The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
09-09-2004, 02:28 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24
The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
Hello everyone,
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting fed up with all the lies the liberal press is spreading about the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban this Monday 9/13/04.
If you don't know about this ban, or the guns affected, please read this paragraph, otherwise, skip to the next one.
As many of you know, and some of you might be learning for the first time, the ban doesn't limit machine guns or burst first guns of any kind. Assault weapon is actually an erroneous term, since it refers to military burst or full auto guns. NO MILITARY ON EARTH USES THE GUNS BANNED IN 1994, BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMI-AUTO. It limits cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles, (one trigger pull, one shot.) It says a gun can only have 2 of the following features: bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, removable magazines, pistol grips, and the ability to mount a grenade launcher. Banning a bayonet lugs is pointless, since when was the last time someone was stabbed by a gun? And flash suppressors are for helping you see while shooting in low light conditions, not for snipers to hide their shot. Collapsible stocks are for the comfort of the shooter. And grenade launchers are heavily regulated anyways; this is more of a scare tactic. While you can buy a grenade launcher in most states, with licenses and the high cost alone, it normally comes to $2000-$3000. Furthermore, it is impossible to buy grenade launcher ammunition, since it's illegal. So in the end, the pistol grip and magazines are the features that stayed on "assault weapons," the rest of the features came off. If you want more info on this, a good sit (that I am not affiliated with in any way) is http://www.awbansunset.com/
In other words, lawmakers took the fun stuff off the guns, but didn't change their effectiveness in any way. Why then are their all these articles in legitimate newspapers about the horrific guns about to hit the streets? (These are actual quotes taken)
"Currently assault weapons are manufactured for military and law enforcement, but come Monday, if the president doesn't step in, gun manufacturers who've been banned from making assault weapons for the general public for the past 10 years will be able to do so. And local gun dealers say those manufacturers are ready." (WNDU Indiana)
"On Monday, with little fanfare or public notice - and barely a mention from President Bush or Sen. John Kerry - a ban on the sale of 19 kinds of military-style assault rifles, capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds, will expire after 10 years." (Sun-Sentinel Florida)
"Assault weapons ban works: Plug holes and let law live" (This is the title of an article featured on USATODAY, kind of ironic since news reporters are supposed to be unbiased.)
"If he doesn't call for action, the president will be showing that his compassion is limited to the lunatics who want to stockpile Uzis, AK-47s and Tec-9s" (non-profit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence .)
In fact, in terms of law enforcement, the prevalence of assault weapons on the street puts police officers at a dangerous disadvantage. Washington, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey has called assault weapons "a threat to the safety of our dedicated police officers and public."
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting fed up with the media's deceptive information and down right lies about these guns, in order to try and get this law renewed?
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting fed up with all the lies the liberal press is spreading about the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban this Monday 9/13/04.
If you don't know about this ban, or the guns affected, please read this paragraph, otherwise, skip to the next one.
