple!

Haven't seen ya in awhile. :hi:

[daemon734]

122. it doesnt work like that

frankly generic other, if anybody is scared your buying a gun its not because your a liberal, its because your a self described idiot. no insult intended, but if thats how you describe yourself, thats how i call it. even us right wing extremists frown upon a lack of common sense.

ive owned several dozen of these so called "assault weapons" for the past ten years while the ban has been in effect and can attest to the fact that almost nothing will change on tuesday other than those of us that own the weapons already will be smiling because we can now unpin our folding stocks and reattatch flash hiders. it was a stupid bill to begin with.

As for all the guns "flooding the streets", they were available for the past decade, why do they only flood the streets when bayonets are back in style? how many criminals you know regularly practice their crimes with rifles period, much less with bayonets fixed?

as far as you buying a gun, go ahead. as some people here have said, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to load, chamber and fire a weapon. what is hard though, is firing while moving, in the dark, while scared, being shot at, or just trying to figure out why your weapon stopped functioning when you need it most. Theres also the semantics of when or when not to shoot. It aint like the movies. anybody can buy and use a gun, but few can use them effectively.

theres plenty for you to learn, and i suggest you learn it soon after buying your gun.

[Generic Other]

139. You are a self described "rightwing extremist"?

Cool. Welcome to DU, I think...

:)

[library_max]

152. Another RKBAer gets his "wings." /nt

[xPayback]

140. maybe I'm just missing the sarcasm, BUT

you are aware the AWB has had no impact whatsoever on full autos, and on Monday you cannot simply buy a fully automatic weapon. it also takes a bit more than a 24 hour check. I think maybe you should do a little research into what the AWB did, because you'll find that it didn't really ban anything, because you could still get an "assault weapon" sans a few "evil features" for the past 10 years.

[library_max]

147. If you really want to scare the right wing, register and vote.

And make sure at least twenty people who agree with you also register and vote.

What are you going to do with your uzi that is supposed to scare the right wing? Even the right wing itself isn't crazy enough to use guns to settle political differences.

[TexasUnderground]

158. All you are going to do is help the gun companies.

[UNIXcock]

162. Good for you!

I recommend taking some formal firearm training course first.

I've always questioned why only rightwingers should be armed. It doesn't seem correct to me.

[anonymous44]

165. my whole street is flooded with uzis

you can get them for free. i tripped on one this morning.

[MrBenchley]

167. Always wonderful to see how many trigger happy bobos

are ready to plug their fellow Americans, but unwilling to do anything slightly less extreme...like put a proDemocrat post on some gun owner's online sewer like highroadrage.org.

By the way, most of the right wing scum I've encountered are only scared when unarmed liberals show up with facts.

[anonymous44]

172. why are you so angry? lol

do you see me shooting anyone? go tell that bullshit to the drug dealer on the corner -- not me

[MrBenchley]

173. It's always fun to see who volunteers

Far as we know, the drug dealer on the corner isn't posting mindless right wing horseshit here....

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

177. I don't have any problem saying it....

"i thought democratic party was all about liberty. therefore, i should have a liberty to buy something that i want."
Dioxin? Plutonium? Child pornography? A slave? Elephant ivory?

[anonymous44]

180. definitely

ill take everything you listed with teh exception of child porn.

[MrBenchley]

183. Ho-kay....

[iverglas]

178. just 'cause you thought it

... doesn't make it so.

i thought democratic party was all about liberty

I think you have the Democratic Party confused with the Loonytarian Party, myself. And there's evidence for my thought.

therefore, i should have a liberty to buy something that i want

How 'bout a nice vial of anthrax? Some Laetrile to cure your cancer, or the surgery of your choice performed by the truck driver on the corner? Some pretty pix of naked 3-year-olds -- or maybe a nice 3-year-old?

And hey -- why should you gotta buy it? Why shouldn't you just be able to take it? Liberty or death, sez I. If it ain't free, neither are you.


damn ... should read Benchley's post first ... I'm just being an echo today, it seems ...

Looking for something to do instead of work, and finding nothing but moronic assault weapons nattering.

[MrBenchley]

179. Have you noticed how few RKBAers

can actually write complete sentences with fully formed thoughts?

[anonymous44]

181. wow

you're so smart! what a come back grammar nazi.

to the guy who was talking about anthrax. yes i think you should be able to get it if you can handle it in your house.

