white house web site

[fingolfen]

My take on this here:

<broken link removed>

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I know this is preaching to the choir, but I just can't understand how anybody could believe this "assault weapons" ban could do anything to reduce crime. I am not speaking in a cliche' -I really don't understand it.

Stats have shown time and time again that the huge majority of guns used in crime are small-caliber handguns, usually cheap little P.O.S.'s and illegally obtained at that. The anti-robbery and anti-murder laws are already in full force for all the good those do.

Now pretty soon a bayonet lug or pistol grip or collapsible stock is going to turn a rifle into a murderous machine of innocent people? Do they really think this is true, or is it just a cynical position

Let's ban cucumbers, it'll get as much done to fight crime as this idiotic ban would.

 

[2zuks]

I know this is preaching to the choir, but I just can't understand how anybody could believe this "assault weapons" ban could do anything to reduce crime. I am not speaking in a cliche' -I really don't understand it.

Stats have shown time and time again that the huge majority of guns used in crime are small-caliber handguns, usually cheap little P.O.S.'s and illegally obtained at that. The anti-robbery and anti-murder laws are already in full force for all the good those do.

Now pretty soon a bayonet lug or pistol grip or collapsible stock is going to turn a rifle into a murderous machine of innocent people? Do they really think this is true, or is it just a cynical position

Let's ban cucumbers, it'll get as much done to fight crime as this idiotic ban would.

I think they think it is a first step. I don't believe that they were done when the first assault weapons ban went through. I just think the dems lost power before they could screw anymore stuff up. They will probably try harder this time.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

But I don't mean this as a Dems issue, there are probably some Republican citizens who agree that this thing makes sense too.

I mean just by itself, not politically, the notion that a certain configuration of gun is so evil that it must be banned for the public welfare.

This implies that a bolt action rifle or long-barreled shotgun can't be used an any way other than on deer or geese, a proposition that is also seriously comical.

 

[2zuks]

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are just scared of guns. They are more scared of "assault rifles" mostly because of how they see them on t.v. shows and the news, which is the only exposure they have to said guns. They also don't realize that statistically , "assault rifles" are insignificant in crime. I know a lot of people like that. I guess they don't realize that a hunting rifle can do a lot of damage from a distance. Crazy.

 

[ZeroRing]

It's all about the "evil looks" of them and the fact that criminals must be using them in their "assaults" on people... right? I mean surely that is why they are called "assault weapons"... isn't it? And, since its not nice to assault people, then what would anyone "need" an assault weapon for?? :nuts:

Oh brother... the idiocy of these sheeple makes my head hurt.

 

[watchman]

In response to the idea that owning lowers, stripped or not, would make it easy to later build a rifle by buying legal parts. What makes you think, that if BHO declares a new ban on "assault weapons", that he wouldn't also make it illegal to own any and all pieces or parts that could be used to build or repair one? Seems like that would also serve as just one more step to drive the firearms industry out of buisness. If I were you, I would buy my parts now. Do not underestimate your opponent.