Do you support the AWB? [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

SpecOpsWarrior

07-03-2003, 03:48 PM

It was garbage legislation that did nothing to "save the children"!

I guess Biily C and the gang thought they were really gonna do some good when they banned those evil AR-15's, AK-47's and Spas shotguns, among others!

But all they really ended up doing was banning flash suppresors, bayonet lugs, collapsable stocks, and the manufacture of standard capacity magazines (I hate the term hi-cap, we only have two kinds of magaizens, standard capacity, and low-cap mags). Now we have Clintonian mags that only hold ten rounds, and then we have a marketplace that is flooded with used standard capacity magazines at inflated prices!

Yeah, that piece of legislation really saved some lives! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The ONLY form of gun control that I am in favor of is keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those with mental defects. I like the idea of an instant background check, but when anybody can buy a used gun without a background check, then it creates a situation where the background check isn't really keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. What we need are stricter laws about crimes committed with firearms, felons in possession of firearms and aggressive prosecution of criminals that break those laws.

[ 07-03-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

SpecOpsWarrior

07-03-2003, 03:51 PM

SGT Dave

07-03-2003, 03:57 PM

I ABSOLUTELY do not support it, but as Mike said, COOINCIDENTALLY, there will be a couple of mass shootings in the next year that the media will go out of their way to cover, and all the polititians will suddenlt decide to support it.

All it done was to drive the prices up so high most working cops couldn't afford to privately purchase them as we'd done in the past.

Just because Podunk PD issued me a shotgun does NOT mean I'm "well armed." Any encounter past 40-50 yards OR with a suspect using body armor means I'm SOL with the handgun and shotgun.

They word it though to make it sound like SUCH a great thing-like it saves SOOOOOO many lives :rolleyes: BULL-PU**Y!! :mad:

PelicanDriver

07-03-2003, 03:59 PM

Don't renew it. Only law-abiding citizens will obey it or any other unconstitutional gun control law.

Bart

07-03-2003, 04:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CinaC:
It is very unlikely that I will ever own, say, a minivan. But as much as I detest those vehicles, I don't think "I'll never own one so what do I care" is a very good reason to make it illegal for others to own.

Believe it or not, Bart, there are more people than you in the world, and it's pretty selfish of you to think only of yourself, don't you think?<hr /></blockquote>that thing about me not caring because i didnt own one.... that was just sarcasm. :D

J-WS6

07-03-2003, 04:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bart:
i support the ban. why? because i dont own any automatic weapons and i dont plan on buying any. therefore, i really dont give a crap. besides, theres too many morons out there who legally possess these types of weapons. we dont need anymore.<hr /></blockquote>You really need to read up on your laws.

the National Firearms Act banned automatic weapons more than 50 years ago.

[i]Since 1934 the Federal Government has regulated the ownership of machine guns and several other types of weapons.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 provides for the registration, and the taxing of the transfer, of a class of weapons described as NFA Title 2 weapons (sometimes referred to as "Class 3 weapons"). These include machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, silencers (also known as suppressors) and also a class of weapons known as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). An example of an AOW is, but not limited to, a smooth barreled pistol or a short barreled combination gun.

The transfer tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors is $200. The transfer tax on AOWs is $5. This transfer tax is a one time only tax and not an annual tax. Each time an NFA weapon changes hands, the tax is charged.

The paperwork required for the transfer of an NFA weapon consists of an application form with the applicant's photograph attached and a fingerprint card. These are submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in duplicate along with the transfer tax. The finger print cards are forwarded to the FBI for a background check; not very different from a background check that would be performed for a "Secret Level" security clearance. The background check and transfer process takes about 3 months or so depending on the examiners

Watchman

07-03-2003, 04:13 PM

Bart.

As already stated, the "Assault Weapons BAN" aint about "assault" weapons.

Its about a piecemeal attempy to eventually ban all guns. Its the morons that dont care because they dont have any that are making it possible.

For your information,real assault weapons are already very regulated. Citizens in most states can legally own them, I have several firends that do.

Since you seem not to know the difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic, let me help you. A semi auto(which is what the ban is about) shoots only one shot with each pull of the trigger. A full auto shoots as many as you want with one pull of the trigger.

Now I know that the TV talking heads dont make that distinction, so at least now that you know that, you ought to sound a little more intelligent of what you speak.

If it's possible.

[ 07-03-2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

PeacefulDragon

07-03-2003, 04:14 PM

I also do NOT support the AWB, for the same reasons that everyone else has stated.

However, I am a little more optimistic that it will not be renewed. With conservatives in control of the House, Senate, and Presidancy, I think there is a good chance that the AWB will be allowed to die.

Bart

07-03-2003, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SpecOpsWarrior:

You should educate yourself on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and how it is being infringed![/QB]<hr /></blockquote>my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not. no seriously, i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. since this country is too far gone to ban firearms outright, i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon. but things being the way it is now, i doubt that will happen either so i'll settle for the current legislation we have on the books right now and i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind.

