In article , Gunner says...

Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. ...

Depends on yer definition of 'deer.'

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Adam Smith wrote:

I just read the entire text of this post, and I personally find the
proposed law a little too restrictive for some areas of the country, but
otherwise quite reasonable and a step in the right direction at least.
The 2nd amendment is intended to allow citizens to protect themselves
and their family in the event of a hostile attack on their person or B&E
of their home. It's a law to allow a family home or a person at risk of
attack to have a conventional non-combat firearm, primarily for self
defense. At the time, people also hunted for food, which can also be
accomplished with civilian weaponry.

I do not believe the writers of the second amendment ever dreamed of men
gunning down deer with AK-47s for sport, 12 year olds peppering each
other in city streets with Mac-10s or men wishing to defend their home
with semi-auto shotguns loaded with flechette rounds or incendiaries, or
whatever other perverse **** is out there.

I personally feel that a serious assement of some sort is needed,
because the right to bear arms is being grossly abused.

-Adam


I agree. But first we need to look at the 1st amendment. I'm really tired
of people
driving down the street pumping out filth from their sound systems. I'm
tired of
films like F911, I'm tired of Gunners post to this newsgroup, I'm tired of
the
Dixie Chicks and Rush. It's clear to me that the right of free speech is
being grossly abused.

Ray Spinhirne
[rest cut]

In article , Ray Spinhrne says...

I agree. But first we need to look at the 1st amendment. I'm really tired
of people
driving down the street pumping out filth from their sound systems.

Fair enough. The first amendment does not grant the
the right to annoy others with impunity.

I'm
tired of
films like F911, I'm tired of Gunners post to this newsgroup,

Hmm. Oddly enough F911 comes under the single most protected
form of speech - that of political speech. Oddly enough
so does gunner's posting. Err, most of it anyway. I think
they tend to nulify each other in some peculiar way.

I'm tired of
the
Dixie Chicks and Rush.

Hmm. See 'nulify' above....

Jim

--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about
having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government.
Need the cites?

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines.

Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the
**** up.

Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is
justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the
**** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill
O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken
seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has
been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost.

-Adam



G

Gunner


Do you own firearms?
Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein,
Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi
auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that
have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger
rimfire 10.22.

The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been
newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and
his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria.

Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------

Here's the full text of HR 2038:


Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of
2003 (Introduced in Senate)

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

Adam Smith wrote:

Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about
having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government.
Need the cites?

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.


You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it
says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?




I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.


Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines.

You may have misinterpreted this also.


michael




Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the
**** up.

Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is
justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the
**** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill
O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken
seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has
been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost.

-Adam


G

Gunner


Do you own firearms?
Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein,
Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi
auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that
have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger
rimfire 10.22.

The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been
newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and
his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria.

Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------

Here's the full text of HR 2038:


Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of
2003 (Introduced in Senate)

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it
says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and
consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning
of "the People" is.

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.

Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the
aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's
proposal.

-Adam

Adam Smith wrote:

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it
says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and
consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning
of "the People" is.

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.

Ambiguous? Hardly.



What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Today's collectible, yesterday's battlefield.

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.

Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the
aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's
proposal.

-Adam

Kerry. I see him as the greater of the evils. But then, it's just like a
tennis match, watch the ball go over the net, dear citizens. There's a
lob from the left, and a return from the right. In case you miss any,
tune in at 11 for the final report on today's action. Stay where you are
and keep watching....


michael

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY
DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE
REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY
OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL****
DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE
IS PAST.

Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your
dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting
insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you
can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er
Adam....chuckle....

Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus,
riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less.

The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and
the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for
old dead white guys.

Ill bet that sooner or later your freedom of speech will be ultimately
used to scream FIRE in a crowded theater in order to cause massive
deaths and maimings. Your penis will ultimately be used to rape and
humiliate both females and alter boys. So we should simply cut your
throat and wack off your peepee.

And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"? Im rather eagerly awaiting your opinion and doubts
on this particular subject. Ill take time out from trimming my
toenails to read your essay.

Gunner Asch

"personal weapons are the ultimate decentralization of political
power."

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 03:23:26 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. Its about
having military arms capable of removing a tyrannical government.
Need the cites?

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia.

Incorrect. It appears you DO need the cites. Your ignorance of the
Militia is a bit..ah..sad, considering you base your entire argument
on flawed assumptions.

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. Next
Sec. 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


Ah..Adam..you are a member of the Militia, if you are a citizen of the
United States. Like it or not. Deal with it.

This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

Oh oh..that word pops up.. FEEL..not think, not reasoned, not based on
facts..but Feel.
Liberal Alert!!!!!!!!!!! Feelings at 6 Oclock low and coming in fast.
Prepare to repell boarders!

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat. Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines.

Just out of curiosity Sar..er Adam..why do you think that "entirely
new laws are needed yada yada yada" ? What laws not currently on the
books dont cover whatever problem you see in your fantas..er view of
reality. Please elucidate in detail.

Btw..your right to free speech is being grossly abused, so shut the
**** up.

