Great. The assault weapons ban is about to expire and no one seems to care. What's next? Allowing Americans to own surface to air missiles? How about allowing the average American Joe to buy a tank from a U.S. military garage sale? Let me just say that there is no need or reason for assault weapons other then to kill mass amounts of people. No one needs an assault weapon to defend themselves unless they live in Fallujah, Iraq. And no one needs an assault weapon to go hunting. There wouldn't be any meat left to eat if you killed a deer with one of these things. You'd be biting bullets more then meat. I think its ironic that we are STILL looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while we are about to flood the American streets with guns of mass destruction. On the issue, John Kerry today said, "Today George Bush made the job of terrorists easier and made the job of America's law enforcement officers harder and that's just plain wrong." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA I concure future President Kerry. Bush certainly does not act like the President of the United States. I guess we now know that he is actually the President of the National Rifle Association and their lobbyists are his true administration.
7 comments:
Hey James, just been looking at your site - have you been a mathematician at some point too, then? I like the whole maths = mystery of universe thing :)
kt: Thanks for visiting! No, I have not been a mathematician but I have always been fascinated with math equations and the mysteries of the universe connection. In fact, I am quite terrible with math but I love to think about everything that exits being able to break down into a number and/or sequence. I have a painting title, "The Last Tree" which has binary code across the top of the picture. I see the 1011010...code as a mathematical verison of the mystical Taoist teaching on balance in all things, Yin and Yang.
The Assault Weapons Ban was kind of a stupid law. I know from living in a western state, and having gone to a lot of gunshows that nothing was really banned. You could still buy any damn thing you wanted. The only thing that was banned was the manufacturing and importation of new "Assault Style" weapons. You could still buy just about the same exact gun off the shelf. And you could always buy "banned" guns used. Two or more of the following items made a gun illegal to manufacture or import: Pistol Grip, Bayonet Lug, Flash Suppressor, and collapsible stock. The ONLY part of the law that was anything more than cosmetic was the high-capacity magazine ban. Of course you could still buy any of the millions of used high-capacity magazines still grandfathered and in circulation. I'm in favor of a law that would have some teeth, but this was not it. It was politically motivated, and did nothing.
Jeff: Thank-you for the extra information on the assault weapons issue. I would be for a new law with more teeth as well. I just do not understand why no one offered up an alternative law WITH those teeth. I know it's an election year but this is too important of an issue I think to let it just go without an alternative.
For being such a flood of "weapons of mass destruction" I would have assumed the expiration provision of the 1994 Crime would have resulted in death and destruction. But I guess taking into consideration this law banned weapons that were used in fewer than 8% of all "gun homicides" and fewer than 2% of all "gun crimes" its safe to say the law had little or no effect on crime.
I would also like to know how these are not suitable for hunting.
If you read "Field and Stream" you would have read a recent article citing the increased usage of the AR-15 for deer hunting back east.
Not legal for deer in Colorado, the 5.56 NATO cartridge is too weak for legal deer hunting. its works well on prairie dogs though.
Most of these "assault weapons" are only suitable for small game here in Colorado anyway.
To the point, how would there not be any meat left if they are semi-automatic?
I would be interested to see anyone point out the difference between an assault weapon and a "hunting rifle".
Anonymous:
I wish I knew more about guns. I'm not against people having guns at all. Except I'm just worried that these so-called, "assault weapons" guns will end up on the street somehow. I guess my post was an emotional reaction.
My main concern is safety and public welfare. It's not about being against guns for me.
Perhaps you can inform me more about this issue. I mean that sincerely. I'm not about taking away rights if it doesn't make sense. And perhaps this ban doesn't make sense. Like I said, this post was a bit of an emotional reaction.
No biggie.
Its just comments like "you can't hunt with them, if you shoot a deer with it there will be nothing left" are incredibly misinformed (nothing personal, just a fact).
An "assault weapon" is functionality no different than your run of the mill semi-automatic hunting rifle.
Both shoot one bullet per trigger pull, the only difference being one looks like the automatic rifle that it is a copy of. Which is why he gun industry so easily "dodged" the ban, the ban covered cosmetic features of weapons, not the actual function.
Look here, its an informative video. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c
Post a Comment