Fuck you. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you ignorant bigot.[/quote]
Mod,
Come on, admit it … Namastestore likely nailed it. The chances of those kids being both American and from the South are very, very high. I grew up down there so before you reply, you can forget the “ignorant” part. Although, I will have to admit that a guy I knew from Ohio would be up for the gold in the Redneck Olympics.
[/quote]
Not neccessarily. The chances of those kids being from southern Oregon are also very high. Well, I guess there still is that “southern” tag.
What do people do people do with these guns around the house? It can’t be for “sport” or whatever since anyone who is half way professional or mature about these weapons would likely have them locked away (and likely not in their house). Do they walk around the house pretending to be their favourite action hero’s from the movies? With all of these weapons in homes in the US you might form the opinion that people were defending themselves against marauding hordes of barbarians on a regular basis.
Anyway, the photos are disturbing though perhaps not as much as they should be since we are so desensitised due to seeing children with guns so often.
Fuck you. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you ignorant bigot.[/quote]
Jesus, Mod, I’ve never seen you be so PC. If I knew Mapo was a Canadian I might have said, “Must be from Alberta.” A stereotype yes, but not bigotry.
Which reminds me that you are never far from stereotyping all Canadians in the most unflattering terms. So :raspberry:[/quote]
Hey Mucha Man,
Fuck off with the Alberta stereotypes. I was born in Alberta. For every redneck cowboy there is an erudite, Harvard educated oil professional or lawyer (Peter Lougheed). collections.ic.gc.ca/abpolitics/ … gheed.html
If the rest of Canada was like Alberta, Canada would be rich, pro-American, and have a stronger voice in world affairs.
[color=red]PLEASE KNOCK IT [/color]off with the Alberta stereotypes. I was born in Alberta. [/quote]
Then, as a proud son of province with a reputation for tough cowboys and self-made-men, you shouldn’t be such a big girl’s blouse about a little stereotyping, should you?
Wouldn’t surprize me at all. I’m from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the first day of deer season is an official Pennsylvania holiday. Our newspapers are filled during hunting season with accounts of everyone’s buck killed and how many points the deer has/had.
Venison is good eating.
Our biggest industry is still agriculture.
I know lots of people who pack heat. I think that’s one reason that Pennsylvania is such a friendly place.
[color=red]PLEASE KNOCK IT [/color]off with the Alberta stereotypes. I was born in Alberta. [/quote]
Then, as a proud son of province with a reputation for tough cowboys and self-made-men, you shouldn’t be such a big girl’s blouse about a little stereotyping, should you?[/quote]
Mucha Man,
I am just stating that the stereotype of Alberta being full of ignorant, backwoods twits is inaccurate. Calgary has one of the youngest, highly educated workforces in the country. Yes, there are cowboys and self-made man on every street corner!!! And this makes it different from what other Canadian city??
Well, now that y’all have gotten the ignorant stereotyping out of your systems (I hope), perhaps you can consider that these kiddies are learning responsible gun handling from their parents (or will be when the time comes, for that last one).
As far as “automatic weapons”, none of them are machine guns AFAIK. But you folks don’t even know the difference so there isn’t much point in attemting to educate you; you’d rather just whine about things you don’t understand.
As far as hunting, why not? None of them fire mroe than one bullet per pull of the trigger. It’s the same as a bolt-action, except that you don’t have to work a bolt. However, .223 is too small for deer in some states (WA requires .243 minimum, IIRC).
But, what the hell. Wallow in your ignorance. Me, I’m just glad that I can finally assemble the target pistol that I designed several years ago, but which was prohibited by law because it would have weighed 54 ounces instead of under 50 ounces. How horrible!
I agree Chewie. I’m just giving you a hard time. I spent a year living in Banff and got over to Calgary many times. There are only a few weird pockets in the province. Otherwise, it is a pleasant place to live and I do like the spirit of the people. Also, love those badlands.
And especially its children. Expect even more innocent people to die now.[/quote]
That was exactly my first thought.
My second thought was that many participants in this forum seem far more concerned about stereotypes than the imminent death of so many innocents …
Are profits for gun manufacturers really so important? More important than the safety of your children?
Cheers[/quote]
I in no way support the right to possess assault weapons, though I do support the right to own firearms, but more children are killed each year in the US drowning in their own swimming pools than are killed by mishandling their parents’ guns.
The questions regarding gun laws must be kept more neutral or they are too easily dismissed. Simply put, why are gun lobbey groups allowed to set the agenda, or influence the agenda for how their industry is regulated? Do we allow the car industry to lobbey for easier drivers licences or to do away with licenses altogether? Do we allow the oil industry to lobbey for environmental agendas? Oh yes, we do. Well, that’s where the trouble lies.
Even if no children were dying it is still outrageous to have an industry that produces dangerous goods able to influence the regulations that safeguard the public against those goods.
