tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post3008020137811430893..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Assault Weapons Ban - Here We GoAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22753524647131400852009-03-02T23:18:00.000+01:002009-03-02T23:18:00.000+01:00Not wrong at all.I DO see it as VERY wrong on ever...Not wrong at all.<BR/><BR/>I DO see it as VERY wrong on every level for an agenda you KNOW is wrong, and you KNOW kills people.<BR/><BR/>How do you justify such behavior?Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-70755009595744092412009-03-02T21:43:00.000+01:002009-03-02T21:43:00.000+01:00Mike,Do you think there is something wrong with a ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Do you think there is something wrong with a person calling his blog guest criminals and enablers of criminals as you have repeatedly called us?<BR/><BR/>Every time you say we are responsible for the violence committed by hoodlums, you are insulting us. <BR/><BR/>Every time you continue to spread lies, you enable those that want to take away our rights.<BR/><BR/>Why do you continue to call for the extinction of OUR RIGHTS and not expect us to get a teensy little perturbed?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-26548413612368670432009-03-02T20:19:00.000+01:002009-03-02T20:19:00.000+01:00"deceitful bastards like Mike B." How far are you...<I>"deceitful bastards like Mike B."</I> How far are you planning to go with the insults, Weer'd? Don't you think there's something wrong with a guy coming over to another guy's blog and saying shit like that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43951437421281294022009-03-02T18:22:00.000+01:002009-03-02T18:22:00.000+01:00The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable the ...The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable the citizenry to overthrow (yes, by force) a tyrannical government. It was not promulgated to protect target shooter, hunters, or for self-protection although these are all positive side-effects.<BR/><BR/>Allowing the government to dictate which weapons are appropriate to violently overthrowing itself is 100% cuckoo. Allowing the government to dictate which persons are permitted to violently overthrowing the government is equally cuckoo.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I should be able to keep and bear any weapon for any lawful purpose including overthrowing the government.rexxheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12578166996312186309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79141566060700655792009-03-02T18:11:00.000+01:002009-03-02T18:11:00.000+01:00Of all the gun laws in America, I openly support ...Of all the gun laws in America, I openly support the Brady Bill, and the Gun Control Act (Both could stand a few amendment and editing, but overall they're good laws)<BR/><BR/>The NFA I have very mixed feelings about. But I can safely say of all the ineffectual gun laws in America to be repealed, NFA will likely be the very last.<BR/><BR/>So it's not even a discussion topic at this point...especially with flat-earth deceitful bastards like Mike B, Paul Helmke and company around.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-57273702523279734292009-03-02T16:57:00.000+01:002009-03-02T16:57:00.000+01:00Weer'dI'd love to get to the point where there is ...Weer'd<BR/><BR/>I'd love to get to the point where there is a political point in arguing about legal grenade ownership--Grenades, mortars and crew served weapons are where the line begins to get fuzzy to me. I don't actually know my positions on those--We have so far to go before it matters, I'll spend my time thinking about how to get to that point before I worry about whether we should get past it.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79891010706972682462009-03-02T16:28:00.000+01:002009-03-02T16:28:00.000+01:00"I'm not comfortable with unrestricted ownership o..."I'm not comfortable with unrestricted ownership of grenades"<BR/><BR/>They're the easiest damn thing in the universe to make, so while they are illigal without BATFE permission, they might as well be considered "Unrestricted" as anybody who got better than a C in Highschool chemistry, and has internet access can make some pretty decent ones.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-69108517748384135052009-03-02T16:13:00.000+01:002009-03-02T16:13:00.000+01:00What arms shouldn't be included?The problem is tha...What arms shouldn't be included?<BR/><BR/>The problem is that the clear common meaning of the second amendment doesn't allow much in the way of restrictions--It allows weapons that make even me uncomfortable. I'm less comfortable with redefining the constitution to suit. <BR/><BR/>The weapons issued to an individual soldier for use against individuals are clearly protected. That includes pistols, up to medium machine guns, rifles and short barreled rifles, shotguns and sawed-off shotguns. All have been issued and used effectively by individuals in the military. <BR/><BR/>I'm not comfortable with unrestricted ownership of grenades, although I don't see how they are not covered by the second. I'd rather allow them than twist the constitution.