Bart

07-03-2003, 04:22 PM

did i mention that i think SUV's should be subject to the gas guzzlers tax. i wonder how many people are going to flame me for that one. LOL. :D

Watchman

07-03-2003, 04:23 PM

i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind

And when police like yourself actually go around collecting firearms, you'll more than likely be one of the first to get killed in the line of duty doing what you were just "ordered" to do.

Oh well...to each his own. :rolleyes:

Bart

07-03-2003, 04:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
[i]And when police like yourself actually go around collecting firearms, you'll more than likely be one of the first to get killed in the line of duty doing what you were just "ordered" to do.

Oh well...to each his own. :rolleyes: <hr /></blockquote>when i pat down a scroat on the street im already running that risk you speak of and i do it with a smile on my face. :D

J-WS6

07-03-2003, 04:52 PM

There are alot of people that think that the assult weapons ban covers automatic weapons - especially in florida.

I watched a program recently where, a certain County Sheriff, was demonstrating why all 'assult weapons' should be banned by firing some full-auto weapons, including a Full Auto Ak47.

You'd think that someone in an elected law enforcement position would be able to distinguish between a weapon that is covered by the NFA and one that is covered by the AWB.

drunkhunter

07-03-2003, 05:29 PM

No, I do not support the ban. It is absolutely rediulous. Furthermore, if/when the order ever comes down to start collecting them from the public, I'll shuck my pretty blue suit the government gave me and switch sides.

Watchman

07-03-2003, 05:32 PM

J=WS6,

You'd think that someone in an elected law enforcement position would be able to distinguish between a weapon that is covered by the NFA and one that is covered by the AWB.

You can see by some of these posts above that even rank and file dont have a clue sometimes.

Bart:
when i pat down a scroat on the street im already running that risk you speak of and i do it with a smile on my face.

That post went right over your head eh ?

Drunkhunter got it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lictalon

07-03-2003, 05:59 PM

Wow...the first LEO I've met on this board that really scares me... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not. <hr /></blockquote>I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm, but in all seriousness, it's hard to argue that the people who wrote the constitution would agree to a total ban on firearms. Even the current government feels that some government control is allowable, but not an outright ban.

And yet, amusingly enough, the 1994 bill did ban several guns by name. I'm sorry, but if they can ban 20+ guns there, what's to prevent 30 more later? And then another 30? Argue that a total ban wouldn't be an infringment...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />no seriously, i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. <hr /></blockquote>I am simply amazed that a cop, who sees the limitations of the law everyday, would make that kind of argument. The ONLY people who obey are the people YOU don't have to worry about. The ones who might cause a problem aren't going to worry about another law...they've already decided they're not interested.

Or maybe there's the thought that only agents of the state should have weapons? I can't express how much that idea terrifies me.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon. <hr /></blockquote>I'm okay with that...to carry a weapon, I can agree to some requirements (nothing about owning a weapon, mind, or transporting it to the range) though I do so only because I know it won't make a difference. The people who carry weapons everyday will do whatever is reasonable in order to continue carrying them.

The trick, of course, is making sure that is is reasonable. Asking a civillian to shoot the same standards as the local PD seems fine...but I would strongly oppose any legistlation that enforced a test without spelling out what the test requirements are to be without the local or state officials being able to change them at whim:

State Tester: "Yeah, I know last year you had to hit the bullseye ten times at thirty feet, but this year it's gonna be fifty times at a thousand yards..."

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i'll settle for the current legislation we have on the books right now and i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind <hr /></blockquote>Well, it seems like you have a nice sense of distrust for our elected officials, and yet you're still willing to support them? Something's not stirring the kool-aid...

If you're wearing a uniform, your job isn't just about enforcing the laws on the books. Your job is about Justice. You were hired for your discretion as much as anything else...And the excuse that you were just following orders isn't going to garner much sympathy. That was tried at Nuremburg...

Kudos to all the LEOs out there who think about the intent, ramifications, and effectiveness of the laws passed, and for being willing to apply their own intelligence and morality to the words on paper. Every officer in uniform should be willing to do so.

[ 07-03-2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Lictalon ]

Mike Tx

07-03-2003, 06:07 PM

Bart, you are the kind of cop, if indeed you are a cop, that when I finally decide to tell you what I think of you, other people assume I hate all cops. Do us a favor and give it up dude.

