Proof that guns are EVIL

“thats all weeeeeeeeelll and good, but as long as you continue to display an extremely biased anti-left agenda, no thinking person can take any of your arguments seriously, because everything you say is tainted. no intelligent person can believe that youre objective. people like you, stove, and s-rge arent interested in truth, youre just playing an endless game of "shoot down the libbies", which spills over into completely innocuous topics like blondes and the AT.

i understand what youre doing with the ww2 thing. giving you crap about that has sort of become a running joke. as stove would say, "LOL".”

“Libbies like Crash are so closed minded.
LOL”

“really? defend your position”

“demonstrate my closed-mindedness. if i didnt want to hear what xl had to say (or you for that matter), i wouldnt even bother. i would just once like to hear something from you guys that wasnt tainted by politics or personal feelings”

“at least s-rge would put forth his arguments, in addition to all the political and personal sniping

you dont want to be worse than s-rge, do you?”

“crash is so silly”

“crash is so silly”
StoveStomper

Q - please don't tell me this is one of the more intelligent people on this board

A - "answer unclear -- try again later"”

“Crash, arguing with these cracked-brains will never go anywhere.”

“Q: What is the status of the federal assault weapons ban?

A: The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, has expired. It was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994. Despite his promise to renew the ban, President George W. Bush and Congress allowed the ban to "sunset" in September of 2004.”

“The shooter was apparently carrying two pistols. Please tell, Buddha Bear - how would an "assault rifle" ban have stopped this?

Oh, and can you tell us what you think an "assault rifle" is?”

“Yeah Buddha, ol Muttonhead's got you on that one. See what you've gone and done? Made me agree with Muttonhead?

It was a 9mm and a .22 he had, according to all the reports I've read.”

“The shooter was apparently carrying two pistols. Please tell, Buddha Bear - how would an "assault rifle" ban have stopped this?

Oh, and can you tell us what you think an "assault rifle" is?”
Mutt
2:53:08 PM
4/16/07

If you actually read the post, Mutt, the "q." question was referring to federal assualt weapons ban. Now I know 99.9999% of the world doesn't have the depth or grasp of the english language that you do, but from what I understand, the word

"weapons" is not as specific as

"rifle", although the term "weapons" could certainly include specific weapons such as rifles within the category.

BTW - that bit of education for you is free, the next time, you'll get a bill.

To answer your question in the context of my post, an "assualt rifle" according to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is:

Rifles that have more than one of the following:
* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
* Grenade launcher

According to the law, weapons other than rifles are covered under the ban, lifted by Bush and the republicans:

Pistols:

* Magazine outside grip
* Threaded muzzle
* Barrel shroud
* Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
* Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

Shotguns:

* Folding/telescoping stock
* Protruding pistol grip
* Detachable magazine capacity
* Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

Eyewitness account of the scene:

The shooter was "wearing a vest covered in clips was just unloading on their door, going from classroom to classroom … they said it never seemed like it was going to stop and there was just blood all over," Harrison said.

9mm & .22 handguns huh. Maybe Bush let the law sunset because he didn't think it was tough enough to prevent these crimes.”

“Aw come on guys, You want BB to be rational? Next you'll want him to be accurate. That's just to much to expect.”

“Um, Congress let it sunset. Bush doesn't make laws. And why did they let it sunset? Because when they revisited the effects of the ban they saw it did absolutely nothing to stop crime.”

“if the the magazines had more than 12 rounds wouldn't they have been covered by the ban? my BHP 9mm has a 13 round magazine and i loaded up on the prior to the ban to get them "grandfathered". stupid but now i don't have to worry about it.

the ban was ineffective, a waste of taxpayer dollars. legislation for effect. that was bill's legacy.”

“*shakes her finger at the offending weapon* bad, BAD gun, BAD. stop it!”

“The whole magazine capacity thing is a non issue IMHO. So rather than a 17 round mag you have a 12 round mag. Just carry more mags. Is there some type of theory that a rampaging shooter is simply going to get too tired or lazy to take the 2 seconds it takes to put in a fresh mag? Ridiculous.”

“The assault weapon ban made "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" magazines illegal... 10 or more rounds.

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means--
`(i) a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and
.
.
.

So in fact if the guns used in this shooting did take 10 or more rounds they would have been illegal in the assault weapon ban based on when they were made... almost totally irrelevant since every magazine in existence at the time of the ban was grandfathered (and I think there were more of a few of these around). the assault weapon ban would NOT have prevented this awful crime.