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-2041830034326797162009-03-02T14:49:00.000+01:002009-03-02T14:49:00.000+01:00So, why don't we help those poor ignorant folks wh...<I>So, why don't we help those poor ignorant folks who are writing such bad legislation to get it right?</I><BR/><BR/>that is, in fact, no small part of what the NRA does with its time and money. i understand they will accept membership applications from outside the USA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-52562307977504251502009-03-02T11:50:00.000+01:002009-03-02T11:50:00.000+01:00So, why don't we help those poor ignorant folks wh...So, why don't we help those poor ignorant folks who are writing such bad legislation to get it right? As Bob asked, <I>"What "arms" should be included in the fundamental right to keep and bear arms?"</I>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42384879261047414862009-02-28T14:36:00.001+01:002009-02-28T14:36:00.001+01:00An assault rifle is a term that was used to descri...An assault rifle is a term that was used to describe a rifle that shot ammunition between the power of earlier rifle and pistol rounds, and was switch-selectable between fully automatic "machine gun" fire and semiautomatic "single shot" fire. The AK-47 and M16 were considered assault rifles. The M14 is switch-selectable, but shoots full-power ammunition and is therefore not considered an assault rifle. Because of the full power ammunition, few soldiers could control it in full-auto fire. <BR/><BR/>Assault weapon is a term deliberately chosen to be confused with assault rifle. It doesn't apply to true assault rifles or any other machine gun--those are covered by separate and far stricter regulations. The definition of assault weapon varies--Cynically I'd like to say it is whatever guns the speaker doesn't like and won't fit in another pejorative category. Essentially a semi-automatic gun with a replaceable box magazine that looks military. <BR/><BR/>The true AK47 is fully automatic. The AK47 you see sold legally in the US is a semiautomatic only variation, requiring substantial modification to be capable of full-automatic fire. This is very like the difference between the AR-15 and the M-16Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-80765687214849234452009-02-28T14:36:00.000+01:002009-02-28T14:36:00.000+01:00Mike, you should know this by now, but I'll bite.S...Mike, you should know this by now, but I'll bite.<BR/><BR/>Semi-auto means the firearm fires one shot with every pull of the trigger and then readies itself for the next pull of the trigger by mechanical means.<BR/><BR/>Semi-auto firearms can be handguns, shotguns, rifles, there are even a few semi-auto revolvers(but not many).<BR/><BR/>Full-auto means that one pull of the trigger can mean two or more firings of the firearm. There are generally 3 forms of fully-automatic firearms.<BR/><BR/>Machine Gun: Generally Belt-fed, in a rifle caliber, and is often crew-served (meaning one man shoots, the other man feeds the gun ammo)<BR/>Assault Rifle: A rifle in an intermediate rifle caliber (most common 5.56X45mm, 7.62X39mm, and 5.45X39mm) and often capable of both semi-auto or full-auto/burst fire.<BR/><BR/>Sub Machine Guns. A full-automatic firearm in a pistol caliber. They can be in a carbine configuration, like the M1 Thompson (.45 ACP commonly known as the "Tommy Gun") or the Sten Gun (9x19mm), or they can be in a configuration like a standard pistol, like the Beretta 93R, Glock 18, or the Micro Uzi (generally these guns were considered too unwieldy in full-auto or burst fire that they never saw wide use by police or military) or an intermediate, like the standard Uzi, or the MP5K, where the gun often features a collapsible/folding stock, a medium-length barrel.<BR/><BR/>Google images can help you if you don't know what these guns look like.<BR/><BR/>BTW all of these guns can be converted to semi-auto-only for civilian sale, but the "intermediate" configuration is still controlled by the NFA because they constitute a short-barreled rifle and/or and "Any other Weapon"<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_ActWeer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87731829252772895452009-02-28T13:32:00.000+01:002009-02-28T13:32:00.000+01:00Yeah, that "barrel shroud," now that I know what i...Yeah, that "barrel shroud," now that I know what it is, would be pretty comprehensive. No wonder the gun control nuts like that one.<BR/><BR/>Or how about the "icky" and "scary" ones? That would cover a lot too.