Bart

07-03-2003, 06:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Bart, you are the kind of cop, if indeed you are a cop, that when I finally decide to tell you what I think of you, other people assume I hate all cops. Do us a favor and give it up dude.<hr /></blockquote>what can i say, when it comes to gun control, i lean towards the liberal side. most conservatives dont like it, but i dont care. why are people so sensitive about this subject anyway? no wonder this profession suffers from a high rate of heart attacks. LOL

Mike Tx

07-03-2003, 06:27 PM

You a cop? Give up your gun. I know, I know, you are required to carry one. Just remember while you support gun control and victim disarmament, you won't be a cop forever. When you retire, and you can no longer carry a gun, just think of all the criminals that hate you that won't obey the law, and will still have a gun. And they may come after you. Just call 911, then get on your knees and beg for mercy like the civilians you want to disarm will have to in your socialist cesspool.

[ 07-03-2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Bart

07-03-2003, 06:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
You a cop? Give up your gun. I know, I know, you are required to carry one. Just remember while you support gun control and victim disarmament, you won't be a cop forever. When you retire, and you can no longer carry a gun, just think of all the criminals that hate you that won't obey the law, and will still have a gun. And they may come after you. Just call 911, then get on your knees and beg for mercy like the civilians you want to disarm will have to in your socialist cesspool.<hr /></blockquote>when i retire i'll be slamming beers down on the beach in bermuda without a care in the world. i wont have to worry about the scroats down here. thats granted the economy recovers and my stocks gain back some value. if it doesnt, you'll find me in nyc jumping off of a high rise with the rest of the wall street guys. :)

SGT Dave

07-03-2003, 09:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> if it doesnt, you'll find me in nyc jumping off of a high rise with the rest of the wall street guys. <hr /></blockquote>Well, I guess there's always hope... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

tcsd1236

07-05-2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Bart
i support the ban. why? because i dont own any automatic weapons and i dont plan on buying any. therefore, i really dont give a crap. besides, theres too many morons out there who legally possess these types of weapons. we dont need anymore.

Just because you don't personally own any such weapons is no reason for you to be so apathetic on this issue. Next time they might very well be banning a weapon you own that IS important to you. As for the people that own FA weapons, the process to be licensed and the cost of pre-86 FA weapons pretty much assures that any wingnuts are screened out.

my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not. no seriously, i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. since this country is too far gone to ban firearms outright, i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon. but things being the way it is now, i doubt that will happen either so i'll settle for the current legislation we have on the books right now and i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind.

You have to be kidding.

J-WS6

07-05-2003, 11:51 AM

my rights arent being infringed upon. i can carry whether the state issues me a license or not.

I think our freedom should be snipped a bit to loose the free speech thing... After all, *I* dont have anything to say, so my rights wouldnt be infringed upon.

I also think we should bring back slavery, because *I* wouldnt be a slave, so my rights wouldnt be infringed.

And maybe we outta get rid of the woman's vote, cause *I* aint a female, so my rights wouldnt be infringed upon.

And when they do decide to infringe upon my rights - whats gonna happen then?

dannybarnes

07-05-2003, 01:10 PM

Cheers J-WS6.

Good points for those who support GCL simply because they don't own any firearms.

Bonk

07-06-2003, 10:16 AM

I am absolutely against the AWB. It has done nothing to reduce crime, and only criminalizes innocent people and drives up the cost of guns and magazines. I am working towards seeing it die and restoring a little bit of sense to Washington.

Bart...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: for once (OK, maybe twice) MikeTX isn't quite as irritating as I thought.

shooter1201

07-06-2003, 12:22 PM

The AWB was never intended to 'disarm criminals'. It was a carefully orchestrated ATTACK on the 2nd Amendment. The politicians that supported/support it should all be considered traitors to the U.S. Constitution and dealt with accordingly.

FWIW, criminals will ALWAYS be able to get weapons. Criminals have ZERO regard for the 'Law'. That's why they're criminals.....:rolleyes:

Chicagojeff

07-06-2003, 01:05 PM

M'Lard

07-06-2003, 01:31 PM

Perhaps you should consider a Glock, no? Are they not lighter? And since Gaston is a Frenchman you would do well with that, yes? ;)

THE BRONZE

07-06-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Bart

i think there should be stricter gun laws for all types of firearms. since this country is too far gone to ban firearms outright, i feel that there should be a stringent qualifications test one must pass before being allowed to carry a weapon.

Do you support testing before being allowed to exercise any of your other rights as an American Citizen? Perhaps a grammer test, or political correctness quiz before you are allowed to exercise your freedom of speach.

Watchman

07-06-2003, 03:14 PM

I always hear again and again how we're "one step away" from house to house weapons confiscation.. yet i see no proof. I have to side with Bart.. I came in during the AWB legislation and I was in the last class to have 10+ magazines on the beretta.. (what a brick that thing is..)

Spoken like a man with little experience or knowledge of firearms.

The only thing more useless than weapons legislation.. is pro-gun fantasies used to whip up the fervor.

Ahhhh...I see....you are part of the "it'll never happen here this is AMERICA ! ! ! " crowd.

