Assult rifle ban to expire!!

[FelixDeCat]

HK5 - way to go man! Im right behind you.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I wish i could buy nukes. I mean, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Give me my nuke.

Man, I can't believe they let us buy sharp pencils. A person could stab 100s of people in the neck with that thing and kill the same number of people as a H2 or an assault rifle.

As you might be able to see, whether something is legal has nothing to do with the POTENTIAL to kill. There's a crapload of stuff that can do that, like my fist, a hammer, a nail, etc. It has to do with the PURPOSE of the something. What is the PURPOSE of an h2? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of a pencil? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of an assault rifle? To inflict harm on/to kill something, whether it be animal or human. It's because one of the central purposes of the assault rifle is to KILL other people that it needs to be banned.

your missing or skiping over the fact that many things are multi purpose, many people like to target shoot, many people own guns for home defense, and many feel they should be at least as well armed as any potential intruder. i for one own an AK47 among other weapons and have had it for a number of years

BTW could you define what an "assualt rifle" actuallyis?

Rifles with clips holding 30 or more rounds of high velocity ammunition capable of easily penetrating the body armor worn by the majority of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States.

Nope. deals with:

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher

 

[NeoV]

while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: NeoV
while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

Yeah the car arguement isn't the best. But what did it attempt to do? It was emotional legislation that accomplished nothing.

As far as sleeping with a gun for a pillow...that's normally military talk

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm disappointed that they banned a gun called the 'Street Sweeper.' I guess I can go pick one up now though!

No, that's a destructive device. Completely different class of firearm than an AW. Same goes for full auto, like an M16. Has nothing to do with this ban. You can't get them any easier now than yesterday.

It's specifically listed though...

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

Just sounds cool.

Originally posted by: NeoV
while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

Countries where the citizenry can't have guns have violent crime, as well. I've seen statistics that show concealed carry permits actually decrease crime.

I long thought people shouldn't have guns. I had two friends of mine killed by guns (both accidents when they were 10-12), so I used to think there was no reason to have them around. However, the problem isn't with the guns. The problem is with people who are irresponsible with guns, particularly when children are around. Kids are more likely to play with guns than knives, simply because it's a cooler toy and parents likely try to hide them rather than educate their kids about how dangerous they are. You educate your kid about how dangerous a knife is, how to use it properly, and any major problems with it go away. The same would happen with guns.

 

[lokni]

Originally posted by: NeoV
while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

The car thing is a pretty weak argument but good for comparison. Even weaker is saying that violent crime is a problem in the United States and so that justifies the AWB. A lot of studies have already shown that areas with concealed weapons permits have decreased rates of crime. If your argument held up, then the opposite would be true but its not.

No matter what restrictions you put on legal gun owners, criminals will ALWAYS be able to buy guns freely. Restrciting guns based on cosmetic factors is downright asinine and seriously infringes on an individuals 2nd ammendment rights. Now, I am a firm believer that 2nd ammendment rights should be moderated by public interest so things like automatic weapons, explosives, etc should be even more heavily restricted as they are for the most part.

For those people that say guns are bad, I am curious how you would feel about this statement:

"I would rather have a gun and not need it, then really need it and not have a gun."

Now, you might say I would never need a gun, or if its my time to go its my time to go but are you willing to accept that in a dire situation that you cannot predict whether you will be in one or not, are you willing to accept that your life in the hands of some hoodlum threatening you with personal injury or death?
If you are an amish person from Pennsylvania or live in the middle of nowhere, it is pretty hard to justify a firearm. But for those of us that live in areas with crime, you never know when you might find yourself in the middle of a situation. The way I feel about it is I would rather take my life in my own hands and do what I have to do to get out of the bad situation.

Our government has already reaffirmed that it HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY IN PROTECTING INVIDIDUALS, THAT ITS RESPONSIBILITY IS ONLY TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND THOSE THAT ARE DEFENSELESS. I suggest you read the following case: Deshaney Vs Winnebago City Social Services http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...;vol=489&invol=189

IF you would like links to other court decisions affirming that position, please view the following page with many different summaries and links to the court decisions: http://home.absolute.net/xode/...fraud/protectnscam.htm

The truth of the matter is that you and you alone are responsibile for protecting yourself from danger. I have a problem when our government prevents us from doing this and the AWB was one tool used to prevent the citizens of the US from protecting themeselves.

 

[Mockery]

Talk about a hodgepodge of knee jerkers....

I can't believe that there are people naïve enough to say that they can now run out and purchase assault riffles do this ban ending.