[MrBenchley]

182. Glad you enjoyed it....

Wish I could say the same.

"anthrax. yes i think you should be able to get it"
Ho-kay....Guess the problem isn't just grammatical.

[anonymous44]

184. what

why do you have a problem with anthrax? there are a lot of chemicals and bacteria which can cause harm. a lot of them are not regulated. for example, pesticides probably are very dangerous so should we take them away from farmers?

[MrBenchley]

185. Enjoy your anthrax....soon.

[anonymous44]

186. also

concerning child porn. there could be an argument against gay porn. who is to say that gay porn is right and child porn isn't. at least there is 2nd amendment for guns. for porn there is first but it is a very fine line there.

[MrBenchley]

187. "who is to say that gay porn is right and child porn isn't"

I smell #6 coming up....

[anonymous44]

188. fear

Fear of inanimate object is a sign of immaturity.
Don't be scared.

[iverglas]

190. are you an inanimate object??

Oh wait. Nobody's scared. Mighty amused, though.

What's laughing at nonsense a sign of?

[MrBenchley]

193. You'll notice Anthrax Andy also wants to own a slave

[anonymous44]

228. lol

nice try

in case you're so blind, i was kidding

[MrBenchley]

192. Gee, I notice lots of fear

among those claiming they need assault weapons and other guns....

[iverglas]

189. suffer the little children

... and the rest of us being subjected to this noise.

concerning child porn. there could be an argument against gay porn.

Hell, there could be an argument against bathing. Got one?

who is to say that gay porn is right and child porn isn't.

Nobody, obviously, and I wouldn't waste my time saying any such thing.

On the other hand, WE are the ones to say what is permissible and what isn't. In making that decision, we normally look at things like, oh, the harm that can be expected to result if the thing in question is permitted.

at least there is 2nd amendment for guns. for porn there is first but it is a very fine line there.

Actually, there's no line at all, and I'm so glad you raised this.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Isn't it just lucky that your government MAY NOT draw any kind of a line when it comes to porn, or any other kind of speech?

No laws against perjury, no laws against fraudulent advertising, no laws against disclosing state secrets to an enemy in wartime, no laws against threatening to kill people, no laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre ... why, it's just a loonytarian's dream!

And yet ... there are laws against all those things. What a funny world it is, eh?

[MrBenchley]

191. the gates opened and a fig newton entered

as Groucho once said.

Isn't it startling what malignancy can hide itself behind the cloak of libertarianism?

[anonymous44]

194. oh yes

it's all about children -- the most commone VPC and Brady Bunch line.

So by your logic, we should be able to put restrictions of speech am I right? So let's go and ban news. After all, we could do it. Constitution is there for a reason. The most important right was the freedom of speech, religion etc. Then, it was followed by the 2nd. I don't find that this is just a coincidence. It is in the freaking BILL OF RIGHTS (not needs, not privileges, BILL OF RIGHTS). And shall not be infringed upon, but yet soccer moms like you are crying and crying while not seeing the real problems. I am not the inanimate object -- the gun is. It's not going to kill anyone in 1 million years. It's not going to grow legs and shoot people. The person behind it will. So before you go on and on about guns being bad consider the underlying cause for 10000+ deaths (war on drugs + gangs).

[iverglas]

195. my poor, long-suffering logic

So by your logic, we should be able to put restrictions of speech am I right?

Uh ... by my logic, we DO put restrictions on speech. Call it logic if you like; I call it fact.

It is in the freaking BILL OF RIGHTS (not needs, not privileges, BILL OF RIGHTS).

Yers, sweetheart, and nobody else's. It wasn't in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and it isn't in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Just for starters.

The most important right was the freedom of speech, religion etc. Then, it was followed by the 2nd.

Y'know, sometimes a list is just a list. When there are two or more things, they can't all be first, no matter how much we'd like 'em to.

But in this case, you may have a point, at least in terms of how both of these things come "first".

In your Bill of Rights, the first two things are:

- individual rights to exercise individual liberties;
- the collective right to exercise collective liberty ("the security of a free state").

Good point.

There is no guarantee of individual rights and freedoms where there is no collective security against and freedom from foreign interference.

And vicey versey: there is no guarantee of collective rights and freedoms where there is no individual security against and freedom from persecution.