Obviously you know little of history. You know nothing or perhaps dont even care of the piecmeal attempt on the major distinction that sets us apart from most countries, the right to own firearms.

Warning. Since you beleive that it can never happen here, stay out of the open when it does take place. It maybe 5,10 or 50 years down the road but it WILL happen. It s not a matter of "if", its just a matter of when confinscation takes place. Its people like yourself that ENSURE it will happen.

Since you arent smart enough to figure it out by yourself, myself and several others here might attempt to educate you ...if its possible.

Is it possible? Tell ,me now so I dont waste my time.

J-WS6

07-06-2003, 04:31 PM

Hey !

Gun Control works - Just ask the experts.. Stalin, Hitler etc etc.

The Below is FEDERAL law. Please note the bold

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

The Below is CONSTITUTIONAL Law

"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."

As you can see, the two are tied VERY closely together. Our forfathers aimed to make SURE that our country remains free.

shooter1201

07-06-2003, 09:12 PM

Those of us old enough....and wise enough...remember when there was NO Form 4473 required to purchase a firearm. I dare say in 1967, crime was MUCH lower than today. If you're up to the research required, I'd bet that I'm correct in my assertion.

Who do we have to 'thank' for our increased crime? None other than liberal LAWYERS....the same 'bunch' that is to blame for MOST of the other 'ills' that now plague America.

Bonk

07-06-2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by M'Lard
Perhaps you should consider a Glock, no? Are they not lighter? And since Gaston is a Frenchman you would do well with that, yes? ;)

Nice try...he's Austrian.

The AWB has had absolutely zero effect on crime, and I defy anyone to show me otherwise. In five years as a patrol officer I ran across rifles mentioned in the AWB exactly once, and that was a post-ban Bushmaster which was cased, locked, and unloaded in the trunk of a car that was the victim of a hit and run. Regulating a weapon solely on cosmetic characteristics does nothing but placate the "ooohh guns are yucky" crowd, some of which seem to frequent this board.:rolleyes:

J-WS6

07-06-2003, 09:42 PM

Dammit shooter, you coulda at least commented on how cool my reply was.

saleen

07-07-2003, 05:34 AM

NO! For further information please refer to my signature line.

Saleen

3/4s

07-07-2003, 07:50 AM

Don`t feed the troll.:rolleyes:

shooter1201

07-07-2003, 11:55 AM

Sorry, J-WS6. I was distracted by some of the comments from our less-than-informed 'brethren'.

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Watchman
i'll support any other ban that the so called intellectuals in washington have in mind

And when police like yourself actually go around collecting firearms, you'll more than likely be one of the first to get killed in the line of duty doing what you were just "ordered" to do.

Oh well...to each his own. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Never happen.

Watchman

07-07-2003, 04:35 PM

Never happen.

Famous last words.

Thats what was said when the idea of Pearl Harbor being attacked by the Japaneses was presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Also said when the idea of terroists attacking the US was brought up.
"Never happen on our soil", was the term used.

Also told to me by a good friend in Australia that beleived that the gun control initative would never pass there. Also repeated when it passed and the sentance for owning a gun was 10 years.

Chief Wiggum.
People that think like you are EXACTLY why it can and will happen.Dang it man,you think its normal to be queer.How in the heck can you claim to have a clue about this ?

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 04:44 PM

I fail to see how the two are related. Perhaps in your world they are. Some kind of corelation between your penis and your gun. Kind of scary in my opinion.

Anyway, little green men might land on earth one day.

But I think that for right now it's pretty safe to say that it will NEVER HAPPEN.

Same goes for the govt. going door to door rounding up weapons.

This is just pro-gun (and believe it or not i am quite pro-gun) propaganda to stir up paranoia.

P.S. Although you know this, there is a thread on the homosexuality issue in the Civil Rights board. I think that is the proper place for that discussion rather than here.

M'Lard

07-07-2003, 06:58 PM

My friend Cheify, I have Seen Mr. Watchman's posts, and from reading them, I can assure you that there is no correlation between his penis and his gun. If that were so, he would not ever have purchased a "snub nose" revolver! :D Instead, he would have purchased the how you say, "Bull Barrel" :D :D

Jim Burnes

07-07-2003, 09:12 PM

The ban as written is a crock. I'd never support the AWB; it's authors intentions are clearly to take all weapons out of the hands of citizens.

Jim Burnes

Watchman

07-07-2003, 09:37 PM

The ban as written is a crock. I'd never support the AWB; it's authors intentions are clearly to take all weapons out of the hands of citizens.

True words to those that can see clearly.

This is just pro-gun (and believe it or not i am quite pro-gun) propaganda to stir up paranoia.

Wrong again.
Its not "paranoia" its LAW, Read it sometime. You might be surprised. IT appears to me that you are not quite as "progun" as you think.