As many of you know, and some of you might be learning for the first time, the ban doesn't limit machine guns or burst first guns of any kind. Assault weapon is actually an erroneous term, since it refers to military burst or full auto guns. NO MILITARY ON EARTH USES THE GUNS BANNED IN 1994, BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMI-AUTO. It limits cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles, (one trigger pull, one shot.) It says a gun can only have 2 of the following features: bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, removable magazines, pistol grips, and the ability to mount a grenade launcher. Banning a bayonet lugs is pointless, since when was the last time someone was stabbed by a gun? And flash suppressors are for helping you see while shooting in low light conditions, not for snipers to hide their shot. Collapsible stocks are for the comfort of the shooter. And grenade launchers are heavily regulated anyways; this is more of a scare tactic. While you can buy a grenade launcher in most states, with licenses and the high cost alone, it normally comes to $2000-$3000. Furthermore, it is impossible to buy grenade launcher ammunition, since it's illegal. So in the end, the pistol grip and magazines are the features that stayed on "assault weapons," the rest of the features came off. If you want more info on this, a good sit (that I am not affiliated with in any way) is http://www.awbansunset.com/
In other words, lawmakers took the fun stuff off the guns, but didn't change their effectiveness in any way. Why then are their all these articles in legitimate newspapers about the horrific guns about to hit the streets? (These are actual quotes taken)
"Currently assault weapons are manufactured for military and law enforcement, but come Monday, if the president doesn't step in, gun manufacturers who've been banned from making assault weapons for the general public for the past 10 years will be able to do so. And local gun dealers say those manufacturers are ready." (WNDU Indiana)
"On Monday, with little fanfare or public notice - and barely a mention from President Bush or Sen. John Kerry - a ban on the sale of 19 kinds of military-style assault rifles, capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds, will expire after 10 years." (Sun-Sentinel Florida)
"Assault weapons ban works: Plug holes and let law live" (This is the title of an article featured on USATODAY, kind of ironic since news reporters are supposed to be unbiased.)
"If he doesn't call for action, the president will be showing that his compassion is limited to the lunatics who want to stockpile Uzis, AK-47s and Tec-9s" (non-profit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence .)
In fact, in terms of law enforcement, the prevalence of assault weapons on the street puts police officers at a dangerous disadvantage. Washington, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey has called assault weapons "a threat to the safety of our dedicated police officers and public."
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting fed up with the media's deceptive information and down right lies about these guns, in order to try and get this law renewed?
09-09-2004, 06:53 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Gypsum KS USA
Posts: 1,289
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
Just to point out one thing about your "descriptor paragraph", the ban actually prohibits guns with 2 or more of those "options", not limits them to having only two of them, they can only have one.
As for the rest of it, get used to it, liberals will lie about anything they can to sway people in their direction, and conservatives will outline the most simple minded bull-flop you've heard to keep up their own ideals...that's politics, I can stack cards that would prove that water is bad for your health, or I can prove that banning guns is good for society (and being who and what I am, I can gladly prove how guns are good for society)...
The fact of the matter is: the ban is very likely going to sunset at this point, there's really only two days left to get it reinstated, and nothing in government can act that quickly.
The fall of the ban absolutely WILL NOT just hand you back your high cap mags and let you put a telescoping stock on your AR-15, odds are something of the sort will follow quickly thereafter, so if you're wanting them, buy them quick, otherwise, stay used to what you've got now.
As for the rest of it, get used to it, liberals will lie about anything they can to sway people in their direction, and conservatives will outline the most simple minded bull-flop you've heard to keep up their own ideals...that's politics, I can stack cards that would prove that water is bad for your health, or I can prove that banning guns is good for society (and being who and what I am, I can gladly prove how guns are good for society)...
The fact of the matter is: the ban is very likely going to sunset at this point, there's really only two days left to get it reinstated, and nothing in government can act that quickly.
The fall of the ban absolutely WILL NOT just hand you back your high cap mags and let you put a telescoping stock on your AR-15, odds are something of the sort will follow quickly thereafter, so if you're wanting them, buy them quick, otherwise, stay used to what you've got now.
09-10-2004, 08:09 AM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas - BUT NOW in Madison County, NY
Posts: 6,270
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
ORIGINAL: redhead_522
Hello everyone,
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting fed up with all the lies the liberal press is spreading about the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban this Monday 9/13/04.
If you don't know about this ban, or the guns affected, please read this paragraph, otherwise, skip to the next one.