The individual's freedom and security depend on the collective's freedom and security ... as your founders & framers seem to have understood.

And shall not be infringed upon, but yet soccer moms like you are crying and crying while not seeing the real problems.

Jeez, one minute I'm a "guy", the next I'm a "soccer mom". I'm so confused.

it's all about children -- the most commone VPC and Brady Bunch line.

You seem to be fixating on one example given, among several, of things that we do that interfere in the exercise of liberty: the prohibition on the sexual exploitation of children (and specifically, on purchasing materials derived from the sexual exploitation of children). Of course, I said the other things too:

How 'bout a nice vial of anthrax? Some Laetrile to cure your cancer, or the surgery of your choice performed by the truck driver on the corner? Some pretty pix of naked 3-year-olds -- or maybe a nice 3-year-old?

So surely you're not going to neglect to call me, oh, a truck-driver-hater, or a trial-lawyer-lover, given how I don't think people should be allowed to sell quack remedies for cancer or perform surgery without being licensed to do so.

You're more fun than a barrel of assault weapons, I'll give ya that.

So before you go on and on about guns being bad ...

And I'll stop you there to suggest that before you go on and on about me going on and on about guns being bad, you quote me on that point.

hahahahah.

[anonymous44]

196. okay

Why do you bring Canada in this? No one mentioned Canada.
This is MY, yours and every American's Constitution.
These rights are ours. They are guaranteed to us as people.
About the truck driver. If you want him to perform surgery, then go ahead. No one will stop you -- it's your choice. Your genes did not make you do it. If you get turned on by child porn, then you should go ahead and buy it. All the laws on the books are not stopping pedophiles. They still seem to get it god knows where from.

[iverglas]

202. lordy

I'm a guy, I'm a soccer mom, and now I'm an "American".

Wrong on all counts, eh?

[anonymous44]

229. if you're not

American, a guy, a soccer mom, then who(what) are you?

A Canadian hermephrodite?

[MrBenchley]

197. I'm beginnnig to think a case can be made that guns ARE bad....

Ownership of them certainly seems to inflict terrible damage to some people's reasoning powers, intelligence levels, decency and honesty...

[anonymous44]

198. Well okay

Let me ask you a question. What would you like to happen? Ban all guns? Regulate more? Tell me reasons why. If there were only 100 gun related deaths per year in USA would you still be preaching that guns are bad?

[TrasMaster9]

199. Could there really be a civil war after the next election?

Regardless of who wins? Could we even have a civil conflict without clearly drawn geographic boundaries? Or would it be rural vs. urban with everyone fleeing to where they feel most comfortable?

[MrBenchley]

200. Don't count on "pro gun democrats" if there is....

Considering that they got nothing but excuses as to why they can't put pro-Democrat posts on gun owner forums now, they'd be useless as tits on a bull if anything requiring real courage were to occur....

[MrBenchley]

201. Let's take steps to get down to 100 gun deaths

and then ask me again.

[anonymous44]

207. so stop barking up the wrong tree

go after drugs + gangs and that will drop gun related homicides dramatically.

[MrBenchley]

211. I got the right tree, and I've peed around the base as well....

And the blood trail goes right to the gun lobby....

[anonymous44]

230. keep peeing

around gang corners (that's the real problem)

[MrBenchley]

231. I'll keep pissing on the dishonest RKBA crowd...

as its what they deserve....

[iverglas]

203. ah

Ownership of them certainly seems to inflict terrible damage to some people's reasoning powers, intelligence levels, decency and honesty...

I see a definite positive correlation, but can we infer causation?

My dog barked.
It rained.
My dog made it rain.

But no, the thunder and lightning that preceded the rain made my dog bark.

"X" own guns.
"X" are deficient in reasoning power, intelligence, decency and honesty.
Owning guns makes people deficient in reasoning power, intelligence, decency and honesty.

But hmm, maybe it's vicey versey. Or maybe there's something that makes people *both* own guns *and* suffer from these deficiencies.

Lead poisoning?

[MrBenchley]

204. Lead poisoning or solvent abuse....

I understand diminished mental capacity, sudden mood swings, and defensiveness are all symptoms of those...perhaps our "pro gun democrats" need to open the window when they clean their guns...