:rolleyes:

Chief Wiggum

07-07-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Watchman
The ban as written is a crock. I'd never support the AWB; it's authors intentions are clearly to take all weapons out of the hands of citizens.

True words to those that can see clearly.

This is just pro-gun (and believe it or not i am quite pro-gun) propaganda to stir up paranoia.

Wrong again.
Its not "paranoia" its LAW, Read it sometime. You might be surprised. IT appears to me that you are not quite as "progun" as you think.

:rolleyes:

No, I'm exactly as pro-gun as I think. I support some gun control but mainly I think that law abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves to include concealed weapons. I just don't think that door to door gun confiscations will ever happen. Too many people won't allow it. It's just silly to suggest that it will.

Watchman

07-07-2003, 09:53 PM

Too many people won't allow it. It's just silly to suggest that it will.

I certainly hope you are right, but somehow I doubt it.

Most people wouldnt be inconvienced by having to stick up for themselves, heck, they might mess up their comfy lifestyle. You have more faith in your fellow man than I do. If the day comes, I hope you that you dont find yourself alone when you expected others to stand with you.

No, I'm exactly as pro-gun as I think. I support some gun control but mainly I think that law abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves to include concealed weapons.

Any gun control = CONTROL.

Your liberal version of "Pro-Gun" and mine are quite different.

Chief Wiggum

07-08-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Watchman
Too many people won't allow it. It's just silly to suggest that it will.

I certainly hope you are right, but somehow I doubt it.

Most people wouldnt be inconvienced by having to stick up for themselves, heck, they might mess up their comfy lifestyle. You have more faith in your fellow man than I do. If the day comes, I hope you that you dont find yourself alone when you expected others to stand with you.

No, I'm exactly as pro-gun as I think. I support some gun control but mainly I think that law abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves to include concealed weapons.

Any gun control = CONTROL.

Your liberal version of "Pro-Gun" and mine are quite different.

I guess I see it as a sliding scale not all or nothing.

AverageJoe

07-08-2003, 09:51 AM

All political bias aside, let us consider the facts. And feel free to replace the word "AW" with "gun" if you choose.

The AW ban is a law. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Therefore, a LAW to prevent criminals from owning AWs will be, and has proven to be, useless. That LAW has only succeeded in keeping AWs from law-abiding citizens.

When AWs are outlawed, only outlaws will have AWs.

If it ever comes to a popular vote, I will vote that the AWB expires. I have already sent a letter to each of my state's Senators and Representatives urging them to vote that it expire. I will do anything else I can reasonably do to help make sure it expires. I will work the political system to the best of the Average Joe's ability to affect what our government does.

AvgJoe

Bart

07-08-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by THE BRONZE
Do you support testing before being allowed to exercise any of your other rights as an American Citizen? Perhaps a grammer test, or political correctness quiz before you are allowed to exercise your freedom of speach.

that would actually be a good idea. maybe it would be the motivation we need to improve this country's schools. we're way far behind in producing educated people as opposed to other countries.

GlassCow

07-08-2003, 09:03 PM

You know, IF (and it's a big IF) it ever comes down to the government going door-to-door to collect all firearms, I wonder who is going to actually do the knocking...Most of the cops I know (granted I do live in TX) own more than their one duty weapon...Most own many, many guns and aren't very likely to just give them up (or take them from someone else, especailly another cop)...So where would they find their henchmen? I don't see a bunch of unarmed peace-nicks coming to my house to take my guns...I think I'd have the upper-hand

Chief Wiggum

07-09-2003, 08:13 AM

I'd probably just go park behind a building all shift and then when it came time to turn in weapons I'd say "Sorry, nobody had any." :D

DaveInTx

07-10-2003, 08:18 PM

Bart, what part of Florida are you a cop in? I want to be sure I stay away from that part of the state. If you are an example of the mentality of the LEOs there, I want no part of it. I'm sure that you are a fine fellow, and well-liked by your friends and co-workers, but your understanding of gun matters and its relationship to freedom is seriously lacking.

DaveInTx

OfcMikey10mm

07-10-2003, 10:54 PM

Do you support the AWB?

Nope, I don't support any part of it.
Useless legislation, from a useless Democratic administration.

Watchman

07-11-2003, 12:14 AM

Useless legislation, from a useless Democratic administration.

You got that right.

retdetsgt

07-11-2003, 10:36 PM

Gun control and abortion are two topics that will always draw in money for a politician. Whether they are for or against either, there's a lot of emotion behind both issues and consequently a lot of money.

Politicians want neither to go away and want to keep them on the front pages as much as possible.