As many of you know, and some of you might be learning for the first time, the ban doesn't limit machine guns or burst first guns of any kind. Assault weapon is actually an erroneous term, since it refers to military burst or full auto guns. NO MILITARY ON EARTH USES THE GUNS BANNED IN 1994, BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMI-AUTO. It limits cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles, (one trigger pull, one shot.) It says a gun can only have 2 of the following features: bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, removable magazines, pistol grips, and the ability to mount a grenade launcher. Banning a bayonet lugs is pointless, since when was the last time someone was stabbed by a gun? And flash suppressors are for helping you see while shooting in low light conditions, not for snipers to hide their shot. Collapsible stocks are for the comfort of the shooter. And grenade launchers are heavily regulated anyways; this is more of a scare tactic. While you can buy a grenade launcher in most states, with licenses and the high cost alone, it normally comes to $2000-$3000. Furthermore, it is impossible to buy grenade launcher ammunition, since it's illegal. So in the end, the pistol grip and magazines are the features that stayed on "assault weapons," the rest of the features came off. If you want more info on this, a good sit (that I am not affiliated with in any way) is http://www.awbansunset.com/
In other words, lawmakers took the fun stuff off the guns, but didn't change their effectiveness in any way. Why then are their all these articles in legitimate newspapers about the horrific guns about to hit the streets? (These are actual quotes taken)
"Currently assault weapons are manufactured for military and law enforcement, but come Monday, if the president doesn't step in, gun manufacturers who've been banned from making assault weapons for the general public for the past 10 years will be able to do so. And local gun dealers say those manufacturers are ready." (WNDU Indiana)
"On Monday, with little fanfare or public notice - and barely a mention from President Bush or Sen. John Kerry - a ban on the sale of 19 kinds of military-style assault rifles, capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds, will expire after 10 years." (Sun-Sentinel Florida)
"Assault weapons ban works: Plug holes and let law live" (This is the title of an article featured on USATODAY, kind of ironic since news reporters are supposed to be unbiased.)
"If he doesn't call for action, the president will be showing that his compassion is limited to the lunatics who want to stockpile Uzis, AK-47s and Tec-9s" (non-profit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence .)
In fact, in terms of law enforcement, the prevalence of assault weapons on the street puts police officers at a dangerous disadvantage. Washington, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey has called assault weapons "a threat to the safety of our dedicated police officers and public."
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting fed up with the media's deceptive information and down right lies about these guns, in order to try and get this law renewed?
Hello everyone,
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting fed up with all the lies the liberal press is spreading about the expiration of the "assault weapon" ban this Monday 9/13/04.
If you don't know about this ban, or the guns affected, please read this paragraph, otherwise, skip to the next one.
As many of you know, and some of you might be learning for the first time, the ban doesn't limit machine guns or burst first guns of any kind. Assault weapon is actually an erroneous term, since it refers to military burst or full auto guns. NO MILITARY ON EARTH USES THE GUNS BANNED IN 1994, BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMI-AUTO. It limits cosmetic features on semi-automatic rifles, (one trigger pull, one shot.) It says a gun can only have 2 of the following features: bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, removable magazines, pistol grips, and the ability to mount a grenade launcher. Banning a bayonet lugs is pointless, since when was the last time someone was stabbed by a gun? And flash suppressors are for helping you see while shooting in low light conditions, not for snipers to hide their shot. Collapsible stocks are for the comfort of the shooter. And grenade launchers are heavily regulated anyways; this is more of a scare tactic. While you can buy a grenade launcher in most states, with licenses and the high cost alone, it normally comes to $2000-$3000. Furthermore, it is impossible to buy grenade launcher ammunition, since it's illegal. So in the end, the pistol grip and magazines are the features that stayed on "assault weapons," the rest of the features came off. If you want more info on this, a good sit (that I am not affiliated with in any way) is http://www.awbansunset.com/
In other words, lawmakers took the fun stuff off the guns, but didn't change their effectiveness in any way. Why then are their all these articles in legitimate newspapers about the horrific guns about to hit the streets? (These are actual quotes taken)
"Currently assault weapons are manufactured for military and law enforcement, but come Monday, if the president doesn't step in, gun manufacturers who've been banned from making assault weapons for the general public for the past 10 years will be able to do so. And local gun dealers say those manufacturers are ready." (WNDU Indiana)
"On Monday, with little fanfare or public notice - and barely a mention from President Bush or Sen. John Kerry - a ban on the sale of 19 kinds of military-style assault rifles, capable of firing dozens of bullets in seconds, will expire after 10 years." (Sun-Sentinel Florida)
"Assault weapons ban works: Plug holes and let law live" (This is the title of an article featured on USATODAY, kind of ironic since news reporters are supposed to be unbiased.)