[DoggieBag]

205. Good for you

But you do know that a background check on a full auto takes way more than 24 hours right? Not to mention that depending on the gun you would get the price could be anywhere from $3,000-$300,000. Add to that the forms you fill out, the need for a chief law enforcement officer sign off, the finger prints, the pics and the $200 NFA tax. And after all that if yer lucky, about 4-5 months (if not more)later your forms will come back saying that you can have the gun in question. Full autos are not easy to get legally, the expense of the gun the hoops to jump through make it not worth it to many people. Yer better off with a semi-automatic version of whatever machingun you want to get(unless of course you got the cash for an MG). Some of the semi-auto versions of these guns are also rather expensive too. A semi auto MP5 can be around $3500-$4500 for an actual HK one, and if you want the short barrel you have to go through the NFA process as it has to be registered as a short barreled rifle(any rifle with a barrel less than 16inches).

If you get a gun, take a class or two and learn to use it properly and safely,
Oh and just a tid bit, since 1986(not sure about before that)only one crime has been commited with a legaly owned, NFA registered machine gun. And that happened in 1988 in Dayton Ohio and was commited by a police officer.


Whatever you decide to do or get, enjoy it, shooting is fun.

[NoVaGator]

206. sarcasm aside...

I think you SHOULD go to a gun store and try to buy an automatic weapon. But don't give up too easily...follow through on the whole thing.

You could post a running thread about the entire experience. I think it would be very instructive and would also allay the concerns that some here have re: the automatic weapons "flooding the streets."

I'm serious. I'd bet you could even get 60 Minutes to follow your quest.

[MrBenchley]

208. Even more to the point

try to find any right wing loony any where who expresses even mild trepidation at the thought of any liberal buying any sort of gun....

[DamnSkippy]

209. More power to you...

The big question is, are you prepared to spend around $5000-50,000 on your little test?

[MrBenchley]

210. Gee, MY little test don't cost a dime....

but then the point of this thread wasn't to prove that some trigger-happy gump couldn't buy a gun somewhere far too easily...but that conservatives everywhere would pee themselves with fear if only a liberal was waving a gun around.

Which is, of course, utter horseshit. But I'd be interested to see somebody try to produce even one such right wing specimen.

[AcidLauncheR]

212. Great Idea!

Hi all, I'm new here but wanted to just chime in that I think this would be a great idea. I go to college in Vermont where, from what I can see, it is very easy to buy a gun and I was also wondering how easy it is to get an assault weapon now that the ban is over. I do think that the right wingers would be scared of the thought of us arming ourselves because it will force a change in their views of us. It will also make them start thinking of us as a group who now CAN respond to their threats with the same force. I do think that we should all be doing this (take the proper safety precautions though) because first off it will show how easy it is to get our hands on these weapons, and secondly who knows what they will try to pull when Kerry wins this election after the way bush got in the White House the first time. There is a gun store down the road from my school here and I think I'm going to go and see if I can just buy a weapon that was banned and some high capacity clips and some bullets. Does anyone have any advice before I do this? Thanks and it's great to be able to share ideas in an open forum like this one..

-Paul

[MrBenchley]

213. "I do think that the right wingers would be scared"

Yeah? Show us one....

By the way, be sure and tell us what college you go to. I bet they'd love to know there's some "enthusiast" with an assault weapon on campus (snicker).

"Does anyone have any advice before I do this?"
"Try not to sound like such a chump" springs to mind.....

[AcidLauncheR]

215. Advice

I'm just saying that if it were the other way around that's the way I think I would feel and I think that they have probeably gotten so complacent with the idea that they are the only ones with the weapons that any change in this idea would throw them a spin. Of course being how right wing (males) usually are, I really doubt that they would admit this openly. I live off campus so having any weapons here is not a problem and I would be far from calling myself an "enthusiast"... Quite the contrary the extent of my knowlege of guns is from movies and video games... And what that I said is "chumpish"? (is that even a word?) Just wondering how you're seing it from your side...

-Paul

[MrBenchley]

216. Feel free to show us any right wingers even mildly perturbed....

since that is the point of this idiotic exercise.....

[AcidLauncheR]

217. scared right wingers

I'm not arguing with you, I'm sure that NO ONE will be able to produce a scared right winger... That being said I do think it will at least change their thinking about us. That no longer would we be an "annoyence" to them (by the way, I go to a rather conservitive school and have to deal with them on a daily basis). Like I said before though, I think that they'd never "show" fear over it but in the back of their minds they're at least going to think twice about it. Just my .02 of course...