Jim

J.DIXON

08-03-2003, 08:22 PM

Okay folks,I will make it real simple. I will take whatever nasty little "assault rifle" you want. I will put the highest capacity magazine on it that I can find. That magazine will be loaded with the latest "thermonuclear,heatseeking,armor piercing,wire guided,and just plain not nice" ammunition that the bleeding heart liberals want to ban this week. I will even chamber a round and take the safety off. Then I will put the weapon down. THAT WEAPON WILL NOT GET UP AND START SHOOTING PEOPLE! People are the problems here,not the weapons. I have been in law enforcement for five years and have confiscated only ONE automatic weapon. I will not support a gun ban. I will not tell the people that I go out and risk my life every day for that they cannot protect themselves. I know that law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once. And with the rise in home invasions by multiple suspects,that so called "assualt weapon" may be the victims best bet until help arrives. Also if a gun ban ever passes,I WILL NOT TAKE GUNS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. To quote the great Charlton Heston,"FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

Stevie T

08-17-2003, 05:54 PM

I would like to see it die, however I think it is completly reasonable to limit magazine capacity. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders & collapsible stocks make NO DIFFERENCE as to how many people you can kill with the weapon. I would limit rifles to 10, handguns to 15. That would force at least a pause in reloading if a shooter wanted to "pray & spray" a crowd of people.

As for other gun issues, I'm for civilians getting CCW permits, for background checks at gun shows, and against these stupid lawsuits seeking to drive gun manufacturers out of business. All in all, I agree about 75% with the NRA.

Delta_V

08-20-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Stevie T
I would like to see it die, however I think it is completly reasonable to limit magazine capacity.

That is one of the most inane parts of the whole AWB. If you didn't already know it, you can still get high capacity magazines. They just have to be manufactured prior to 1994. Believe me, there is no shortage of them out there, they're very easy to get!

Plus, do you know how quick a semi-automatic handgun or rifle can be reloaded? It should take a competent shooter only a second or two to do it. Not going to make that much difference.

wprebeck

08-24-2003, 04:09 PM

I gotta agree with Patrick. Lawmakers like to point to England, and Europe in general when speaking of gun controls, and how they work. Something that usually remains unmentioned is the fact that there is no magazine capacity limit in Europe. Funny, isn't it?

MI PinkPistols

09-16-2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by wprebeck
I gotta agree with Patrick. Lawmakers like to point to England, and Europe in general when speaking of gun controls, and how they work. Something that usually remains unmentioned is the fact that there is no magazine capacity limit in Europe. Funny, isn't it?
Something else they fail to mention, crime is on the rise in the UK. It's also rising in Australia. And it's also getting easier to get a gun ILLEGALLY in the UK.

But the guys who want to take guns from civilians try to ignore those facts.

Regarding magazine capacity. Remember this, laws only effect the law-abiding citizens. The Bad guys will get whatever they want, in whatever capacity they want, whenever they want it.

Laws only stop the bad guys when they get caught.

Of course, that's just my opinion. :)

DaveInTx

09-16-2003, 11:50 AM

Deputy757

09-17-2003, 06:06 AM

There are some countries in Europe where people are allowed to possess firearms. It's just in England and a few other places where the people are not allowed to ablely (sp?) defend themselves!

MI PinkPistols

09-17-2003, 08:16 AM

DaveInTx

09-17-2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Deputy757
There are some countries in Europe where people are allowed to possess firearms. It's just in England and a few other places where the people are not allowed to ablely (sp?) defend themselves!
What I was implying was that, since firearms ownership in most European countries is so restricted already, with lots of hoops that have to be jumped through, why bother to restrict magazines? Magazines are not useful without the guns to put them in, and the government already seriously curtails such ownership to people it believes are not a threat.

DaveInTx

Sentinel

09-17-2003, 12:55 PM

I do not support the AWB and I hope it dies.

First of all it is not an assault weapon ban since it deals with semi-auto firearms and, by definition, "assault" weapons are FULLY automatic. Of course if they called it the "semi-automatic firearm ban" it would not get as much support.

Secondly I feel that it is the person we should be restricting, not the weapon. If you are responsible and law abiding enough to trust with a firearm then I really don't care what kind of firearm you own as you are not going to use it illegally anyway. And like wise if you are a criminal and/or cannot be trusted with a firearm then I don't want you to have ANY firearm at all.

The way i look at it is ... an fully auto AK47 in the hands of Mother Theresa is not even a dangerous weapon but a pencil in the hands of Jeffery Dahmer is a very dangerous weapon. I could care less what Mother Theresa owned but I don't want Jefferey Dahmer to even have access to anything that is sharp!

I just don't see the logic that a person that can legally buy a gun without a bayonet lug will choose to not kill anyone now that he cannot buy the same gun with the bayonet lug. The person that will use these weapons illegally is buying them and modifying them illegally anyway so all this law does it hurt the legal law abiding guy that will not use the gun illegally anyway.

And if yo don't think that a law that outlaws guns because they have a bayonet mount is silly then I ask you ... how many of my fellow LE officers here have come upon a homicide scene where the victim was laying there with a bayonet sticking out of them mounted to the end of a rifle? I saw a lot of things in NYC while I worked there and I never saw anyone run through with a bayonet mounted on the end of a rifle so I don't know what percentage of homicides we are stopping here.