This was a most classic piece of "feel good legislation" when it first passed. There were a lot of people standing around patting themselves on the back for nothing when it was passed.”

“Good point No Prob. Now maybe Bush will act upon these deficiencies, reinstate the ban, and make it tougher, with no grandfather clauses.

I doubt it.”

“
There was an interesting thread over on the Dark Side a while back about hiking (or driving to trailheads) with people who might have pot. After reading these message boards for a decade or so, I wonder more about people with pistols.

Just so you know, if I see someone carrying a popgun where they should not, I will drop a dime on them at the first opportunity.

I just wish the anti-gun-control no-matter-what people would pick a safer hobby. If they fear for their personal safety in the woods to the extent that they can't hike without a gun, perhaps they should stay home.

And they shouldn't bother wrapping themselves in the flag and frothing at the mouth about the Bill of Rights. I've heard it all before and I don't buy the absolute right argument. Sorry. The point in that line of reasoning I found to be particularly silly involved having the ability to 'rise up' against the federal gov't sometime in the future --- Good Luck With That One.

I do not advocate a ban on handguns, but I agree they should be more tightly controlled. As for the assault weapon features.... if people want to play at being on a SWAT team I think they should buy paintball guns and have at it. It'd be much safer for everyone.

It was quite informative how the NRA blackmailed Congress into passing an emasculated 'assault weapons ban' and then attacked it as being toothless and ineffective. They fooled quite a few people with that routine. Those of us who were around at the time watched it happen. How many more guns and clips were sold by manufacturers and their creatures trying to scare gun owners into thinking there was over-reaching legislation in the works?

Mission accomplished that time, For Sure.

The NRA does a great job instilling fear. It drums up business: more guns sold, more guns produced, more guns swapped and traded, more guns burglarised and otherwise stolen, more guns floating around in general.... more guns in the hands of criminals and crazies. That's an algebra even Larry Sabato should be able to understand.

Then we have another mass killing and the cycle goes around again... more fear, more guns.

”

“I heard that the gunman was Mainland Chinese who arrived in the US on a visa obtained in Shanghai in August. Not sure if thats true.”

“I'd be stunned if the guy didn't have at least a semi-automatic, given how many people he killed. I'd be stunned if all he had were conventional 6 chamber pistols.”

“And they shouldn't bother wrapping themselves in the flag and frothing at the mouth about the Bill of Rights. I've heard it all before and I don't buy the absolute right argument. - tilt

Despots have been saying that from the beginning of time. (not surprising, coming from tilt). To people who love freedom and self-determination, self defense is an inalienable right of being alive that the constitution merely recognizes and protects, not grants. Tilt's reply is very typical of people who prefer to have Big Government take responsibility and control over their lives.”

“I was going to respond to Buddha Bear's desperate attempt not to appear the ignorant ass, but Jimmy San effectively ground him in the dirt. WTG.

I will say this: Notice how Buddha Bear and Tilt use the term "clip". The proper technical term is "magazine". A clip typically feeds a magazine. My point is it's not surprising at all that the most vociferous opponents of guns are the ones most ignorant of them.”

“Anyhow - there is no way of telling if an assault weapons ban would have made a difference. Were the weapons obtained legally? How did he get them? What exactly were they?

One thing that limits the gun debates here and elsewhere is that a lot of people are clear what exactly it is they are for or against. It seems like an all or none thing - either people should be able to by any gun they want, the same way they would buy a fishing rod or a knife, or nobody should be able to own guns without some demonstrated special need (armed guards, police, etc...).

I think guns and gun ownership should be more like automobiles and automobile ownership and there should be heavy penalties for un-registered and un-licensed guns. Concealed carry permits (maybe like driving a school bus) should be harder to get and have tougher requirements.”

“You wonder if the AWB would've made a difference, yet you're sure that making CCW permits harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain will reduce these incidents?”

“Mutt: First off, I assume you know any individual case is unique. Even if the AWB is wonderful (and I think it was a good idea), it will not eliminate every incidence of gun violence or remove all assault weapons from the country.

Second, I did not say I knew for certain that licensing and registration would reduce this class of incidnet (Nutso shootings by a crazed gunman who wants a body count). It does appear that it would reduce certain kinds of problems and make law enforcement easier. Surely you don't think the process of getting driver's licenses and registering ownership of cars is a major impediment for people who should be allowed to drive.”

