Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

TheColdTruth · Sep 22, 2004, 09:41 am

The gun ban is over. We can joyfully buy our TEC-9's and 50 round mags for our ak's and carbines without uncle sam getting all uppity about it. What do you guys think of the recent gun ban lift?

Technosoul · Sep 22, 2004, 09:59 am

Don't forget to duck.

RickSp · Sep 22, 2004, 10:09 am

The gun ban was largely cosmetic. The only real difference was the magazine size. Everything else was a bit silly.

I will admit to being annoyed by the sloppy news coverage. Statements suggesting that AK47s and Uzis will be legal are simply wrong. The "A" in AK47 stands for automatic. Automatic weapons have been banned since the 30s and are still effectively banned.

Even during the recent ban, semi-automatics without the "forbidden features" were legally for sale. You could still buy a gun with a pistol grip but not a folding stock or bayonet lug. The gun functioned exactly the same.

So, ending the ban is no big deal.

The Dunedan · Sep 22, 2004, 11:49 am

Hey Techno;
When blood doesn't flow in the streets ( as it hasn't ), I'll expect a retraction of your ignorant statement. Considering that weapons which were functionally identical, took the same mags, and fired the same ammunition were legally for sale all the while, and crime DROPPED during that same time period by a sizeable margin, it seems to me, Techno, that your statement is either pure hyperbole, or pure bullshit.

bugsbunny04 · Sep 22, 2004, 12:01 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by The Dunedan,
Techno, that your statement is either pure hyperbole, or pure bullshit.

I know which I would vote for...

I tried to get Tech to go to awbansunset.com and duke it out with the guys on there (he probably is capable of converting some of those guys, Vollies are far superior in our debate skills than the typical awbss forum member) and he was too much of a pussy to step up to the plate. He probably could have had at least a 20% success rate, which in baseball (a .200 average) is respectable. In baseball, if you have an easy .200 ahead of you, and you refuse to go to the plate, there is a technical term for what you are, its called...

CHICKEN!

cluk-cluk

RickSp · Sep 22, 2004, 12:06 pm

Quote:

Don't forget to duck.

Quote:

Hey Techno;
When blood doesn't flow in the streets ( as it hasn't ), I'll expect a retraction of your ignorant statement.

Well Techno, I guess you figured out how to push Dunedan buttons unless over-the-top-overeaction is just what Dunedan does.

Guess I should be ducking now.

The Dunedan · Sep 22, 2004, 12:39 pm

RickSp;
That was a normal reaction from me, trust me. My friends and I, gunnies all, are responsible, sane people who have our ducks in a row information-wise. Techno's statement was pure nonsense: the people he apparently gets his info from ( Brady Center et al ) have spent the last 15 years predicting a bloodbath whenever concealed-carry laws are relaxed: it's never happened. "Dodge City" has never materialized. It doesn't stop them; even in the face of -dropping- crime rates in shall-issue states, they still trot out this tired old fiction every time someone wins some of their rights back.
The AWB was no different. It banned the manufacture of scary-looking guns: manufacturing was changed slightly, and the same weapons continued to roll off assembly lines while crime dropped nationwide. Now that this ineffective and illegal ban has died it's natural death, people like Techno are trotting out Lie2.1; the idea that the re-allowance of bayonet lugs and folding stocks will result in a nationwide crime spree. It hasn't happened, it -won't- happen. There is ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise.

I, as a gunowner, am tired of taking it on the chin from people like Techno who seem to think that any slur is permissible, any lie is plausible, and any slander is perfectly ok as long as it's directed at us. We put up with more lies ( AK-47s and Uzis at wal-mart!!! ), misdirection ( machine-guns shown on CNN and presented as soon-to-be-legal weapons ), and beurocratic bullshit ( have you SEEN the form to buy a gun in this country? It's as long as your arm! And that's just the Federal version! ) than any other group. Would NOPI drivers put up with this, or HAM-radio operators, or model-rocketeers? Of course not! But we deal with it every day. And I am not going to just sit here and let someone take free pot-shots at me, my hobby, and my friends anymore. You don't like it? TOUGH.

RickSp · Sep 22, 2004, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Techno's statement was pure nonsense: the people he apparently gets his info from ( Brady Center et al ) have spent the last 15 years predicting a bloodbath whenever concealed-carry laws are relaxed: it's never happened. "Dodge City" has never materialized. It doesn't stop them; even in the face of -dropping- crime rates in shall-issue states, they still trot out this tired old fiction every time someone wins some of their rights back.

