But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

You prefer they use shotguns instead I guess?

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

 

Shotgun - a dozen or so .30cal projectiles per trigger pull

 

Yea, that's the ticket. :blink:

732610[/snapback]

Because we all know that shotguns have a long range compared to rifles.

 

:plain

732675[/snapback]

 

shotgun have whateve range you need to kill someone, unless you want to go on a stake out and kill people from a distance.

732713[/snapback]

I'm talking more along the line of some gang-banger doing a drive-by and they're roughly 100 feet from their target. A shotgun will not do as much damage as an assuault rifle with three-shot burst.

 

Collateral damage of a shotgun would surely be higher, but I think the assualt weapons would be deadlier.

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

You prefer they use shotguns instead I guess?

 

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

 

Shotgun - a dozen or so .30cal projectiles per trigger pull

 

Yea, that's the ticket. :blink:

732610[/snapback]

Because we all know that shotguns have a long range compared to rifles.

 

:plain

732675[/snapback]

 

shotgun have whateve range you need to kill someone, unless you want to go on a stake out and kill people from a distance.

732713[/snapback]

I'm talking more along the line of some gang-banger doing a drive-by and they're roughly 100 feet from their target. A shotgun will not do as much damage as an assuault rifle with three-shot burst.

 

Collateral damage of a shotgun would surely be higher, but I think the assualt weapons would be deadlier.

732742[/snapback]

 

Plus whats the time difference in between the subsequent shots? There is a reason people who go on rampaged rarely do it with shotguns. Shotguns are more effective at hunting ducks than turf wars.

 

 

I dont know if anyone else recalls that massive shootout in LA where two guys robbed a bank and held nearly the entire LAPD at bay for an entire day. But it would have been a lot easier to take those guys down had they only had shotguns.

We need to remember first that deaths will still be investigated to determine guilt and what not. Its not like the cops will say, o someone killed his wife lets not continue the investogation b/c of the new law. A person who would shoot another human being to defend themselves will do so the same with or w/o this law, the difference is now everyone goes to jail pretty much. With the new law a person who reaosnably shot someone else that was threatening him/her, will be able to get off scot-free. For everyone against this law, i want to see what you would do if you're walkin in an empty parking lot and you see three people coming at you to rob you. Would you shoot them? Or would you, being a good citizen just make a futile attempt to run away, only to get severely beaten and robbed. This is a good law. Wont change anything except the amount of innocent people that wont have to go to jail.

We need to remember first that deaths will still be investigated to determine guilt and what not. Its not like the cops will say, o someone killed his wife lets not continue the investogation b/c of the new law. A person who would shoot another human being to defend themselves will do so the same with or w/o this law, the difference is now everyone goes to jail pretty much. With the new law a person who reaosnably shot someone else that was threatening him/her, will be able to get off scot-free. For everyone against this law, i want to see what you would do if you're walkin in an empty parking lot and you see three people coming at you to rob you. Would you shoot them? Or would you, being a good citizen just make a futile attempt to run away, only to get severely beaten and robbed. This is a good law. Wont change anything except the amount of innocent people that wont have to go to jail.

734023[/snapback]

 

The two situations you are distinguishing are not well comparable. The problem is a guy who shoots his wife has it a lot easier now. One of the best circumstantial arguments the DA can make is "why didnt you try and call the police first..you had a duty under the law to try." Whereas now, he has no duty under the law so he can do it and have a strong affirmitive defense. When the DA tries to argue to the jury "he should have called the police first," his lawyer will just respond by telling the jury "Jeb Bush and the boys in Tallahassee think he should take out the threat regardless of trying to call the police first."

 

On the other hand, its going to be extremely hard for any DA to argue to a jury that a guy facing three attackers had a reasonable chance to escape under those circumstances.

 

 

And I doubt many innocent people went to jail under the old law in those circumstances that you describe or anything really close.

Plus whats the time difference in between the subsequent shots? There is a reason people who go on rampaged rarely do it with shotguns. Shotguns are more effective at hunting ducks than turf wars.

 

Autoloading shotgun will shoot as fast as a rifle.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr...l/03tbl2-12.xls

 

I dont know if anyone else recalls that massive shootout in LA where two guys robbed a bank and held nearly the entire LAPD at bay for an entire day. But it would have been a lot easier to take those guys down had they only had shotguns.