This ban changed nothing, except for the types of accessories that are put on guns.

Sometimes I really think that the American public enjoys traversing around with their heads wedged in their asses.

People who really care about this issue should probably do themselves the service of looking at what this ban actually puts limitations on.

Well, then again, that might require some level of effort. Carry on??

 

[imported_Aelius]

Look at the UK or Australia. They went on a gun ban spree and look where it got them.

The people thinking up these laws must have gotten their PhDs and gun crime logic from the same place you or I get our daily breakfast from.

Cereal box.

Then there's the whole bit about how they actually got people to swallow the idea that it was needed. But that's another thread.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

It seems that the pro-gun lobby's arguement is driven by "we need what they have". I can understand that - if people may break into your house with a big gun, you'll want a big gun too (to put it simply).

However, where does it end? is there not either a big failure of (criminal) gun control policy - or simply a lack of effort in this direction? Not a critical problem at the moment (some may disagree) but this is an arms race. What happens when "they" have guns so big or so smart or so destructive that you couldn't trust a trained foot soldier not to accidentally kill everyone around him with one - let alone a civilian who may just "pick one up"?

I know this is a way off - but these points should be debated now while there's still time for things to be organised if need be.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

It seems that the pro-gun lobby's arguement is driven by "we need what they have". I can understand that - if people may break into your house with a big gun, you'll want a big gun too (to put it simply).

However, where does it end? is there not either a big failure of (criminal) gun control policy - or simply a lack of effort in this direction? Not a critical problem at the moment (some may disagree) but this is an arms race. What happens when "they" have guns so big or so smart or so destructive that you couldn't trust a trained foot soldier not to accidentally kill everyone around him with one - let alone a civilian who may just "pick one up"?

I know this is a way off - but these points should be debated now while there's still time for things to be organised if need be.

Cheers,

Andy

The problem with this is that the war on guns has already been lost, much like the war on drugs or the war on illeteracy etc... Every time any administration starts a war on something it backfires. Talk about irony.

There also haven't been an arms race where gun laws have been replead. Although we are talking about one or two laws out of thousands. The ARB is just a drop in a very big bucket. It had no effect at the start nor during nor the end of its run. Totally useless.

I wonder how much it cost to implement it. Maybe the taxpayers can get their money's worth next time? Nah....

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
its just about the only amendment the adminstration has defended instead of plowing over. you have the right to bear arms, to defend yourself in a duel with zell miller and against cheney's planned terrorist attacks

but not from bullsh!t like his

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

It seems that the pro-gun lobby's arguement is driven by "we need what they have". I can understand that - if people may break into your house with a big gun, you'll want a big gun too (to put it simply).

However, where does it end? is there not either a big failure of (criminal) gun control policy - or simply a lack of effort in this direction? Not a critical problem at the moment (some may disagree) but this is an arms race. What happens when "they" have guns so big or so smart or so destructive that you couldn't trust a trained foot soldier not to accidentally kill everyone around him with one - let alone a civilian who may just "pick one up"?

I know this is a way off - but these points should be debated now while there's still time for things to be organised if need be.

Cheers,

Andy

The problem with this is that the war on guns has already been lost, much like the war on drugs or the war on illeteracy etc... Every time any administration starts a war on something it backfires. Talk about irony.

There also haven't been an arms race where gun laws have been replead. Although we are talking about one or two laws out of thousands. The ARB is just a drop in a very big bucket. It had no effect at the start nor during nor the end of its run. Totally useless.

I wonder how much it cost to implement it. Maybe the taxpayers can get their money's worth next time? Nah....

Hi,

I realise that I'm posting in a thread about the AWB - but I wasn't referring to it my post above. I was generalising for the future.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Ferocious]

Justice department just released figures show violent crime rate at 30-year low.

I imagine it will start going back up now perhaps.

 

[Shelly21]

This ban is not working as intended anyway. Criminals will get whatever they want.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Justice department just released figures show violent crime rate at 30-year low.

I imagine it will start going back up now perhaps.

On January 1st, 1993, California started banning the usage of CFC-based products in automotive air conditioners. Now, 11 years later, violent crime is at a 30 year low. Coincidence? Obviously not!!!!

 

[Luck JF]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Justice department just released figures show violent crime rate at 30-year low.

I imagine it will start going back up now perhaps.

Yes of course people are more apt to commit violent crimes if they have access to rifles with bayonnette lugs and folding stocks.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: NeoV
while the AWB certainly has some holes in it, at least someone tried to do something. You morons who say "what about cars - they kill more people than guns do?" - are a bunch of freaking idiots. If you can't admit that violent crimes in the USA are a problem, then get your head out of your 4ss and wake up.

