Gun-control proponents lament as "Assault Weapons Ban" does nothing

a reply to: butcherguy
funny:
what about all those mobsters with Tommy guns in the roaring twenties?

un banninng booze after the oil tycoons had gotten their way re fuel for the masses sure fixed that problem

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: butcherguy

The ban on full auto weapons and selling dynamite in hardware stores has prevented countless deaths.

Bans don't work for me though. I want what I want. Society can burn. Liberty for all.

It has, how? Compare the murder rate pre 1934 to today and get back to us on that.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

While I tend to agree with the point your making I do see this going in a bad direction. I see it something like this…
Hey so those bans we been putting in place aren't working.
Why?
Well they only ban cosmetic features and people still have access to "scary rifles"
That's an easy one, have our media team start pushing for a ban on semi auto rifles that accept a magazine type of over 10 rounds.
*Printing press fires up* as bloggers get their marching orders.

But hey I could be wrong…this could be the turn of the tide to a logical approach to guns and crime. Heh Americans and logic…not sure most have any left.

I agree with you. Any little bit, slice or chunk of the thing they could get at still serves a psychological purpose. Going after accessories was a big part of the overall assault on the 2nd amendment. Any victory here was good for them, for the time being.

The only ones the firearms control bills effect is the law abiding citizen, not the dirtbag that has NO respect for life and liberty. You can put all the weapons control bills and firearms bans into effect, the scumbags out there arent going to abide by it

Food for thought anti-gunners...

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

There is a reason why these people are in politics and not in the real world. They are morons. Plain and simple.

If 80% of these politicians were placed in charge of a company, instead of unaccountable Govt positions, they would last all of about 2 months.

And the people that continue to champion them are even bigger morons.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yep Americas lust for weaponry seems to win every time. If gun control does nothing then why have it at all? Maybe we should just let everyone have any weapon (grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, etc) they want at any age and be done with it.

Zero restrictions for everyone, even for convicted felons. Allow concealed carry for anyone in any place , schools, airports etc etc..

Then America would be a much safer place.

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

The ban on full auto weapons and selling dynamite in hardware stores has prevented countless deaths.

Oh really???

Care to provide any proof to this statement?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
Yep Americas lust for weaponry seems to win every time. If gun control does nothing then why have it at all? Maybe we should just let everyone have any weapon (grenades, bazookas, flame throwers, etc) they want at any age and be done with it.

Zero restrictions for everyone, even for convicted felons. Allow concealed carry for anyone in any place , schools, airports etc etc..

Then America would be a much safer place.


Well,... perhaps all the rapists, muggers, child molesters, bank robbers drug dealers, will shoot each other, then only the white collar bastards will be left to deal with (banksters etc)

Just wanted to add in some pictorial context.

This is an evil rifle that does not comply with the AWB. The most evil kind that NY's AWB was supposed to deal with:

Now this is nice safe rifle with no EVIL features. This is what the morons clamoring for Cuomo to "do something" wanted:


That's strange. They're the same rifle save for a different stock.

Well, so many people wanted it and it was so important the governor just had to rush it though and sign it into law right away so the second one must be safer.

Or all these AWB proponents are just a collection of asshats and imbeciles.

Either one.

Okay Okay Okay.... This is just silliness. I call hoax. Fabrication. Mis-rep-re-sentation!

I mean we can't be expected to believe that all the Kings horses and all the Kings men passed a new law....and Humpty Dumpty remained a mess from a terminal crack-up? (Or maybe he fell from the wall from stray gunfire out of assault weapons being fired in the neighboring castle! -gasp-)

Certainly not. Passing a new law immediately solves whatever it was written to address. It must! Why else would they pass new ones like uncontrollable gas at a Chili cook-off?

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

This is beautiful.

we have told them and told them for as long as I can remember that all they were doing is going after cosmetic differences. The whole time they just stuck their fingers in their ears and went "LA-LA-LA" to drown out the argument.

To see it suddenly dawn on them....priceless.

So here we are, with gun owners pissed off and willing to fight for every inch. And "gun grabbers" realizing that they fought for absolutely nothing other than plastic cosmetic pieces. I wonder what the future holds?

a reply to: macman

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

Or all these AWB proponents are just a collection of asshats and imbeciles.

Oh, look. They are a collection of asshats and imbeciles:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

link

Imagine if the Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that due to the ignorance and confusion of the public they could funnel more cash into the pockets of corporations.

Or the GOP saying due to the ignorance and confusion of the public they could deport more Mexicans.

They'd be monsters, right? Unfairly taking advantage of a stupid public to have their way.

When the Violence Policy Center says they can have their way because the public is too confused and ignorant, well, that's righteous and holy.

"We can get this ban passed because you're all a bunch of mindless children afraid of the dark who can't tell your assholes from a a hole in the ground." Now tell me what a saint I am and donate some cash to the cause would ya'?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

And?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

...by people who were well aware that weapons technology could and would advance beyond the level that existed at the time. Unless you think the founders would have wanted their descendants restricted to defending themselves and their country with obsolete weaponry.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

And?

And since the armies of the world at the time of the writing of the 2nd were all using muskets it stands to reason that to remain consistent with the purpose of the 2nd we should all have access to the same arms as todays armies.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

Seeing as the 2nd Amendment does not restrict people or small arms, you are correct.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets lol.

You really need to go and look at the weapons available at that time.

Also, that means I can own, discharge and such cannons.

Oh, and explosives.

And there were more than just muskets available.

Oh....and the 2nd doesn't state "The right to bear muskets".


Great attempt though.

a reply to: macman

But it was written in a time where weapons were not even comparable to today's tech.

Are normal people allowed to own cannons and explosives these days the the US?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: macman

But it was written in a time where weapons were not even comparable to today's tech.

Are normal people allowed to own cannons and explosives these days the the US?

It was/is relative.

The arms, as stated in the 2nd, were in relation to the arms available to the armies of the time.
There were also more than just muskets available.

Cannons can be owned in many states. Explosives not so much.

If the law was to restrict to what was available at the time of creation, it would have stated as such.

Since it does not such things, it is by default, "arms".

"Arms" are defined not as nukes and any moronic offering from the Anti-Gun rights crowd, but small arms.
The creation of the 2nd was to allow the people to meet and match the arms of any Govt that would/could overpower the people and remove the "Republic" style of Govt and other freedoms we are granted.

wow if thats true this is insane