Ah, Techno's statement was four words. 16 letters. Your skill at reading between the lines, err line, or between the words, I guess, is to be admired.

The Dunedan · Sep 22, 2004, 01:06 pm

If I overreacted, I apologize. However, I don't think I did.
When someone is asked about the dropping of a gun-ban and their snide, one-line reply ( an etequette violation btw ) is "Don't forget to duck" it certainly gives you a good idea of their opinion: in this case an ignorant, uninformed one. Even if he didn't get the line from the Brady Bunch, he's still using their logic, and I called him on it.

RickSp · Sep 22, 2004, 02:47 pm

Just pulling your chain.

(Dangerous to do to the well-armed I guess.)

kornfreak2354 · Sep 22, 2004, 03:51 pm

Personally I believe that automatic weapons were banned for a reason and I would like to keep it that way. Automatic weapons are a high pick on a criminals list and I personally don't like being shot 15 times before I hit the ground.

Technosoul · Sep 22, 2004, 03:58 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by The Dunedan,
Hey Techno;
When blood doesn't flow in the streets ( as it hasn't ), I'll expect a retraction of your ignorant statement. Considering that weapons which were functionally identical, took the same mags, and fired the same ammunition were legally for sale all the while, and crime DROPPED during that same time period by a sizeable margin, it seems to me, Techno, that your statement is either pure hyperbole, or pure bullshit.

I already made my case about gun control and don't wish to rechew the same cudd. Mooo-over I already posted my view that the weapon in question is of little interest to criminals because they want something that has a low profile. Also that it will be on interest mostly only to para-military buffs or groups and to collectors who want to show it off to their buddies, I do not know if it would be legal to use for deer hunting or not, but if so I guess you could go herd hunting instead of just deer hunting.

When President Reagon was shot during an attempt on his life by someone with a "unregulated weapon" he said to reporters "I forgot to duck"

Ho ho ho.

Don't forget to duck.

Technosoul.

RickSp · Sep 22, 2004, 05:37 pm

Quote:

Personally I believe that automatic weapons were banned for a reason and I would like to keep it that way. Automatic weapons are a high pick on a criminals list and I personally don't like being shot 15 times before I hit the ground.

Excuse me Korn, but automatic weapons were banned in 1933 and are still banned. That is not what is being discussed.

The ban in question was related to certain types of semi-automatic weapons only, despite what sloppy newswriters might imply. The banned weaposn were basically the same as semi-automatic hunting rifles, they just looked scarier. That's it. Nothing more.

The Dunedan · Sep 22, 2004, 08:16 pm

I apologize for all concerned for my severe over-reaction to Techno's comment.
I would, however, like to address ( in more muted terms ) Korn's comment about automatic weapons.
The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, and heavily regulates the sale and posession of machineguns, firearm suppressors ( incorrectly termed 'silencers' in the press ) sawn-off rifles and shotguns, and so-called "destructive devices." Plenty of people at the time regarded this as a measure designed to give 5,000 Federal agents something to do, since Prohibition had recently ended. Can't exactly have people losing jobs during the Rooseveldt administration, can you? Prior to this, gun-crime against innocent people was so rare that we actually remember the names of the criminals, and their crimes. Nowadays, actions like those of John Dillinger or the Barrow Gang are commonplace. The crime rate during the 20's was 1/6th of today.
During this period, you could walk into a hardware store and purchase an M-1928 Thompson submachine gun for $128: plun your money on the counter and walk out with it.
An M-1918 Browning Automatic Rifle could be had for between $180-$210.
A belt-fed Vickers, Maxim, or Schwartzlose could be had for about $250-$350.

Technosoul · Sep 22, 2004, 10:59 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bugsbunny04,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bugsbunny04,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-The Dunedan,
Techno, that your statement is either pure hyperbole, or pure bullshit.

I know which I would vote for...

I tried to get Tech to go to awbansunset.com and duke it out with the guys on there (he probably is capable of converting some of those guys, Vollies are far superior in our debate skills than the typical awbss forum member) and he was too much of a pussy to step up to the plate. He probably could have had at least a 20% success rate, which in baseball (a .200 average) is respectable. In baseball, if you have an easy .200 ahead of you, and you refuse to go to the plate, there is a technical term for what you are, its called...