Really. Let’s hear a definition from all of you uninformed do-gooders who want to ban them. Tell me what they are.[/quote]
Mapo, you’re just looking for a way to trip me up so why would I attempt a defintion? Not the most genuous of ploys.
But here goes:
I’d call assault weapons the type of weapons that were banned under the assault weapons ban. In other words the type of weapons that were described, shown in photographs, talked about in congress and subequently on the news, and which have features that strike any sane person as something that should not be permitted to be sold freely even though I am sure some of these features are shared with more ordinary handguns and rifles which is how people like you always try to argue this matter.
But you know what? Dogs have claws, and so do bears, but that doesn’t make a bear safe or the equivalent of a dog.
And why are you calling me a do-gooder when I seem the only one on this thread who would ever listen to what you had to say with an open mind?
Really. Let’s hear a definition from all of you uninformed do-gooders who want to ban them. Tell me what they are.[/quote]
Mapo, you’re just looking for a way to trip me up so why would I attempt a defintion? Not the most genuous of ploys.
But here goes:
I’d call assault weapons the type of weapons that were banned under the assault weapons ban. In other words the type of weapons that were described, shown in photographs, talked about in congress and subequently on the news, and which have features that strike any sane person as something that should not be permitted to be sold freely even though I am sure some of these features are shared with more ordinary handguns and rifles which is how people like you always try to argue this matter.
But you know what? Dogs have claws, and so do bears, but that doesn’t make a bear safe or the equivalent of a dog.
And why are you calling me a do-gooder when I seem the only one on this thread who would ever listen to what you had to say with an open mind?[/quote]
Well, excuse me, but if you’re going to ban something, it seems like you ought to know what you’re banning.
But ok, let’s take your cop-out definition of “whatever it was that they banned back in 1994”.
So, does the weight of a pistol make it more dangerous? One of the evil features that was banned was the manufacture of any handgun having a weight of more than 50 ounces.
Does it matter to you whether a rifle has a bayonet lug on it or not? Because one of the evil features that was banned was putting a bayonet lug on a rifle or shotgun.
The whole point I am making is, what the “ban” eliminated was a few minor features that made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the primary function of the firearms.
In short, anyone who wails and gnashes his/her teeth over the expiration of the “ban” is an idiot.
Furthermore, since you don’t know what they are, why do you give a crap whether they were banned or not?
Finally, regarding your “point” that “the gun lobby” shouldn’t be involved in crafting legislation, since none of you people are willing to learn anything about the subject, who are you going to get to draft the laws? I know, let’s get a random selection of three-year-olds to draft our laws from now on. They’ll do a better job of it than the gun-banning lobby.
So what exactly is an assault weapon as defined by the original ban?
I gotta say, as an avid shooter and stalker all my life and the proud owner of several shotguns and rifles, I think the idea of going hunting with the things pictured in this thread is pretty fucked up.
[quote=“sandman”]So what exactly is an assault weapon as defined by the original ban?
I gotta say, as an avid shooter and stalker all my life and the proud owner of several shotguns and rifles, I think the idea of going hunting with the things pictured in this thread is pretty fucked up.[/quote]
Not unless you like your deer minced while still warm.
[quote=“sandman”]So what exactly is an assault weapon as defined by the original ban?
I gotta say, as an avid shooter and stalker all my life and the proud owner of several shotguns and rifles, I think the idea of going hunting with the things pictured in this thread is pretty fucked up.[/quote] recguns.com/Sources/IIG4.html
[quote]Certain listed firearms are defined by name as assault weapons (see the statutory appendix at 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a) (30) for the list), as well as guns with certain features. [The by-features list is as follows: ]
A semiautomatic rifle is an “assault weapon” if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
A grenade launcher.
A semiautomatic shotgun is an “assault weapon” if it has two or more of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A magazine capacity of over 5 rounds
A detachable magazine.
A semiautomatic pistol is an “assault weapon” if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
A magazine outside of the grip
A threaded barrel to accept a flash suppressor, silencer, etc.
A barrel shroud
A weight of 50 oz or more, unloaded
“A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.”
[/quote]
Just to make one thing perfectly clear, “machine guns” were not affected by the 1994 “ban” in any way, shape, or form. It is, however, understandable that the completely uninformed, such as Alleycat, would be confused by this, since the U.S. “news media” made a point of always showing machine guns being fired whenever they were discussing the law.
Oh yeah, and “grenade launchers” have been effectively banned since 1968. Sen. Feinswine (D-CA) just threw that in to make it sound scarier.
Also, Sandman, while you may consider it weird to go hunting with those rifles, the cartridges they fire aren’t any different from the ones your rifles may fire. The 7.62x39 is an intermediate-powered cartridge suitable for deer. The .223 is a bit too weak to be used for deer in most states; Washington required a minimum of .243, IIRC.