Where do you live that you feel the need to sleep with a gun as "your pillow"? Is that really a wise move anyway?

The only thing the AWB did was make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Criminals, by definition, don't care whether they obey the AWB or any other law.

Guns - no matter what kind - don't cause crime. Poverty causes crime. Unemployment causes crime. A culture that glorifies criminals and gangsters causes crime. Drugs cause crime. Guns do nothing unless they're in the hands of a criminal.

I don't sleep with a gun under my pillow, but I can tell you from experience that a home invasion robbery will revolutionize your views on self-defense and gun ownership.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: cy7878

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I wish i could buy nukes. I mean, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Give me my nuke.

Man, I can't believe they let us buy sharp pencils. A person could stab 100s of people in the neck with that thing and kill the same number of people as a H2 or an assault rifle.

As you might be able to see, whether something is legal has nothing to do with the POTENTIAL to kill. There's a crapload of stuff that can do that, like my fist, a hammer, a nail, etc. It has to do with the PURPOSE of the something. What is the PURPOSE of an h2? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of a pencil? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of an assault rifle? To inflict harm on/to kill something, whether it be animal or human. It's because one of the central purposes of the assault rifle is to KILL other people that it needs to be banned.

You are missing the point. In your line of argument, we should also ban high power sports cars like the POrsches GT, and ALL the Ferraris since there is not a single state in the union that will aloow speeds above 75MPH, yet all these cars are designed to go 150+ mph. And the people who buy them will eventually break the law by speeding, therefore they need to be banned!!

I want a MP5 simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one. The gub laws made owning one impossible in my state. In states where IT IS possible, the law have made what would be a $800 gun into a $18000 one.

You missed my point. The purpose of a GT is to DRIVE not to KILL/ASSAULT/INJURE.

I want a [NUKE] simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one.

I hope you realize that your argument is worth nothing.

Now, for all you who say "and this brings us to another obvious question, do you really think a criminal cares about what gun laws say? they could(and do) get illegal weapons, what good does it do disarming law abiding cititzens?"

Why do we outlaw heroine? Do you really think a criminal cares whether it is illegal? Should we unban it because criminals can easily get it anyways?

That kind of logic is very very dangerous. Using that logic, we could put boxcutters, guns, and explosives back on planes: criminals don't care that it's illegal to get this stuff on planes, they'll bring it anyways. And then there are normal, good people who should be able to bring boxcutters/guns/explosives on the plane. Therefore, we should unban this stuff (bull-f'ing-shit). This logic aids terrorists.

Not only does the logic aid terrorists through precedence, the lifting of the ban itself does too. The government has said Al Quaeda members think the best place to buy weapons is in the U.S. since they are loosely regulated. Now you want to make it even easier for the terrorists to get even more high powered weapons for dirt cheap prices?? Are you even American??

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

You missed my point. The purpose of a GT is to DRIVE not to KILL/ASSAULT/INJURE.

However, we're talking about the US, where there is explicit provision in the US Constitution for people to own weapons, but there is none for cars.

I want a [NUKE] simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one.

I don't think many people have a chance to buy hand-portable nukes that would qualify under the right to bear arms, but I'm willing to support a constitutional amendment to clarify whether the right to bear arms includes the right to bear portable WMDs.

Now, for all you who say "and this brings us to another obvious question, do you really think a criminal cares about what gun laws say? they could(and do) get illegal weapons, what good does it do disarming law abiding cititzens?"

Why do we outlaw heroine? Do you really think a criminal cares whether it is illegal? Should we unban it because criminals can easily get it anyways?

Good question. There's no good reason for outlawing drugs and it's almost certainly unconstitutional to limit someone from eating a pill or injecting themselves with a needle. Illegalizing drugs has created most of the crime in the US, from the direct crimes of using drugs to the indirect ones resulting from government drug laws being lucrative price supports in a black market.

That kind of logic is very very dangerous. Using that logic, we could put boxcutters, guns, and explosives back on planes: criminals don't care that it's illegal to get this stuff on planes, they'll bring it anyways. And then there are normal, good people who should be able to bring boxcutters/guns/explosives on the plane. Therefore, we should unban this stuff (bull-f'ing-shit). This logic aids terrorists.