CHICKEN!

cluk-cluk[/b][/quote]

You sent me a private message asking me to be a "Troll" at that webpage, basically to go there to stemulate them so the gun debate can continue.

I told you to tell them to come here, if they are not "girlie" they will do your bidding. Tell 'em I said so. I will not support a gun webpage by taking part in their forums.

Anyway you thought you could "trap me" because they have been debating gun stuff for a long time and are experts about all laws and whatever, you thought you could sit back and watch them hack away at me, HA! But I was wise to your little plot and did not allow you to get away with your conspiracy, fooled you that time.

Just admit it, you will never win a debate with me, so go back to your gun page with your friends and you will be safe and secure.

Technosoul

Technosoul.

Technosoul · Sep 22, 2004, 11:33 pm

In case some of you are wondering why a couple of people are upset with my little remark "don't forget to duck" it is because of another post I had about gun control a while back.

They had there little ducks in line knowledge-wize but forgot to tell them to duck so I shot them all out of the water. Now they are mad at me because they got no more ducks to get dunked.

Anyway this attack on me has sidetracked the topic that ColdTruth wanted to talk about, so here are some comments.

I agree the rifle is just a fancy deer rifle made to look like a assult weapon, for those military wanna-be people.

It makes no difference to me if it is allowed on not because any other gun on the market would be just about as effective, so what is the point of just banning one if you do not ban them all?

As the NRA has pointed out also, what is the point of re-effecting a ban if the government is not going to spend money to enforce most of the laws regulating guns that are already on the books. The only laws that are really enforced are the ones about where you can or cannot carry a gun when, your bear them (not in airports or near the White House, etc.)

I do not the the legal aspects of community law or if a state or city could ban them independantly of the Federal government. I guess that would depend on if they did become popular with criminals or not. At the present moment they have not been used during a crime according to the police reports in big cities.

That fake looking assult rifle is just a pawn, if suddenly gun protesters demand something must be done about guns, they will just ban that one again to calm the public down, and they will call it a first step for getting tuff on gun-related crime, hogwash, they never take the 2nd step so what is the point?

It is all just stupid gameplaying so a politition can get a few votes or so the NRA can get more money to lobby Washington, to get the NRA to lobby them to get that money first they must ban something so they have something to offer the NRA for their money.

So while the public is busy debating that one gun they overlook all the other that our nation is spinning out of control of the gun population and the effects that is having on our way of life.

Well, how was that shot in the dark... I told you to duck but no, you would not listen.

Technosoul.

bugsbunny04 · Sep 23, 2004, 02:58 am

Quote:

Originally posted by kornfreak2354,
Personally I believe that automatic weapons were banned for a reason and I would like to keep it that way. Automatic weapons are a high pick on a criminals list and I personally don't like being shot 15 times before I hit the ground.

What, you think regulation of automatic weapons actually keeps them out of the hands of criminals? Did you miss the 97' LA Bank Robbery? It is no more difficult to get an ILLEGAL machine gun than it is to get a pound of grass. Anybody who wants to argue that with me, I can prove you wrong --> take a look at PA Luty's Expedient Homemade Firearms: THe 9mm submachine gun. If you come back and suggest again BEFORE you read it, that the ban on automatic weapons actually prevents criminals who really want a machine gun from having one, I WILL call you and "Idiot" (look it up). If you suggest the same AFTER you read it, I WILL have to go all the way and call you "STUPID"!

Can you imagine what would happen if the government banned plumbing materials? Or required a building permit for their purchase? Shit, that would just create ANOTHER black market to fight an expensive war on.

Technosoul · Sep 23, 2004, 12:38 pm

As long as people think they are free to do whatever they want just because they have a gun in hand, we will have problems in our nation relative to gun related crimes. If stupid people think they can get free money with a gun, then that freedom must be eliminated.

If people think they must regulate freedom with a gun then they need their guns regulated. (how about that as a good "quote"?)

If you want to regulate topless women by keeping them inside a strip club, why not regulate guns by keeping them in a gun club? Same thing.

Here is a CNN linkpage

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/c...oon.characters/

Technosoul

The Dunedan · Sep 23, 2004, 12:56 pm

But the thing is, we don't care about topless women. They're not hurting anyone, after all; let them do as they like. The vast, vast majorityof gunowners aren't hurting anyone either; why not let them do as they like?

bugsbunny04 · Sep 23, 2004, 02:37 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Technosoul,
As long as people think they are free to do whatever they want just because they have a gun in hand, we will have problems in our nation relative to gun related crimes. If stupid people think they can get free money with a gun, then that freedom must be eliminated.

