|
Assault weapons ban to expire Today! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ZinG |
So Bush can make the whole world go to war with Iraq but he can't pass a law in his own Congress?
cool:p |
|
|
| The Peach |
| no point in discussing politics with bush lemmings. good luck liquidx! i'm out. |
|
|
| ZinG |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
It shocks me that people here can't take two seconds to actually read what the AWB actually did.
|
That's your average American.
Just like they vote for somebody who wants to cut their taxes:p
They're not gonna take two seconds to know more about it. |
|
|
| JM |
i'm in the process for applying for a firearm license, in this case, a Smith & Wesson .357 Revolver. I've shot Semi Automatic assault weapons and thats some crazy ! Rest assured i wont be getting any of those - i dont think they allow those in the shooting ranges :D
>JM< |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
This was a relatively useless law that mainly only banned certain cosmetic features like bayonet lugs.
I haven't heard of too many drive by bayonetings either lately myself.
The public seems to be quite ignorant of what this law actually bans, and that could explain why some 80% of Texans in a recent poll by the Dallas Morning News even supported it.
It's also worth noting that former President Reagan lobbied for this ban.
Once the ban took effect though, you could still easily get hi-cap mags, and they only cost a bit more.
The Bushmaster rifle - a civilian version of the M16- that Lee Malvo used to murder people in the DC area was still legal under this ban.
If you put two pre and post ban ar-15 style rifles side by side, you could hardly tell the difference between the two. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Well, I believe that Police Officers have a bit more knowledged then anyone posting here, of what this ban ment to them, what numbers show, and how massacres and mudering actually decreased once this ban took effect. Reagn lobbied for this, because, if anyone could remember, he was almost killed, there was the San Diego inicident, as well the law firm incident.. but hey, yes, there's no meaning on banning any weapon, is useless.. so just, get the ban out,and just make them all legal, doesnt make a difference. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Well, I believe that Police Officers have a bit more knowledged then anyone posting here, of what this ban ment to them, what numbers show, and how massacres and mudering actually decreased once this ban took effect. Reagn lobbied for this, because, if anyone could remember, he was almost killed, there was the San Diego inicident, as well the law firm incident.. but hey, yes, there's no meaning on banning any weapon, is useless.. so just, get the ban out,and just make them all legal, doesnt make a difference. |
While I do think your argument is fairly plausible, I also won't dismiss the police officers playin' a little politics either. If I'm not mistaken, don't the majority of police officers support the Democratic ticket? Is there a union for the police? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
This was a relatively useless law that mainly only banned certain cosmetic features like bayonet lugs.
I haven't heard of too many drive by bayonetings either lately myself.
|
Other "cosmetic" features include things like flash suppressor http://encyclopedia.thefreedictiona...sh%20suppressor :rolleyes:
The gun industry is guilty of evading the spirit of the law that tried to reduce the amount of military style weapons on the streets. Instead of doing nothing Congress should have updated the law to address these loop holes.
At worst you could say the law didn't help much, but it sure as hell didn't make the situation worse or take away the right to bear arms (god forbid). The only thing it has hurt it the profits of the greedy gun industry that doesn't about public safety. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Can someone please explain to me why the law came with a 10-year expiration period? Is that an artifact of the US legislations system, or was it something that was invented for this law?
To me it would seem more sensible to have a law until it is revoked by a majority vote, rather than until a set period of time has passed :conf: |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Other "cosmetic" features include things like flash suppressor http://encyclopedia.thefreedictiona...sh%20suppressor :rolleyes:
The gun industry is guilty of evading the spirit of the law that tried to reduce the amount of military style weapons on the streets. Instead of doing nothing Congress should have updated the law to address these loop holes.
At worst you could say the law didn't help much, but it sure as hell didn't make the situation worse or take away the right to bear arms (god forbid). The only thing it has hurt it the profits of the greedy gun industry that doesn't about public safety. |
I suppose we will see if its expiration has any overall effect on crime, but I somehow doubt it will. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Great! I might go out and buy an Uzi! How much do they run these days?
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Great! I might go out and buy an Uzi! How much do they run these days?
[[[smoke]]] |
here ya go. hope you got some cash saved up.http://www.impactguns.com/ |
|
|
|
|
