-----Original Message----- From: Ben Kelley
<snip> Something, that wouldn't be possible to do legally today. Because > the assault weapons still cannot be fully automatic. They also may Not to nitpick, But all "assault weapons" are select fire, selectable between fully automatic/or bursts and semiautomatic. What we call the assault weapons as in the ban are not really assault weapons, but nearly a bastardization of the true meaning, to scare soccer moms.
Not true. I had the opportunity to purchase a .44 "semi-automatic" rifle a few years back. Totally legally, before the Clinton ban. This is called a semi-automatic, but in reality is a .44 sub-machine gun. A simple modification turns this semi-automatic "assault weapon" into a fully automatic mass-people-killing "assault weapon". The modification is and almost always has been illegal, but lots of people do it anyway, I'm sure. I'm sorry, but I really see no reason for these weapons to be legal. I have a gun and use it to kill food with (food <> human beings), and Shooting a deer with an assault weapon pretty much nullifies the food quality part of it, not to mention the fur/leather quality.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Densmore Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was - RE:gmailinitiations
Not true. I had the opportunity to purchase a .44 "semi-automatic" rifle a few years back. Totally legally, before the Clinton ban. This is called a semi-automatic, but in reality is a .44 sub-machine gun. A simple modification turns this semi-automatic "assault weapon" into a fully automatic mass- people-killing "assault weapon". The modification is and almost always has been illegal, but lots of people do it anyway, I'm sure. I'm sorry, but I really see no reason for these weapons to be legal. I have a gun and use it to kill food with (food <> human beings), and Shooting a deer with an assault weapon pretty much nullifies the food quality part of it, not to mention the fur/leather quality.
Pretty much any semi-automatic weapon (including those you shoot Bambi with) can be modified to become fully-automatic. Hell, if you can pull the trigger fast enough, you needn't modify. In the Mini-14 world there is a popular device for this very purpose, allowing you to avoid the illegal modification of your rifle.
I've fired thousands of weapons in my day, and to be honest, those Chinese AK-47 knock-offs (they call it an SKS) that were popular a while back are probably the most dangerous. They sold for $200.00 or less. These are excellent for modification to full auto - in fact, most of them are mere millimeters from it to begin with. (As with most weapons of this sort, fifteen minutes with a bastard file will get it done.) I can certainly see (even as a self-professed gun nut) that these don't need to be readily available in that format. I let my stepson fire one last year; handed it to him with six rounds in it, he pulled the trigger once, and they all went down range! Note: These weren't even part of the ban, I can buy one NOW.
As for the deer bit, I'm not sure how soft I should make this landing... but here goes. In the service I preferred to fire a 7.62 NATO round, roughly equivalent to your .308 Remington. The ever-popular 5.56mm NATO round fired by an M-16 (and many variants) is practically identical to a .223 Remington as well. At ranges exceeding 500 yards, I still prefer a .308, but you really can't beat a .223 for precision firing at less than 200 yards with a scope. Both of these rounds are excellent for their purposes both in combat, and in sport. Their behavior in both realms is IDENTICAL. Either punch through flesh and bone (.308) or fragment and do as much damage as possible (.223).
The .223 is messy enough to keep most folks from surviving to the hospital, as in the case of our D.C. sniper (hardly qualified to hold this title, however). The effects on the flesh of a deer are exactly the same as that with any mammal, and when fired properly the terminal effects are the same: a hole in (or through) a target. Dustin
I must wade into this one finally. This point isn't made often enough. The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, sport, or keeping the muggers at bay. The framers of our Consititution understood that everything, even the great ideas they were working on, can be corrupted. It makes no difference if they forsaw the automatic weapons we have today or Star Trek phasers. Nor do they care if we are using pea shooters. The right to bear ARMS, note not guns, is a basic right. Here is the exact wording of the Second Ammendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The fathers of our country understood that the final authority of government is the people. And at times there might be the possiblity that the government is working against the people. If that should happen and the people believe the only recourse is to overthrow the government then they have the right to do so. Therefore the right to bear arms is the ultimate balance of power of the people against the government.
I believe that any gun control law, any registration, any infringement on my right to bear arms is a threat to my freedom.
Saying that, I also believe that if a weapon of violence is used in a crime the criminal should be put away for a *very* long time.
... i couldn't resist
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled intelligence of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and that it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions that the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and national security.
If you take the constitution at its face value, the the framers envisioned that every man should be allowed to own a single shot, barrel-loading, musket. If you really wanted to look into the spirit of the law, then the framers intended us all to be able to own any guns we should deem necessary to the protection of our liberty. Having said that, where does it stop? Do we really want every tom, dick, and harry building low grade nuclear weapons in the face ot tirany ? Of course we don't. Allowing citizens to possess WMDs would'nt be very smart, so we have come to an agreement that this isn't very reasonable. National interest vs. personal freedom, thats what I'm getting at here. Our constitution was never setup to provide all the freedoms we think we should enjoy, but rather to protect a few basic ones. We live in a society that is more free than most, not "a free society".
It all comes down to this:
- the framers intended on us being well armed. - the framers had no idea of the kind of weapons we would create. - the framers never invisioned the violent society we live in (gloabal and domestic)
I for one, support the ban of assault weapons, but then again I have a reasonably tough time legitamizing the value of owning such weapons, in light of the domestic and global threats we face. If we live in a society that makes people think that they really "need" an assault weapon, then freedom has long since left the building and we might as well all move to Israel.