-Paul

[MrBenchley]

218. "NO ONE will be able to produce a scared right winger"

Really? Go to any right wing site and mention gun control and watch them scream in panic....

Mention that a majority of Americans favor gun control and watch them gibber in fear and rage.

[AcidLauncheR]

219. of course

Of course... But at the thought of an armed opposition they will never admit to being afraid. The thought of gun control scares them more then anything, that is apparent by the way they fight over it and the stuff they dig up to defend it.

-Paul

[MrBenchley]

222. Too too funny...

So did you want to scare right wingers? Wasn't that the point of this dive into mindlessness?

"But at the thought of an armed opposition they will never admit to being afraid. "
Hell, read their stroke books, like The Turner Diaries....they're creaming their jeans over the prospect of having a shooting war with other Americans. Hell, we've got a bunch of trigger-happy dimwits on this board who can't wait for the same thing and say so with mind-numbing regularity.

Of course, call for anything less drastic, like a proDemocrat post on a gun owner's forum as a counter to the reams of freeper-type rubbish there, and all we ever get here are excuses.

[iverglas]

225. can you connect some dots for us?

"I think that they have probeably gotten so complacent with the idea that they are the only ones with the weapons"

How does this intersect with the oft-repeated fact that there are just tons and scads of Democrats out there who own guns?

Can't youse guys get your stories straight before you go confusing the rest of us like this?

[MrBenchley]

226. There you go again, iverglas

expecting actual substance in the RKBA cause....

[NoVaGator]

214. Go for it.

"There is a gun store down the road from my school here and I think I'm going to go and see if I can just buy a weapon that was banned and some high capacity clips and some bullets."

While you're there, ask them to show you the difference between a pre-ban weapon and a post-ban weapon.

At any rate, the process for buying the weapon won't be any different than it was last week.

But I really suggest you try to buy a full-auto. Or just ask how to make a semi auto into a full auto. I've heard on this board that it's really easy. Since the guy behind the counter is likely to be a right wing gun lunatic, I'm sure he'll be more than happy to help you.

[DamnSkippy]

220. I think that most gun enthusiasts wouldn't fear..

any law-abiding (sane) citizen who owned a gun. They'd be more likely to ask you if you needed some more ammunition for your latest shooting trip, or if they could admire your firearm.

I don't think that right-wingers are concerned with who has more firepower, just that the rights of civilians to own and use firepower in defense of thier freedoms is protected.

Afterall, our freedom to freely post our opinions is because men were willing to pick up these kind of weapons and use deadly force in defense of life, liberty and the (lawful) pursuit of happiness.

[MrBenchley]

223. So "armed liberals scaring the right" is horseshit....

and yadda yadda yadda....

"Afterall, our freedom to freely post our opinions is because men were willing to pick up these kind of weapons and use deadly force in defense of life, liberty and the (lawful) pursuit of happiness."
And when they did, they were collectively owned and paid-for weapons...not some yobbo's private squirrel gun.

So that squirrel gun ought to be registered, and that yobbo licensed and regularly tested.

[tcsd1236]

221. comments

"I am considering becoming an armed law abiding citizen on Monday. I have never even held a gun in my hands, but I am considering buying a fully automatic weapon and a cache of ammunition.

Does that scare rightwingers? It should.

Maybe all peace loving liberals should consider doing so. What does it take? 24 hours to run a background check? "

Does this person even understand that the just-expired ban has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons and that no civilian-legal full auto rifles have been made in the USA since 1986?

[MrBenchley]

224. Feel free to show us a right winger who's scared...

So far, as we've seen, that's an utter load of crap.

"Maybe all peace loving liberals should consider doing so."
Why not just send dough directly to the GOP? That's who the gun industry supports....

[RegexReader]

227. Nuts to the right, fruitcakes to the left

At this point, I really don't know which side is further off their collective rockers. It could be either those that want to go buy an Uzi to 'scare' the right or the trolls that want to own anthrax.

Sheesh......


RegexReader
¶

[MrBenchley]

232. And you'll notice both of those examples

are arguing the pro-gun point of view....

[Wickerman]

233. Locking

by popular demand.

:)