"If he doesn't call for action, the president will be showing that his compassion is limited to the lunatics who want to stockpile Uzis, AK-47s and Tec-9s" (non-profit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence .)
In fact, in terms of law enforcement, the prevalence of assault weapons on the street puts police officers at a dangerous disadvantage. Washington, D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey has called assault weapons "a threat to the safety of our dedicated police officers and public."
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting fed up with the media's deceptive information and down right lies about these guns, in order to try and get this law renewed?
09-10-2004, 08:39 AM
#4
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,357
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
I have no assault weapon nor do I want to have one. But this ban and all the current BS being propagated by the media makes me mad. Yesterday, Diane Sawyer was asking an NRA representative why she needed a weapon that would spray 700 rounds per minute. The NRA representative patiently explained that machine guns were already banned under separate law, that the weapon described by MS Sawyer was a machine gun, and the assault weapons ban was not needed to outlaw such a weapon. Then Sawyer challenged the NRA spokesperson to explain why a female chief of police on the show advocating the renewal of the assault weapons ban advocated the ban if assault weapons were as the NRA spokesperson said they were. Sawyer also asked why do we NEED assault weapons. Well, our freedoms should not depend on demonstrating a need for something. Do we need Corvettes, Dodge Vipers, and Mustang GT sports cars? I think not. Do we need motorcycles? I think not. Do executives need more than $1 Million compensation per year? I think not. The question of NEED is entirely inappropriate in a free country such as ours.
Today our local news station -- the same one which Sawyer is on -- brought up the same issue. Today they said a weapon under the ban today could be legal on the street Monday -- a weapon that fires 30 rounds in 3 seconds. I calculate that to be 600 rounds a minute: again, they are misrepresenting the assault weapons ban to cover machine guns not the semi automatics that the ban actually covers.
As another poster said, all political debate bends the truth to achieve their goals. That sucks. I was discussing with my wife this morning that it is at the point that I can't believe anything I hear on TV, when it comes to major political issues. How can we have an informed electorate if the media participates in the cooking of facts to give their faction an advantage?
It seems the NRA or some other gun advocate organization needs to have a group dedicated to collecting statistics, analyzing statistics, and providing factual information WELL DOCUMENTED so unbelievers can follow up. For instance, I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police chiefs is on the assault weapons ban. I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police officers is on the assault weapons ban. I couldn't care less about what one police chief found god knows where -- Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Provincetown Massaschusetts? -- thinks about the assault weapons ban. Then again, it really doesn't matter what the police think or don't think about this ban. The police do not constitute the entire electorate. We don't arrange our affairs to make life convenient for police. No disrespect intended to the police, but if they said it would be convenient that all guns be banned -- I'm sorry, however inconvenient this might be for them, it isn't convenient for me.
Today our local news station -- the same one which Sawyer is on -- brought up the same issue. Today they said a weapon under the ban today could be legal on the street Monday -- a weapon that fires 30 rounds in 3 seconds. I calculate that to be 600 rounds a minute: again, they are misrepresenting the assault weapons ban to cover machine guns not the semi automatics that the ban actually covers.
As another poster said, all political debate bends the truth to achieve their goals. That sucks. I was discussing with my wife this morning that it is at the point that I can't believe anything I hear on TV, when it comes to major political issues. How can we have an informed electorate if the media participates in the cooking of facts to give their faction an advantage?