While guns and explosives are reasonable for airlines to ban from their aircraft as they have the right to do, much of the silly stuff they're tracking now like box cutters and nail clippers is security theatre that makes people feel better but does nothing for security. That focus on appearance as opposed to effective security is the kind of logic that aids terrorists. It's also the same kind of logic behind the "assault weapons" ban.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: cy7878

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I wish i could buy nukes. I mean, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Give me my nuke.

Man, I can't believe they let us buy sharp pencils. A person could stab 100s of people in the neck with that thing and kill the same number of people as a H2 or an assault rifle.

As you might be able to see, whether something is legal has nothing to do with the POTENTIAL to kill. There's a crapload of stuff that can do that, like my fist, a hammer, a nail, etc. It has to do with the PURPOSE of the something. What is the PURPOSE of an h2? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of a pencil? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of an assault rifle? To inflict harm on/to kill something, whether it be animal or human. It's because one of the central purposes of the assault rifle is to KILL other people that it needs to be banned.

You are missing the point. In your line of argument, we should also ban high power sports cars like the POrsches GT, and ALL the Ferraris since there is not a single state in the union that will aloow speeds above 75MPH, yet all these cars are designed to go 150+ mph. And the people who buy them will eventually break the law by speeding, therefore they need to be banned!!

I want a MP5 simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one. The gub laws made owning one impossible in my state. In states where IT IS possible, the law have made what would be a $800 gun into a $18000 one.

You missed my point. The purpose of a GT is to DRIVE not to KILL/ASSAULT/INJURE.

I want a [NUKE] simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one.

I hope you realize that your argument is worth nothing.

Now, for all you who say "and this brings us to another obvious question, do you really think a criminal cares about what gun laws say? they could(and do) get illegal weapons, what good does it do disarming law abiding cititzens?"

Why do we outlaw heroine? Do you really think a criminal cares whether it is illegal? Should we unban it because criminals can easily get it anyways?

That kind of logic is very very dangerous. Using that logic, we could put boxcutters, guns, and explosives back on planes: criminals don't care that it's illegal to get this stuff on planes, they'll bring it anyways. And then there are normal, good people who should be able to bring boxcutters/guns/explosives on the plane. Therefore, we should unban this stuff (bull-f'ing-shit). This logic aids terrorists.

Not only does the logic aid terrorists through precedence, the lifting of the ban itself does too. The government has said Al Quaeda members think the best place to buy weapons is in the U.S. since they are loosely regulated. Now you want to make it even easier for the terrorists to get even more high powered weapons for dirt cheap prices?? Are you even American??

Are you really this deluded?

Personally, I think drug prohibition is nothing less than a monumental failure and steps should be taken to end the huge financial drain created by enforcing it.

Why would terrorists buy guns in the US at relatively high cost when they can get better stuff (full auto, rpgs, explosives, etc...) at home on the cheap? Smuggling a few weapons in to the US is not exactly the hardest thing to do.

The idea that the ban sunsetting in ANY way aids terrorists has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: totalcommand

You missed my point. The purpose of a GT is to DRIVE not to KILL/ASSAULT/INJURE.

However, we're talking about the US, where there is explicit provision in the US Constitution for people to own weapons, but there is none for cars.

I want a [NUKE] simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one.

I don't think many people have a chance to buy hand-portable nukes that would qualify under the right to bear arms, but I'm certainly willing to support a constitutional amendment to clarify this.

Now, for all you who say "and this brings us to another obvious question, do you really think a criminal cares about what gun laws say? they could(and do) get illegal weapons, what good does it do disarming law abiding cititzens?"

Why do we outlaw heroine? Do you really think a criminal cares whether it is illegal? Should we unban it because criminals can easily get it anyways?

Good question. There's no good reason for outlawing drugs and it's almost certainly unconstitutional to limit someone from eating a pill or injecting themselves with a needle. Illegalizing drugs has created most of the crime in the US, from the direct crimes of using drugs to the indirect ones resulting from government drug laws being lucrative price supports in a black market.

That kind of logic is very very dangerous. Using that logic, we could put boxcutters, guns, and explosives back on planes: criminals don't care that it's illegal to get this stuff on planes, they'll bring it anyways. And then there are normal, good people who should be able to bring boxcutters/guns/explosives on the plane. Therefore, we should unban this stuff (bull-f'ing-shit). This logic aids terrorists.

While guns and explosives are reasonable for airlines to ban from their aircraft as they have the right to do, much of the silly stuff they're tracking now like box cutters and nail clippers is security theatre that makes people feel better but does nothing for security and that focus on appearance as opposed to effective security is the kind of logic that aids terrorists. It's also the same kind of logic behind the "assault weapons" ban.