If people think they must regulate freedom with a gun then they need their guns regulated. (how about that as a good "quote"?)

If you want to regulate topless women by keeping them inside a strip club, why not regulate guns by keeping them in a gun club? Same thing.

Here is a CNN linkpage

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/c...oon.characters/

Technosoul

More "we need to ban guns because of criminal misuse"

Hey f*** stick, (mods, butter it if you want, I just cant hold this in anymore, sometimes in order to argue with stupid people you have to speak so they can understand you, I dont care, at least leave the link below in here, just edit the post) When are you going to get it through your thick head that gun control only takes guns away from those who CHOOSE to OBEY the LAW!?! ARE YOU F***CKING DELUSIONAL? I know a shrink who would put you on anti-psychotic drugs for persisting to beleive such weak crap after being proved wrong so repetitively. You want a link? HERE, check this out, and you keep watching until the end and PAY EXTRA ATTENTION TO THE INTERVEIWS WITH THE CRIMINALS FROM BEHIND BARS!

http://members.tripod.com/old_skool_fattie...mypersonalsite/

NOTICE: ABC is the most viciously anti-gun network in a sea of networks that hate guns as much as YOU do!

Sep 22, 2004, 09:41 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
TheColdTruth Alive Location: Sandusky, Ohio Posts: 100	The gun ban is over. We can joyfully buy our TEC-9's and 50 round mags for our ak's and carbines without uncle sam getting all uppity about it. What do you guys think of the recent gun ban lift? If it works, and it's stupid, it's not stupid.

Sep 22, 2004, 10:09 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	The gun ban was largely cosmetic. The only real difference was the magazine size. Everything else was a bit silly. I will admit to being annoyed by the sloppy news coverage. Statements suggesting that AK47s and Uzis will be legal are simply wrong. The "A" in AK47 stands for automatic. Automatic weapons have been banned since the 30s and are still effectively banned. Even during the recent ban, semi-automatics without the "forbidden features" were legally for sale. You could still buy a gun with a pistol grip but not a folding stock or bayonet lug. The gun functioned exactly the same. So, ending the ban is no big deal. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Sep 22, 2004, 02:47 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	Just pulling your chain. (Dangerous to do to the well-armed I guess.) Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Sep 22, 2004, 09:59 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Don't forget to duck.

Sep 22, 2004, 11:49 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	Hey Techno; When blood doesn't flow in the streets ( as it hasn't ), I'll expect a retraction of your ignorant statement. Considering that weapons which were functionally identical, took the same mags, and fired the same ammunition were legally for sale all the while, and crime DROPPED during that same time period by a sizeable margin, it seems to me, Techno, that your statement is either pure hyperbole, or pure bullshit.

Sep 22, 2004, 12:39 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	RickSp; That was a normal reaction from me, trust me. My friends and I, gunnies all, are responsible, sane people who have our ducks in a row information-wise. Techno's statement was pure nonsense: the people he apparently gets his info from ( Brady Center et al ) have spent the last 15 years predicting a bloodbath whenever concealed-carry laws are relaxed: it's never happened. "Dodge City" has never materialized. It doesn't stop them; even in the face of -dropping- crime rates in shall-issue states, they still trot out this tired old fiction every time someone wins some of their rights back. The AWB was no different. It banned the manufacture of scary-looking guns: manufacturing was changed slightly, and the same weapons continued to roll off assembly lines while crime dropped nationwide. Now that this ineffective and illegal ban has died it's natural death, people like Techno are trotting out Lie2.1; the idea that the re-allowance of bayonet lugs and folding stocks will result in a nationwide crime spree. It hasn't happened, it -won't- happen. There is ZERO evidence to suggest otherwise. I, as a gunowner, am tired of taking it on the chin from people like Techno who seem to think that any slur is permissible, any lie is plausible, and any slander is perfectly ok as long as it's directed at us. We put up with more lies ( AK-47s and Uzis at wal-mart!!! ), misdirection ( machine-guns shown on CNN and presented as soon-to-be-legal weapons ), and beurocratic bullshit ( have you SEEN the form to buy a gun in this country? It's as long as your arm! And that's just the Federal version! ) than any other group. Would NOPI drivers put up with this, or HAM-radio operators, or model-rocketeers? Of course not! But we deal with it every day. And I am not going to just sit here and let someone take free pot-shots at me, my hobby, and my friends anymore. You don't like it? TOUGH.