 

Were their weapons fully automatic? Yes/no? (I know the answer, do you?)

Hey Tony do rifles still only shoot one bullet per pull?

 

Did Bill Clinton break court orders in the Elian Gonzalez case yet?

 

No? Then why are you posting here? You have no credibility.

The two situations you are distinguishing are not well comparable. The problem is a guy who shoots his wife has it a lot easier now. One of the best circumstantial arguments the DA can make is "why didnt you try and call the police first..you had a duty under the law to try." Whereas now, he has no duty under the law so he can do it and have a strong affirmitive defense. When the DA tries to argue to the jury "he should have called the police first," his lawyer will just respond by telling the jury "Jeb Bush and the boys in Tallahassee think he should take out the threat regardless of trying to call the police first."

 

On the other hand, its going to be extremely hard for any DA to argue to a jury that a guy facing three attackers had a reasonable chance to escape under those circumstances.

 

And I doubt many innocent people went to jail under the old law in those circumstances that you describe or anything really close.

 

There is a VAST legal difference between not having to retreat in the FACE OF a lethal situation and your behavior PRIOR TO that lethal situation that aggravated or caused it. There is apparently a flyer sent out to permit holders that details notion this and goes over a bunch of past cases. I saw one in a gun shop. I'm sure some shop will have one and let you see it. I encourage you to educate yourself on this.

 

It matters not how "good" the shooting was if it was a bad path that got you there.

 

This law ONLY changes the rules AFTER the lethal threat presents itself, not PRIOR to. IOW - if you gun someone down in an argument over a parking place, when you COULD have just drove off and got another, you will STILL go down for manslaughter because it was wrong for you to be in that situation to begin with.

Plus whats the time difference in between the subsequent shots? There is a reason people who go on rampaged rarely do it with shotguns. Shotguns are more effective at hunting ducks than turf wars.

 

Autoloading shotgun will shoot as fast as a rifle.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr...l/03tbl2-12.xls

 

I dont know if anyone else recalls that massive shootout in LA where two guys robbed a bank and held nearly the entire LAPD at bay for an entire day. But it would have been a lot easier to take those guys down had they only had shotguns.

 

Were their weapons fully automatic? Yes/no? (I know the answer, do you?)

737163[/snapback]

 

They had 3 fully automatic ak47s.

A fully automatic .223 BushMaster Rifle

A semi-automatic .308 H&K

And a semiautomatic 9mm Beretta

 

Not that you would believe any of that, because in your own words 1 pull of the rifle = 1 bullet.

Rifles YOU could buy shoot one buller per pull.

 

I don't think they'd sell one to a sex offender though :lol

They had 3 fully automatic ak47s.

A fully automatic .223 BushMaster Rifle

 

Not that you would believe any of that, because in you own words 1 pull of the rifle = 1 bullet.

 

Its absolutely true. They had automatic weapons.

 

Were those legally obtained weapons? Nope.

 

Can you or I buy one at a gun shop? Nope.

 

Can they be legally manufactured here or imported into in the US? Nope (see FOPA 86').

 

Can they be legally modified? Nope.

 

Is your argument a crock of s***? Yep.

 

Do you know anything about US or FL state firearms law? Nope.

They had 3 fully automatic ak47s.

A fully automatic .223 BushMaster Rifle

 

Not that you would believe any of that, because in you own words 1 pull of the rifle = 1 bullet.

 

Its absolutely true. They had automatic weapons.

 

Were those legally obtained weapons? Nope.

 

Can you or I buy one at a gun shop? Nope.

 

Can they be legally manufactured in the US? Nope (see FOPA 86')

Can they be legally modified? Nope.

 

Is your argument a crock of s***? Yep.

737185[/snapback]

 

Just because you can't buy them legally doesn't mean you couldn't buy them. If someone wants them, they can get them. And I am pretty confident anyone who wants one enough has one.

Just because you can't buy them legally doesn't mean you couldn't buy them.? If someone wants them, they can get them. And I am pretty confident anyone who wants one enough has one.

 

 

What a f***ing revelation this is! OMG - criminals disobey the law!!!

 

Stop the presses folks - this is the scoop of the century! :lol

 

Wow, this needs a drudge siren...

Just because you can't buy them legally doesn't mean you couldn't buy them. If someone wants them, they can get them. And I am pretty confident anyone who wants one enough has one.