<BR/><BR/>Serious questions though, does assault weapon = fully automatic? Is the AK--47 fully automatic or not? I read somewhere around here lately that fully automatic = machine gun. Is that right? Couldn't it be a rifle? There was even a video going around showing the fully auto pistol, wasn't there?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-21767317652285558192009-02-27T20:36:00.000+01:002009-02-27T20:36:00.000+01:00Well we could go by the old California definition ...Well we could go by the old California definition of "Assault Weapon". The one that had staffers go through a gun catalog and pick out pictures of the scary looking ones, typos and all. <BR/><BR/>Or we could use the New Jersey definition that includes Marlin 60's and JC Higgins 29's.<BR/><BR/>Or even the one Obama was a co-sponsor of in Illinois that included single shot and Dbl barrel shotguns. <BR/><BR/>Or the one that includes Sen. Mccarthy's "barrel shroud".Thirdpowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02886910076400873900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82941083290631779372009-02-27T18:20:00.000+01:002009-02-27T18:20:00.000+01:00I can't imagine why bayonets or bayonet mounts wou...<I> I can't imagine why bayonets or bayonet mounts would be included. Do you have an idea?</I><BR/><BR/>Several reasons, none having anything to do with misuse. <BR/><BR/>The Assault Weapons ban should have been the Scary-looking gun ban--There is no functional difference between an assault weapon and a non-assault weapon. The differences are entirely cosmetic and ergonomic. The people writing the law didn't want to get hunters scared enough to object, so they took most features that hunting rifles lacked and added them to the "evil features" list regardless of any abuse potential. <BR/><BR/>Back to analogies--Say we perceive aproblem with sports cars disproportionately getting in accidents. Some idiot politician decides the best way to deal with that is to ban sports cars. <BR/><BR/>Most people have a pretty good idea what a sports car is--Mazda Miyata, most Ferraris, but how do you define one legally, without affecting the sedan and minivan crowd so much they won't vote for the changes?<BR/><BR/>You wind up with a list of features--Two doors, lack of rear seat, low ground clearance, engine behind the seats, wheels more than 40% of the overall height, spoilers, rear drive, bucket seats with more than 2 adjustments, low coefficient of drag, transmission with 5 or more gears, engine with more than 24 valves... <BR/><BR/>Since there are a few sedans and minivans with some of these features, you set a maximum number allowed. You also ban certain cars by name, as well as "any car derived from a racing-specific car". <BR/><BR/>After all, who <I> needs</I> a spoiler, or a 6 speed transmission?Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-80986001435336069702009-02-27T16:14:00.000+01:002009-02-27T16:14:00.000+01:00"More links on his site....Mike, How about reading..."More links on his site....Mike, How about reading all the EVIDENCE. Since you won't accept comparison between other countries, you won't accept evidence from England, you won't accept evidence from different cities."<BR/><BR/>Nope, Bob, he's read the stats and reports. He's accepted the numbers. He KNOWS he's favoring less freedom at the cost of more death.<BR/><BR/>My question is why is he supporting that, and choosing to lie?Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22744167180370128792009-02-27T15:51:00.000+01:002009-02-27T15:51:00.000+01:00What we seem to differ on, most of you commenters ...<I>What we seem to differ on, most of you commenters and I, is whether Eric Holder and the President and the Brady folks are sincerely interested in finding a way to reduce gun violence. I think they're honest, sincere, good people who want what's best for the country as they see it.</I><BR/><BR/>if they honestly and sincerely believe that an "assault weapons" ban will in any real way improve the country, then they're ignorant and stupid; fire them --- recall them, impeach them, or whatever --- and get somebody <B>competent</B> to do their jobs instead.<BR/><BR/>we've had eight years of incompetent, stupid, and ignorant rule. we can't afford another four. if i'd wanted another administration of cretinous morons, i would've voted republican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22118023347094837272009-02-27T15:35:00.000+01:002009-02-27T15:35:00.000+01:00"Could it be to sensationalize the whole business ..."Could it be to sensationalize the whole business and prey on the fear and emotions?"<BR/><BR/>SOP for gun control advocates.<BR/><BR/>"I know that trick question already: "what is an assault weapon."<BR/><BR/>Why is it a 'trick question'? Because there is no answer. The use sensationalism and fear-mongering to ban as many guns as they can.