All I know is that I have a gun that can have a 11 round magazine but because of this stupid law it has a 10 round mag. Lord knows the havoc I could wreak with that extra round.:rolleyes:

J.DIXON

09-21-2003, 10:57 PM

Guys,I just want to clear something up. An "assualt weapon" is not a firearm. A true assualt weapon is anything that you use to injure or kill another person, A TOASTER can be an assualt weapon if you beat someone to death with it.

Sentinel

09-22-2003, 08:04 AM

Hate to disagree but yes there is a definition of an assault weapon as defined by military standards. It has certain specs as opposed to other arms. The military defines everything they use in the same way they don't call a Jeep a Jeep or a car a car. If you are familiar with firearms you would know that it is fairly common knowledge amongst people knowledgeable in arms that an assault weapon is, among other things, full auto. There is a difference between an "assault rifle" and a rifle with which I assault you. :)

MI PinkPistols

09-22-2003, 08:22 AM

I agree with Sentinel, but the term "Assault Weapon" is one coined by the Press and the Liberal Left.

They try to include semi-auto pistols in the category of assault weapons. Specially if they are like my OLD Taurus PT-92 and have a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds. Granted, this is something that the Clinton Administration added more definition to. And I think it's plain wrong.

There shouldn't be ANY pistols listed on the Assault Weapons Ban, and the magazine capacity limitations should not apply to pistols.

Then again, there shouldn't be an assault weapons ban at all. As usual, the liberals conviently forgot that laws only affect the law-abiding citizens, not the criminals.

So, what else is new.

Public

11-19-2003, 08:39 PM

I would like to see a limit on criminals rights, not on the amount of bullets I can put in a gun.

http://www.libertybelles.org/images/guncartoons/selfdefensestayskal17.gif

flatbadge

11-19-2003, 08:48 PM

I to do NOT support it.

Funny how the rank/file cops dont, but the politicians DO...

Aren't we the ones they are trying to protect?

Mike

vstfrnd

11-22-2003, 04:58 AM

Hey, you know what, you guys are alright. I've gone through every post on this thread and I can tell ya, for the most part, I agree with the majority of you. Many laughs! What gets me about this whole subject, is the fact that I, face to face with people, never hear anyone gloating about the "great" laws being passed to limit gun ownership and how they're glad to have made a difference. I know of not ONE person that I have ever met that are openly for gun control. If the subject ever comes up in conversation, the other person is just about as annoyed as I am about the whole thing. Seems to me, that the people who are for "gun control" in general are only the ones that are totally ignorant / scared of guns, (you know, those mean ol' guns that scare people) yet, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of them wave their little banner for the media, demonstrating against the death penalty for the guy that slaughters a family or school yard. Is this their thought process?.... "He won't hurt anyone anymore; we have taken his mean ol' gun away."

But now I have a question for you guys. I'm not an LEO and this subject has made me think of a weapon that I own. Not being in the business, I don't review law books on weapons every day and I really don't feel like spending all of my time, digging up new laws, making sure that everything I own is legal. It's a Russian SKS that I bought from a dealer, new in the box. I have not touched this gun, as far as modification. That means that it has a 10 round, non-detatchable clip and a folding bayonet. I live in California and I bought this weapon sometime in the early '90's. I know that it was legal then, but if I take it out to either hunt or plink, am I ok, or am I a criminal now, just asking for trouble and confiscation?

vstfrnd

11-22-2003, 05:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sentinel
I do not support the AWB and I hope it dies.

All I know is that I have a gun that can have a 11 round magazine but because of this stupid law it has a 10 round mag. Lord knows the havoc I could wreak with that extra round.[B]All I know is that I have a gun that can have a 11 round magazine but because of this stupid law it has a 10 round mag. Lord knows the havoc I could wreak with that extra round.

Psssssst......Sentinel......if you ever wanna go on a real rampage, load yer clip + chamber one. :D

rebbryan

11-25-2003, 11:23 PM

i support the part of the ban that bans tec-9's and the like. they're not "renewing" the old ban, they're making it even more restrictive

MI PinkPistols

11-26-2003, 12:53 AM

The problem with the "Assault Weapon Ban" is it doesn't BAN Assault Weapons!

FOX NEWS:
Candidates Confused on Gun Ban

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

By John R. Lott Jr.

[QUOTE]A new career awaits Democratic presidential candidates: offering advice to hunters.

Tuesday, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean explained his support for extending the assault weapons ban next year because

vstfrnd

11-30-2003, 06:40 PM

Taken from the U.S. D.O.J.