“"I will say this: Notice how Buddha Bear and Tilt use the term "clip". The proper technical term is "magazine". A clip typically feeds a magazine. My point is it's not surprising at all that the most vociferous opponents of guns are the ones most ignorant of them.”
Mutt
8:45:05 AM
4/17/07



lolololololololololool

this coming from a guy who can't read, or deliniate between a rifle and a weapon. But I'll bite. Hey, I always thought a magazine was a periodical that was full of stories specific to a topic, combined with adverisements.

whadda dunce.”

“Good point No Prob. Now maybe Bush will act upon these deficiencies, reinstate the ban, and make it tougher, with no grandfather clauses.

The AWB didn't take guns off the street and it didn't reduce gun violence. It simply made a class of weapons and magazines more desirable because they were grandfathered and hence raised their prices. It was a great deal for gun merchants and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The grandfather clause was 100% necessary. Without it the AWB would have clearly been an "ex post facto" law. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by Article I section 9 (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the U.S. Constitution.

So unless you want to amend the U.S. Constitution (and run the risk of changing a lot more than just the AWB) I am afraid this all points back to this being a piece of "feel good" legislation with no value.”

“Glock 19 - magazine capacity of: 15 / 17 / 19 / 33 rounds.

"On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use."

-- source - http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

It looks like this "feel good" legislation that was watered down by the NRA lobby, and left to sunset by the republicans and Bush, resulted in some not-so-feel-good deaths of 33 people.”

“The dems have been in power for nearly 100 hours now. Have they passed the renewal of this bill yet?”

“Buddha Bear, if you don't have the time or energy to come up with something other than non-sequitors, don't bother posting. Really. We know where you stand, and know your defense of it is sorely lacking substance. No need to keep showcasing that to the world.”

“Guns are evil. Yet they are a necessary evil. And a huge liability above all else.

Yes we have a right to bear arms. I have no argument with that; makes perfect sense. But tell me, does that right to bear arms also imply a responsibility and demand to know how and when to use them?

On average, how many people a day do you think acquire some sort of one-shot-kill weapon, legally or not? Does it matter if its a handgun, automatic rifle, lead pipe, grenade, or some other type of home made bomb?

How many of these people do you suppose know how to actually use it responsibly?

How many of these people do you suppose know when to actually use it responsibly?

Do you think that's acceptable, considering the probable purposes of retaining a right to bear arms?

Doesn't having a gun and not know when or how to use it kind of moot the point of having the right to bear arms?

Maybe gun control is part of the answer -- but beware -- an unconditional weapons ban can pose a far bigger threat to us than any number of lunatics running around with loaded guns.

Has anyone considered the psychological aspect, which probably has far deeper roots in these civil massacre incidents than over-convenient access to guns ever could? I wonder how many people just wanted to shy away from the "creepy kid"? The shootout at VT was definitely premeditated -- fairly obvious from just the preliminary press reports (e.g., doors chained shut so no one could escape?). Reeks of vengeance too -- to say that nobody who knew this kid could at least tell that something was not right is a little unbelievable to me. Now, if any of them had survived, they'll have to bear the cross of inaction...

So at the end of the day, maybe some restrictions on acquiring guns might help -- but let's not forget about the people behind those triggers. Someone with a death-threat against the world is going to find a way wreak mass carnage regardless of how accessible guns are -- unless they are psychologically dealt with.
last edited: 4/17/07 4:14:03 PM”

“You can also say the right to bear arms gives you the right to kill. I mean, isn't that the purpose? Seriously?

Why not?

Is it irresponsible? Absolutely.

Should you pay dearly for it? Perhaps with even your life? I certainly hope so.

A last-ditch option to defend yourself from a potentially fatal attack, right?

Habeas Corpus requires something to happen before any kind of action can be taken, right? Shoot now, ask questions later, right?

So then can it be said that anyone has the ability to take out any target they want -- and no one can judge the ethic motive until after the fact -- when people are already dead. Forever.

That should be the definition of "f**ked up", if you ask me...”

“Glock 19 - magazine capacity of: 15 / 17 / 19 / 33 rounds.

"On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use."

-- source - http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

It looks like this "feel good" legislation that was watered down by the NRA lobby, and left to sunset by the republicans and Bush, resulted in some not-so-feel-good deaths of 33 people.”

I am sure this all sounds reasonable to you but it's obviously not the case to even the most casual unbiased observer. Your commentary demonstrates a rather ineffective attempt to make political high ground out the bodies of 33 dead people.

Shame on you.”

“At least my 10/22 is safe! Although I better stock up on some Hi Cap Mags. ;-)
last edited: 4/18/07 1:42:04 PM”

“The Assault Weapons Ban was ineffective because statistically very few crimes were committed with assault weapons. And today without the ban, the statistics say the same thing. The AWB was a feel good law.