 

 

What a f***ing revelation this is! OMG - criminals disobey the law!!!

 

Stop the presses folks - this is the scoop of the century! :lol

737195[/snapback]

 

You make it sound like they couldn't.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have revelations that are true rather then:

 

"umm der dem rifles only shoot on of dem dere bullets per pull"

or

"Moonbat bill broke the court order in the elian gonzalez case! dur dur dur"

 

In Tonyi speak to help you comprehend your mistakes, just because you two seem to be on the same wavelength. Where ever he may be.

You make it sound like they couldn't.

 

Not sure how - since its plainly obvious they do.

 

How hard is it to throw a few machine guns on along with a couple of tons of dope or smuggle them in along thousands of miles of relatively unpatrolled coastline and borders.

 

If enough green could buy you a "missing" ruskie backpack nuke, it seems clear enough that somewhat less should be able to supply you an automatic weapon for somewhat less.

 

Heck, there's plenty of plans for making your own if you have minimal machining skills. An open bolt, fixed firing pin, slam fire design is mechanically trivial to produce.

 

So what's you plan for getting these criminals to obey the law again?

So what's you plan for getting these criminals to obey the law again?

737209[/snapback]

 

I never said I had one. If you feel you have one go right ahead and share it. You being the good "libertarian" you say so are... well I think most people know how the libertarian party stands on the issue.

 

I just felt like letting people know that 1 pull of the rifle tigger doesn't always mean 1 bullet, unlike you might lead them to believe.

I just felt like letting people know that 1 pull of the rifle tigger doesn't always mean 1 bullet, unlike you might lead them to believe.

 

Yet you have no problem trying to confuse the issue between that which is legal and that which isn't. :plain

 

For the audience's academic research or "entertainment" pleasure:

 

0-87364-66-4

0-87364-702-5 http://isbn.nu/0873647025

0-87364-785-8 http://isbn.nu/0873647858

 

That list of readily available ISBN's will get the budding criminal well on their way to some serious ATF felony time if they do anything described in those books.

 

The books are legal, doing what they describe isn't. There is a difference.

I just felt like letting people know that 1 pull of the rifle tigger doesn't always mean 1 bullet, unlike you might lead them to believe.

 

Yet you have no problem trying to confuse the issue between that which is legal and that which isn't. :plain

737240[/snapback]

 

You never said that there was a difference you just made a blanket statement that rifles = 1 bullt per pull. And that is just wrong.

 

But you seem to agree that illegal rifles are not terribly hard to get a hold of with the right amount of money, so you might as well talk about rifles, both legal and illegal as one. Especially in terms of crime, because if criminals are using them for criminal acts, why they would they go out their way to purposely use a legal rifle?

 

But I dont really care. I think the most important thing is to get assault rifles out of the hands of gang bangers.

 

...

Rifle - one bullet per trigger pull

...

732610[/snapback]

 

I think you confused the context yourself. F_M said assualt rifle, you said one bullet per trigger pull.... and you were wrong.

You never said that there was a difference you just made a blanket statement that rifles = 1 bullt per pull. And that is just wrong.

 

The public is concerned with what is available and sold in stores. What is available illegally in the street is beyond control.

 

Similarly, a discussion of CAFE standards for cars is rather unlikely to bother referring to nitrous systems and superchargers.

 

I think its apparent what your agenda here is.

 

But you seem to agree that illegal rifles are not terribly hard to get a hold of with the right amount of money, so you might as well talk about rifles, both legal and illegal as one. Especially in terms of crime, because if criminals are using them for criminal acts, why they would they go out their way to purposely use a legal rifle?

 

Well lets talk about a stock Ford Tarus's and F1/CART in the same discussion about CAFE and fuel economy then too. They're both "cars" and can be obtained with enough money. Oh, the F1/CART is illegal to drive on the highway because it lacks bags, signals, etc? That doesn't matter! Ummm right. :plain

 

Time to buy a vowel dude...

I think you confused the context yourself.? F_M said assualt rifle, you said one bullet per trigger pull.... and you were wrong.

 

Any AR you or I can LEGALLY buy works exactly as I described.

 

Do you think a public discussion on say drug purity standards would "naturally" include a discussion on the purity (or lack thereof) of smack floating around on the streets?