<BR/><BR/>Glad you agree.Thirdpowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02886910076400873900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-46980794970748017992009-02-27T15:31:00.000+01:002009-02-27T15:31:00.000+01:00Weer'd, thanks for posting and mentioning the Pelo...Weer'd, thanks for posting and mentioning the Pelosi comment. I'd like to know more about that? It's mentioned in that site you directed me to, which I didn't find very impressive by the way. But, do you think she was just being spiteful for having been left out of the loop?<BR/><BR/>Sevesteen, I can't imagine why bayonets or bayonet mounts would be included. Do you have an idea? Could it be to sensationalize the whole business and prey on the fear and emotions? Although not admirable, that's a fairly standard ploy when trying to convince people, wouldn't you say?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-48042458300028020342009-02-27T15:30:00.000+01:002009-02-27T15:30:00.000+01:00in fairness, quoting john lott for evidence is not...in fairness, quoting <A HREF="http://whoismaryrosh.com/" REL="nofollow">john lott</A> for evidence is not likely to convince anybody; that man has thoroughly discredited himself by his actions. fortunately nothing really hinges on him and him alone, and there are plenty of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck" REL="nofollow">other people</A> we can quote instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-32968453214558798632009-02-27T14:40:00.000+01:002009-02-27T14:40:00.000+01:00From A New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Cri...From <A HREF="http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsAssWeapBan022609.html" REL="nofollow">A New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country </A> by John Lott<BR/><BR/><I>It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration <A HREF="http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final.pdf" REL="nofollow">couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.</A>.<BR/><BR/>There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates – even some evidence that they caused murder to rise slightly. Since the federal ban sunset in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have remained virtually unchanged.<BR/><BR/>In fact, when the assault weapon's ban sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.</I><BR/><BR/>More links on his site....Mike, How about reading all the EVIDENCE. Since you won't accept comparison between other countries, you won't accept evidence from England, you won't accept evidence from different cities.....what evidence will you accept that gun control simply does not work?Bob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15882819735831651314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73448814001986275552009-02-27T14:14:00.000+01:002009-02-27T14:14:00.000+01:00How on earth does regulating bayonet mounts and th...How on earth does regulating bayonet mounts and the handles on a gun do anything for safety? At best the people involved sincerely believe that gun bans will help, and are worth lying and deceit to accomplish.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-27581191987840108612009-02-27T13:49:00.000+01:002009-02-27T13:49:00.000+01:00"I think they're honest, sincere, good people who ...<I>"I think they're honest, sincere, good people who want what's best for the country as they see it."</I><BR/><BR/>If that were true, they wouldn't so blatantly attack the U.S. Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63530368617429334052009-02-27T11:27:00.000+01:002009-02-27T11:27:00.000+01:00I know you don't usually read my reference materia...I know you don't usually read my reference materials on my blog (I mean why bother? It's just fools declaring the Earth to be ROUND! That goes against your troglodyte agenda!)<BR/><BR/>But you need to read this one:<BR/>http://moelane.com/2009/02/26/the-obama-administrations-mistakes-on-the-assault-weapon-ban/<BR/><BR/>It both dovetails with my comment about the gun control movement getting its back broken. but also into your foolish idea that somehow Obama and Holder have any idea what they're talking about, or that they have crime, or the best interest in the nation at heart.Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-19824697441366928342009-02-27T11:22:00.000+01:002009-02-27T11:22:00.000+01:00BTW Mike, even the key figureheads of your cause a...BTW Mike, even the key figureheads of your cause are rallying against Holder and the President.<BR/>http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/483163.html<BR/><BR/>Your side got it's back broken yesterday.<BR/><BR/>And because you push lies, deceit, and misinformation as your only means to convince others of your evil cause, I can't say I feel bad.<BR/><BR/>Actually I feel damn good!Weer'd Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528978001340070552noreply@blogger.com