Now you're talking. This post is the first I've seen with some reasoning in it. There is also an amendment granting freedom of speech. However, there are regulations on yelling "fire" in a theater, for reasons of safety. Similarly, there needs to be regulation of guns, for the reason of safety of the public.

Where do you draw the line between two killing weapons. How much killing effectiveness is too much (i.e. nuke/explosives vs. guns)

I see that you support legalizing drugs, which is in line with your views on drugs. But I'm not sure how many others out there could say the same.

"that focus on appearance as opposed to effective security is the kind of logic that aids terrorists." - box cutters are what the terrorists of 9/11 used to take over the planes. These as well as razors should be off planes IMO.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: cy7878

Originally posted by: totalcommand
I wish i could buy nukes. I mean, nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Give me my nuke.

Man, I can't believe they let us buy sharp pencils. A person could stab 100s of people in the neck with that thing and kill the same number of people as a H2 or an assault rifle.

As you might be able to see, whether something is legal has nothing to do with the POTENTIAL to kill. There's a crapload of stuff that can do that, like my fist, a hammer, a nail, etc. It has to do with the PURPOSE of the something. What is the PURPOSE of an h2? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of a pencil? not killing. What is the PURPOSE of an assault rifle? To inflict harm on/to kill something, whether it be animal or human. It's because one of the central purposes of the assault rifle is to KILL other people that it needs to be banned.

You are missing the point. In your line of argument, we should also ban high power sports cars like the POrsches GT, and ALL the Ferraris since there is not a single state in the union that will aloow speeds above 75MPH, yet all these cars are designed to go 150+ mph. And the people who buy them will eventually break the law by speeding, therefore they need to be banned!!

I want a MP5 simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one. The gub laws made owning one impossible in my state. In states where IT IS possible, the law have made what would be a $800 gun into a $18000 one.

You missed my point. The purpose of a GT is to DRIVE not to KILL/ASSAULT/INJURE.

I want a [NUKE] simply because it is marvelous to hold and look at, sensational to use (from what I have heard), truely an amazing piece of machinery. I don't ever intend to use it. I just want to have one.

I hope you realize that your argument is worth nothing.

Now, for all you who say "and this brings us to another obvious question, do you really think a criminal cares about what gun laws say? they could(and do) get illegal weapons, what good does it do disarming law abiding cititzens?"

Why do we outlaw heroine? Do you really think a criminal cares whether it is illegal? Should we unban it because criminals can easily get it anyways?

That kind of logic is very very dangerous. Using that logic, we could put boxcutters, guns, and explosives back on planes: criminals don't care that it's illegal to get this stuff on planes, they'll bring it anyways. And then there are normal, good people who should be able to bring boxcutters/guns/explosives on the plane. Therefore, we should unban this stuff (bull-f'ing-shit). This logic aids terrorists.

Not only does the logic aid terrorists through precedence, the lifting of the ban itself does too. The government has said Al Quaeda members think the best place to buy weapons is in the U.S. since they are loosely regulated. Now you want to make it even easier for the terrorists to get even more high powered weapons for dirt cheap prices?? Are you even American??

Are you really this deluded?

Personally, I think drug prohibition is nothing less than a monumental failure and steps should be taken to end the huge financial drain created by enforcing it.

Why would terrorists buy guns in the US at relatively high cost when they can get better stuff (full auto, rpgs, explosives, etc...) at home on the cheap? Smuggling a few weapons in to the US is not exactly the hardest thing to do.

The idea that the ban sunsetting in ANY way aids terrorists has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.

Better start believing it. It's true.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Better start believing it. It's true.

Apparently, the answer to my question is a yes. :roll:

 

[Bulk Beef]

Better start believing it. It's true.

If you had any idea what this law said or did, you would know what a crock of sh*t you were spewing.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
"that focus on appearance as opposed to effective security is the kind of logic that aids terrorists." - box cutters are what the terrorists of 9/11 used to take over the planes. These as well as razors should be off planes IMO.

No, they shouldn't. The process for dealing with terrorists before 9/11 was different than it is now. No one would be able to take a plane hostage nowadays with a razor, boxcutter, pocket knife, or hell even a gun. A: the passengers wouldn't allow it. I'm confident that there WOULD be members willing to sacrifice themselves to save the plane. And B:, if any more planes are hijacked, they will be shot down, and the terrorists know this.

But those details are besides the point of this thread. Terrorists are not getting their weapons from inside the US. That idea is preposterous. If they were doing that, then why didn't they use these assault weapons on 9/11?