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

Invisiblecop

12-04-2003, 03:25 PM

Capt Godwin

12-07-2003, 02:38 PM

Hi
Touchy Subject I know
Please someone show me statistics that any of the active gun laws have stopped violent crime commited with a gun. There is not one shred of evidence that supports gun control has deterred any gun crimes. The criminal will always have his weapon, leaving the public wide open targets for armed robber. We all have forgotten what our forefathers have written in the Constitution. :mad:

We need more public training on gun safety that is headed by their local law enforement. Arm the People.
Guns Don't Kill, People Kill People !

MI PinkPistols

12-07-2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Capt Godwin
Hi
Touchy Subject I know
Please someone show me statistics that any of the active gun laws have stopped violent crime commited with a gun. There is not one shred of evidence that supports gun control has deterred any gun crimes. The criminal will always have his weapon, leaving the public wide open targets for armed robber. We all have forgotten what our forefathers have written in the Constitution. :mad:

We need more public training on gun safety that is headed by their local law enforement. Arm the People.
Guns Don't Kill, People Kill People !
I think if there was a way to get the local police involved in teaching people not only HOW to shoot, but WHEN they can and can't shoot, it would be a step in the correct direction.

Myself, I worked as an armed security officer and private investigator in the Chicago area for over 10 years. Our training was not great, but the legal aspect did teach us when we could or could not shoot someone. In general, what applies in that profession also applies to civilians licensed to carry for their own protection.

And as much as I practice, I would appreciate helpful hints and suggestions from the local LEOs even more.

But that's just my own opinion. :)

Invisiblecop

12-12-2003, 02:11 AM

j706

12-20-2003, 04:50 PM

I am pleased to see that about 95% of us are on the same page with this one. Makes me even prouder to be a cop,that being said,common sense should tell you that gun control is ineffective as well as just plain stupid. Some peoples thinking boggles my mind!!!!!!!!

IT'S NOT THE GUNS STUPID !!

Brushfire

01-11-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Capt Godwin
We need more public training on gun safety that is headed by their local law enforement. Arm the People.
Guns Don't Kill, People Kill People !

I don't know where you're from Capt. but here in TN there's quite a few LEO's and their agencies involved in training citizens in gun safety, self-defense, etc. The anti-gun crowd, on the other hand, completely goes around the concept of safety training because their mission is to ban guns period.

Here's a couple of self-denfense/training schools run by LEOs in TN.

http://www.farrisfirearms.com/
http://www.warriormindset.com/

MIKEBRAVO

01-12-2004, 11:07 AM

I "DO NOT" support it!!! This and other gun laws are ONLY goning to be followed be "LAW ABIDING PEOPLE"... It is TOTALLY *****ANINE to believe that Criminals will follow ANY LAWS supporting gun regulations... You are just "PUNISHING THE WRONG PEOPLE..........." :mad: :mad: :mad:

MI PinkPistols

01-12-2004, 11:26 AM

The biggest problem with the Assault Weapons ban is that NONE of the weapons it bans are "Assault Weapons." When I was in the Army (1974-1978) I was taught that an Assault RIFLE was fully capable of selective fire. ALL the weapons in the AWB list are SEMI-AUTO only.

If ANYONE thinks any of those weapons are "Assault Weapons," then you need to go back to school. Preferably one without left-wing professors.

As always, the above is just my humble opinion. :)

vstfrnd

01-12-2004, 03:00 PM

Well, the people who make these laws usually live in a city where there is absolutely no lawful use, other than an indoor shooting range, for ANY gun and they have no idea of what guns really "are" and what they can do? I live in an area where there are many lawful activities that involve a range of firearms from hunting, plinking, skeet shooting to "Rendezvous" which are a get together of people who have an interest in black powder guns. They don't know, nor do they care about guns and the people who abide by the laws and use them responsibly. I'm no polititian, but you would think that if they were to focus more on the criminal than the gun, they would be making big steps toward the decline of many violent crimes, not only the ones pertaining to firearms. For the most part, they are "firearm ignorant" to begin with. Saying that, how in the world would they know what category to put them in?

Pedalin'Cop

01-12-2004, 03:12 PM

No, I absolutely do not support it and I hope it fades.

Invisiblecop

01-21-2004, 05:14 AM

Sentinel and PatrickM98

Said it all! I concur that it should be the individual that's restricted if they're incapable of properly handling a weapon. Fourther the AWB made Hi-Cap Pre Ban Mags a lucrative business! It drove the prices of these mags through the roof! A typical 15 round magazine "banned" once retailed for $25.00 to $35.00 now goes for $75.00 and up! It's ridiculous! What's the difference between a 10 round versus a 12 round magazine? Two rounds? Gee that'll save lives!

What about stockpiling pre-bans or 10 round mags? Those with criminal intent aren't going to play by the rules anyway! Most politicians and states have confirmed the AWB had ZERO EFFECT on Crime!

I don't support it nor do I see a purpose in it!