It seems the NRA or some other gun advocate organization needs to have a group dedicated to collecting statistics, analyzing statistics, and providing factual information WELL DOCUMENTED so unbelievers can follow up. For instance, I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police chiefs is on the assault weapons ban. I would be very interested to know what the concensus of police officers is on the assault weapons ban. I couldn't care less about what one police chief found god knows where -- Washington DC, San Francisco, Boston, Provincetown Massaschusetts? -- thinks about the assault weapons ban. Then again, it really doesn't matter what the police think or don't think about this ban. The police do not constitute the entire electorate. We don't arrange our affairs to make life convenient for police. No disrespect intended to the police, but if they said it would be convenient that all guns be banned -- I'm sorry, however inconvenient this might be for them, it isn't convenient for me.
09-12-2004, 03:02 AM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A flat lander lost in the mountains of Northern,AZ
Posts: 3,171
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
Just to point out one thing about your "descriptor paragraph", the ban actually prohibits guns with 2 or more of those "options", not limits them to having only two of them, they can only have one.
but come monday it wont make damn difference
09-12-2004, 03:16 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: A flat lander lost in the mountains of Northern,AZ
Posts: 3,171
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
I have no assault weapon nor do I want to have one.
just remember criminals prefer unarmed victims its so simple to understand that I dont understand the liberals how can someone be so freakin ignorant.
09-12-2004, 01:48 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
Hello,
So there's no misconception about what this ban actually limits (until tomorrow anyways), this is the official guidelines of the so called "assault weapon" according to <http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html>
An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following features: Folding or telescopic stock, Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor or threaded barrel, and Grenade launcher. So a legal gun can only accept zero or one of the above features along with a detachable magazine, (most companies kept the pistol grip and detachable magazine, and got rid of the rest.)
Also, here's another great lunatic who doesn't know his facts and wants the gun bill repassed.
"I believe that a line needs to be drawn between civilian and military weapons. Civilians don't need bazookas, flamethrowers or machine guns. They shouldn't have large caliber weapons" (Bucks County Congressman Jim Greenwood, R-8)
Anyone want to point out to this guy that the assault weapon ban doesn't affect bazookas, flamethrowers, or machine guns. And most if not all of the guns affected by the ban are small caliber guns. ex. AR-15 is .223 in diameter, that's no even big enough to deer hunt with in most states.
So there's no misconception about what this ban actually limits (until tomorrow anyways), this is the official guidelines of the so called "assault weapon" according to <http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html>
An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following features: Folding or telescopic stock, Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock, Bayonet mount, Flash suppressor or threaded barrel, and Grenade launcher. So a legal gun can only accept zero or one of the above features along with a detachable magazine, (most companies kept the pistol grip and detachable magazine, and got rid of the rest.)
Also, here's another great lunatic who doesn't know his facts and wants the gun bill repassed.
"I believe that a line needs to be drawn between civilian and military weapons. Civilians don't need bazookas, flamethrowers or machine guns. They shouldn't have large caliber weapons" (Bucks County Congressman Jim Greenwood, R-8)
Anyone want to point out to this guy that the assault weapon ban doesn't affect bazookas, flamethrowers, or machine guns. And most if not all of the guns affected by the ban are small caliber guns. ex. AR-15 is .223 in diameter, that's no even big enough to deer hunt with in most states.
09-13-2004, 08:28 AM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Gypsum KS USA
Posts: 1,289
RE: The lies about the "Assaul Weapon" ban
High Desert, read the actual wording of the law itself, it states that an "assault weapon" is one with a detachable magazine and any one of the following: .... then it lists the folding stocks and bayonet lugs and all that,
Yes, they get to have two, but to be covered by the law, they've got to have a detachable magazine, so from the actual list, they only get one because detach magazines are part A of a "must have A and one from a list of B" list.
Yes, they get to have two, but to be covered by the law, they've got to have a detachable magazine, so from the actual list, they only get one because detach magazines are part A of a "must have A and one from a list of B" list.