Sep 22, 2004, 01:06 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	If I overreacted, I apologize. However, I don't think I did. When someone is asked about the dropping of a gun-ban and their snide, one-line reply ( an etequette violation btw ) is "Don't forget to duck" it certainly gives you a good idea of their opinion: in this case an ignorant, uninformed one. Even if he didn't get the line from the Brady Bunch, he's still using their logic, and I called him on it.

Sep 22, 2004, 03:51 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
kornfreak2354 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	Personally I believe that automatic weapons were banned for a reason and I would like to keep it that way. Automatic weapons are a high pick on a criminals list and I personally don't like being shot 15 times before I hit the ground.

Sep 22, 2004, 08:16 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	I apologize for all concerned for my severe over-reaction to Techno's comment. I would, however, like to address ( in more muted terms ) Korn's comment about automatic weapons. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, and heavily regulates the sale and posession of machineguns, firearm suppressors ( incorrectly termed 'silencers' in the press ) sawn-off rifles and shotguns, and so-called "destructive devices." Plenty of people at the time regarded this as a measure designed to give 5,000 Federal agents something to do, since Prohibition had recently ended. Can't exactly have people losing jobs during the Rooseveldt administration, can you? Prior to this, gun-crime against innocent people was so rare that we actually remember the names of the criminals, and their crimes. Nowadays, actions like those of John Dillinger or the Barrow Gang are commonplace. The crime rate during the 20's was 1/6th of today. During this period, you could walk into a hardware store and purchase an M-1928 Thompson submachine gun for $128: plun your money on the counter and walk out with it. An M-1918 Browning Automatic Rifle could be had for between $180-$210. A belt-fed Vickers, Maxim, or Schwartzlose could be had for about $250-$350.

Sep 22, 2004, 11:33 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	In case some of you are wondering why a couple of people are upset with my little remark "don't forget to duck" it is because of another post I had about gun control a while back. They had there little ducks in line knowledge-wize but forgot to tell them to duck so I shot them all out of the water. Now they are mad at me because they got no more ducks to get dunked. Anyway this attack on me has sidetracked the topic that ColdTruth wanted to talk about, so here are some comments. I agree the rifle is just a fancy deer rifle made to look like a assult weapon, for those military wanna-be people. It makes no difference to me if it is allowed on not because any other gun on the market would be just about as effective, so what is the point of just banning one if you do not ban them all? As the NRA has pointed out also, what is the point of re-effecting a ban if the government is not going to spend money to enforce most of the laws regulating guns that are already on the books. The only laws that are really enforced are the ones about where you can or cannot carry a gun when, your bear them (not in airports or near the White House, etc.) I do not the the legal aspects of community law or if a state or city could ban them independantly of the Federal government. I guess that would depend on if they did become popular with criminals or not. At the present moment they have not been used during a crime according to the police reports in big cities. That fake looking assult rifle is just a pawn, if suddenly gun protesters demand something must be done about guns, they will just ban that one again to calm the public down, and they will call it a first step for getting tuff on gun-related crime, hogwash, they never take the 2nd step so what is the point? It is all just stupid gameplaying so a politition can get a few votes or so the NRA can get more money to lobby Washington, to get the NRA to lobby them to get that money first they must ban something so they have something to offer the NRA for their money. So while the public is busy debating that one gun they overlook all the other that our nation is spinning out of control of the gun population and the effects that is having on our way of life. Well, how was that shot in the dark... I told you to duck but no, you would not listen. Technosoul.

Sep 23, 2004, 12:38 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	As long as people think they are free to do whatever they want just because they have a gun in hand, we will have problems in our nation relative to gun related crimes. If stupid people think they can get free money with a gun, then that freedom must be eliminated. If people think they must regulate freedom with a gun then they need their guns regulated. (how about that as a good "quote"?) If you want to regulate topless women by keeping them inside a strip club, why not regulate guns by keeping them in a gun club? Same thing. Here is a CNN linkpage http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/c...oon.characters/ Technosoul

Sep 23, 2004, 12:56 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 917	But the thing is, we don't care about topless women. They're not hurting anyone, after all; let them do as they like. The vast, vast majorityof gunowners aren't hurting anyone either; why not let them do as they like?