Now as far as Tilt's quote.

And they shouldn't bother wrapping themselves in the flag and frothing at the mouth about the Bill of Rights. I've heard it all before and I don't buy the absolute right argument. Sorry. The point in that line of reasoning I found to be particularly silly involved having the ability to 'rise up' against the federal gov't sometime in the future --- Good Luck With That One.

That is where Tilt is absolutely wrong. George Bush has run the U.S. Constitution in the ground. Can you imagine how bad things are going to be when Hillary Clinton starts using the PATRIOT Act?

The 2nd Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights because delegates to the Constitutional Congress would not ratify the Constitution unless the citizens had certain rights. The 2nd Amendment is not there so you can hunt or target practice. It's there so that the government would fear the people and not the other way around.

The rich oligarchs that really run our government (and thereby OUR country) are getting very scared right now. They want gun control because they know of the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots in this country. When the American middle class has been marginalized to the point that it has nothing to lose, look for civil unrest. I used to think this would happen in my childrens lifetimes. Now I think we will see it in our lifetimes. When that time comes I'm not counting on the police or the government to protect me. In fact, the odds are that I will have to protect myself from whatever form the goverment takes.
last edited: 4/18/07 3:09:32 PM”

“Guns aren't evil, people are evil. At VT this young man was evil, disturbed, without conscious. He was likely schizophrenic. Just a waste of life of the other 32 victims. So sad. The only good to come out of this is the money that will be saved on smoke and mirrors legal crap before he would get a needle in 20 years (unless he is of unsound mind which would have been a bigger waste of our taxes as he would be locked up until he died.)
last edited: 4/18/07 8:28:33 PM”

“Sure, SH. Add a sizable dose of the Seventh Seal to that and you get Vernon Wayne Howell.”

“What is it with you Tilt, do you really think obscure references make you sound smart? I don't know what the Seventh Seal is, but everyone knows who David Koresh was, so why not just use the popular name.

I guess it's easier to play smoke and mirrors than it is to actually defend your debunked arguments. LOL. Love it when an ultra liberal elitist bites the dust!”

“See all the paranoia emerging here that yet another spree killing might lead them to add some responsibilities to their right to bear arms.

I guess all these guys (and gals, though mostly guys) will now just be waiting for the next one to happen before rolling out the pro-gun cliches and having wet dreams about how they'd 'take out' the next Cho if he should appear in their town.

Having said that the situation has got so bad and no one is prepared to do anything about it so we just roll the dice and hope the next one doesn't affect us or our loved-ones.”

“Y2 what responsibilities are you talking about? Do you mean, background checks (mandatory by federal law NICS) or handgun registry (law in most if not all states) prohibition of gun sales to felons (federal law).”

“To be honest birch I've come to the conclusion that nothing will work. There are just too many guns out there and too many people who will break any law they see as being unjust. There's also too much money and power in the gun lobby and too many people who really love thier guns and are prepared to mobilize to keep ay legislation off the books or doom any politician who tries to introduce any.

I would just like it if there was a least some recognition that this particular freedom comes with a price. In this instance the young people at Virginia Tech paid the price. Sure he could have done it with a knife, but the chances of killing more than one or two people like that are pretty remote.

I really don't know the answer - but I guess if as much effort were put regulating gun ownership as is put over to car ownership then we'd be getting somewhere - but then that probably wouldn't have much effect either.”

“I am just glad the ban on fully automatic weapons has expired.”

“We gun owners do recoginze the costs of our freedoms and we also recognize that we are liable when we dont use the weapon within legal bounds we also recognize that if our weapons are stolen we can and have been punished in civil court for the use of our stolen weapons in the commision of crimes. Apply that same liability to a car owner who gets robbed and the car is used in a hit and run.

He should never have been allowed to own possess or use a weapon due his mental issues. Blaming legal gun owners for his acts or linking them is like blaming a casual drinker for the acts of an alcoholic.

You act as though we gun owners are a group of ignorami who sitting around all day waiting to shoot anything or anyone. We are as a group responsible, most of treat our weapons with the care and respect they require. Punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals is simp-ly wrong.”

“NRA has lobbied for responsible gun use and ownership. I don't recall them ever saying that felons or nead jobs should be allowed to have guns. They have spent years teaching the responsibilities of gun ownership (locking them up, locking the ammo up, trigger locks).”

“I don't think birch or NoProb could have said it any better.”

“good point noprob, I do beleive that trigger locks are mandatory equipment for new weapon sales.At least in Mi.”