I think its funny that the Democrats support every ammendment but the second, and the Republicans only support the second one.
my .02
dave
On Friday 10 September 2004 8:34 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I must wade into this one finally. This point isn't made often enough. The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, sport, or keeping the muggers at bay. The framers of our Consititution understood that everything, even the great ideas they were working on, can be corrupted. It makes no difference if they forsaw the automatic weapons we have today or Star Trek phasers. Nor do they care if we are using pea shooters. The right to bear ARMS, note not guns, is a basic right. Here is the exact wording of the Second Ammendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The fathers of our country understood that the final authority of government is the people. And at times there might be the possiblity that the government is working against the people. If that should happen and the people believe the only recourse is to overthrow the government then they have the right to do so. Therefore the right to bear arms is the ultimate balance of power of the people against the government.
I believe that any gun control law, any registration, any infringement on my right to bear arms is a threat to my freedom.
Saying that, I also believe that if a weapon of violence is used in a crime the criminal should be put away for a *very* long time. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, David H. Askew wrote:
... i couldn't resist
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled intelligence of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and that it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions that the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and national security.
Would you at least agree that, a rational basis and a compelling government interest test should be passed before gun control laws could stand? Would you at least agree that the second amendment should be treated like the first?
If you take the constitution at its face value, the the framers envisioned that every man should be allowed to own a single shot, barrel-loading, musket.
That's absolutely wrong. There were more sophisticated weapons availible at the time. And there's no reason to think that the framers wanted the weapons we might have a right to own be frozen in time, like that. It might be more reasonable to assume that the framers wanted ordinary citizens to possess those weapons that a common soldier might carry.
It all comes down to this:
- the framers intended on us being well armed.
- the framers had no idea of the kind of weapons we would create.
- the framers never invisioned the violent society we live in (gloabal and
domestic)
I for one, support the ban of assault weapons, but then again I have a reasonably tough time legitamizing the value of owning such weapons, in light of the domestic and global threats we face. If we live in a society that makes people think that they really "need" an assault weapon, then freedom has long since left the building and we might as well all move to Israel.
The assault weapon's ban would pass neither a rational basis test nor a complelling government intrest test, and it certainly wouldn't hold up to anything like the scrutiny used to defend the first amendment.
I think its funny that the Democrats support every ammendment but the second, and the Republicans only support the second one.
I agree. We should support them all.
Adrian
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Isn't gun control hitting what your shooting at?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:52 -0500, David H. Askew [email protected] wrote:
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would also agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom and national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
I'll bite. Gun control isn't hitting what law-abiding citizens are shooting at. Just so you know, law-abiding citizens are shooting at criminals in the case of self defense. Law makers pass laws that are supposed to target the lawless and law-abiding citizens suffer for it.
Bare in mind, in order for a socialist gov't to subjugate a people, without war, two things are required:
1. Take away the people's right to bare arms 2. Make the people totally dependent on the government
Does this sound like any major party platforms to anyone? Hint - I'm not a Democrat.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of crash 3m Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was-RE:gmailinitiations
Isn't gun control hitting what your shooting at?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:52 -0500, David H. Askew [email protected] wrote:
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many
decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would
also
agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom
and
national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Ok lets not talk politics. There are enough flame wars on this list allready.
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 06:41 pm, Rick Meeker wrote:
I'll bite. Gun control isn't hitting what law-abiding citizens are shooting at. Just so you know, law-abiding citizens are shooting at criminals in the case of self defense. Law makers pass laws that are supposed to target the lawless and law-abiding citizens suffer for it.
Bare in mind, in order for a socialist gov't to subjugate a people, without war, two things are required:
- Take away the people's right to bare arms
- Make the people totally dependent on the government
Does this sound like any major party platforms to anyone? Hint - I'm not a Democrat.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of crash 3m Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was-RE:gmailinitiations
Isn't gun control hitting what your shooting at?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:52 -0500, David H. Askew [email protected]
wrote:
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many
decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would
also
agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom
and
national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Truth is truth no matter if it was uttered 200 years ago or just last week. And when Rumsfield comes to take you away as an undesirable you will wish you had an assault weapon of your choice. Take that "McQuote".
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many
decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would
also
agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom
and
national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
James R. Sissel wrote:
Truth is truth no matter if it was uttered 200 years ago or just last week. And when Rumsfield comes to take you away as an undesirable you will wish you had an assault weapon of your choice. Take that "McQuote".
Rumsfeld, hell, I just want to pick off random passers-by or be ready when some little bastards decide to try to take out a bunch of auto glass in my neighborhood. I'm going to light up their lives, esay.
---------------------------------------------- Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
On Friday 10 September 2004 08:34 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
A well regulated Militia...
Please note the third word of that famous phrase.
The first president to send troops against the American population pretty much decided this issue. It was George Washington.
.. I don't think you can reasonably assume, GW envisioned the average man owning an M16 .... but ... thats just my opinion ...
On Saturday 11 September 2004 3:41 pm, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
On Friday 10 September 2004 08:34 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
A well regulated Militia...
Please note the third word of that famous phrase.
The first president to send troops against the American population pretty much decided this issue. It was George Washington. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-
Brian Densmore -
Brian Kelsay -
crash 3m -
David H. Askew -
Dustin Decker -
James R. Sissel -
Jason Clinton -
Jonathan Hutchins -
L. Adrian Griffis -
Rick Meeker -
Sansavarous