 

This line of logic you're following heads in that direction.

You never said that there was a difference you just made a blanket statement that rifles = 1 bullt per pull. And that is just wrong.

 

The public is concerned with what is available and sold in stores. What is available illegally in the street is beyond control.

737261[/snapback]

 

It is? F_M seems to be worried about assualt weapons. In fact, I bet F_M is a member of the public! More shocking, I am concerned about assualt weapons and who has them as well! Even more shocking, I bet other members of the public are worried about assualt weapons as well.

 

Just because you think you talk for the public, you don't.

 

This part of the discussion started about F_Ms mention of assualt weapons and you spun it off onto this "one bullet per pull" thing which is just wrong. Look for yourself.

Do you think a public discussion on say drug purity standards would "naturally" include a discussion on the purity (or lack thereof) of smack floating around on the streets?

 

This line of logic you're following heads in that direction.

737266[/snapback]

 

Once again, your logic is the one at fault.

 

If I was going down that road some people would be going around shooting unwilling people up with smack like some shoot unwilling people up with bullets.

 

Maybe over in Tonyi-wacko world people walk around shooting victims up with smack in attempts to kill them on a regular basis, but here in normal America, they don't. People get shot with bullets here.

This part of the discussion started about F_Ms mention of assualt weapons and you spun it off onto this "one bullet per pull" thing which is just wrong. Look for yourself.

 

Q: If the govt has control over illegal products, why are there illegal drugs and illegal weapons?

 

A: Because they don't have that control.

 

Anyone who worries about that which can't be controlled is a fool wasting their time chasing shadows.

 

Prisoners in prison manufacture firearms. I've got book with a bunch of pics of prisoner made guns from some prison in (gasp) Canada!

 

Gunsmiths on the Pak/Afgan border in towns with no power have manufactured working AK-47 copies using rudimentary hand tools.

 

What is your plan to stop this illegal manufacture?

Anyone who worries about that which can't be controlled is a fool wasting their time chasing shadows.

737284[/snapback]

 

Than I guess you find this website kinda pointless, why do you post here if you feel that way? This site is dedicated to a group of people that worry about the success of a group of men that they really can't control.

 

People who worry about hurricanes, and other natural events as well, all fools, well according to your logic. Do you think NOAA is a waste of money?

 

You are the one who has spun this into a debate about what to do with illegal weapons. No one else did but you. I just made the simple statement that assault rifles don't only shoot 1 bullet per pull.

You live and die off the red herring tonyi licker.

 

I think AK-47s and assault weapons(however the frikkin compare to shotguns) should be banned. Why? Because I trust the nations police officers when they tell me the ban on assault weapons is good-especially those in big cities like Chicago who deal with AK 47s everyday(whatever your stupid red herring on their rate of fire).

 

But advocates for the ban, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, point to some particularly vicious shootings in which military-style weapons were used ? including the 10 killings in the sniper shooting spree that terrorized residents in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., in 2002.

 

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban.

 

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

Why? Because I trust the nations police officers when they tell me the ban on assault weapons is good-especially those in big cities like Chicago who deal with AK 47s everyday(whatever your stupid red herring on their rate of fire).

 

These are the same cops the ACLU is always going after for abuses I presume?

 

Yea, a real trustworth crew indeed.

 

Let me ask you this - suppose all the Clinton defined AW's are gone tomorrow. Do you think that changes anything?

 

I've always been facinated how liberals were so focused on the cosmetic aspects of firearms.

 

Ohhh, this one has a bayonet lug - wow, we've had a real wave of driveby bayonettings lately, that'll really cut down the human filet production! Pistol grip, mmm, that's a real tip off for a "bad gun" too.

 

The rate of fire issue is real.

 

You probably don't even know what an NFA firearm is do you? Yet you're willing to lie to the public about this to forward your overall firearms agenda.

 

However, I'll give you the bennefit of the doubt for the moment though while you spend a few minutes and educate yourself before declaring you a lying propagandist.

 

Come back when you've learned what an NFA firearm is, when they were initially regulated, and what the regulations on them are.

 

Then we can talk SERIOUSLY about what an AW is, and if the Clintonian ban language means anything at all.

 

I think you'll be suprised by what you find.

 

You'll be educating yourself in 27 CFR, although there are some ATF summary publications you may want to reference too.