Are you saying that you believe that abuse of one civil right is
justification for the abuse of others? And what is with the "shut the
**** up" comment; are you trying to be clever? Hint..Gunner: Bill
O'Reilly is not a good role model if you want your side to be taken
seriously. As any learned debater will tell you, when your argument has
been reduced to namecalling and profanity, you've lost.

You are harming my self esteem by your evil talk. Ive got the right to
not be offended. So shut the **** up. Btw..**** is a valid word. Its
in Oxford and every thing. So you are now not only wishing to violate
my 2nd amendment rights, but to violate my 1st amendment right of free
speech and freedom of expression by your attempts at censorship. The
next thing Ill bet you go after are the Girl Scouts and their right to
peaceably assemble. Or the Hare Krishna and their rights to practice
whatever hairbrained (err..hairless) religion that turns their cranks
because you Feel they are unsightly and annoying (which is
true..but..)

Are you sure you are not French? No matter.

I of course used your arguments against you. And its rather surprising
that you failed to see it. Im a bit disappointed as I had given you a
bit more intelligence than you are displaying.

So in a nutshell..Sarg..er Adam..your opinion and Feelings, overrules
200 odd years of American tradition, the goals and aims of the
Founders, the Constitution and current case law. Correct?

Would you care to do the water walking routine for us , Oh Lord? And
perhaps lay hands on a few wretches and heal them..maybe turn a couple
penny stocks into a million dollar portfolio..the usual stuff Dieties
do for the wretched..you know the stuff.

And Lord? Please do it with Feeling.

Gunner

Krishna, Harrie Harrie Krishna Harrie Krishna, yaba daba doo!
Ohmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity"
-Sigmund Freud , "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"

-Adam



G

Gunner


Do you own firearms?
Senator John Kerry is a co sponsor on S1431 along with Feinstein,
Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer . This Bill will outlaw ALL semi
auto shotguns, ALL semi auto center fire and rimfire rifles that
have detachable magazines like Remington 7600 and the Ruger
rimfire 10.22.

The Bill will also ban a lot of other firearms that have been
newly newly determined to be assault weapons. Of course Kerry and
his ilk will determine which guns fit their criteria.

Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------

Here's the full text of HR 2038:


Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of
2003 (Introduced in Senate)

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:29:10 -0700, michael
wrote:


I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.

A bit over 20,000 state and federal laws as a matter of fact.


Kerry's proposal is, as I interpret it, along these lines.

You may have misinterpreted this also.

Id have to say run through a Mixmaster......

michael

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

.......................
Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. .................
................................................. ................
The big issue Adam..............................

Gunner

The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap
in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't
foot
it in the appropriate forum?

Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having
read all the books...

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:47:33 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:

I don't need the cites, I have read the amendment and I understand that
it pertains to organized militia. This is why I do not feel creating
laws prohibiting civilian ownership of assault weapons is inconsistent
with supporting the 2nd amendement, which is what your original comment
"Do you still intend to vote for John Kerry? After all he said he
supports the Second Amendment" implies.

You have misunderstood the text of the Second Amendment. Notice where it
says "...right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

It's not a simple misunderstanding on my part, the text is ambiguous and
consequently a much debated topic as to what the exact scope and meaning
of "the People" is.

So the People in the Second,
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.

is different than the People in not only the Preamble,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America. "

but in the 1st,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

the 4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

the 9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the 10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.

So Sar..er Adam..which unique People are they refering to in the 2nd
Amendment? Please point them out, Id like to shake their hands after
a swift strip and body cavity search. They may be armed..gasp.....

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle
" a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an
intermediate cartridge"

Machine gun of course refers to any firearm capable of discharging two
or more rounds with a single pull of the trigger. An M2 50 Caliber
Browning machine gun is not an assult rifle. Nor is a BAR as it fires
a round that is more powerful than an intermediate cartridge.

Redefining a zebra as a duck, still doesnt give the poor zebra webbed
feet and feathers.

I know full well the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting, that was
precisely my point. I think using the 2nd amendment as an argument in
favor of recreational gun ownership is rediculous. Entirely new laws are
needed to regulate civilian ownership of weaponry intended only for
combat.

There are lots and lots of these laws already.

Yes, and because they cite specific technology in an attempt to draw the
aforementioned cutoff line, they need constant updating as per Kerry's
proposal.

Why do they so need any updating? And why do those laws even need to
exist?


-Adam

Im waiting with bated breath. Yawn.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:47:33 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.
So what is the difference? Millions of Lee Enfields (4million no 4
models alone) were made - and most ended up in civilian hands.
Or a Saiga rifle - basically the AK47 with a PC thumbhole stock and
nice woodwork vs a semi auto AK47 clone (mechanically identical but
looks evil) vs Ruger Mini 30 (different functionally, same cartridge).
The Ruger makes no claims to being a military weapon - but fires the
same bullets.
It is a specious argument.
geoff

Gunner wrote:
snip
the 4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
snip

It makes me wonder what your agenda really is when you completely ignore
the so-called Patriot Act, which completely nullifies the 2nd amendment
by doing away with the 4th. Where's your righteous indignation and your
call for overthrow of the government in the face of this travesty??

Bob

"Helmut" wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote:

SNIP
Gunner

The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap
in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't
foot
it in the appropriate forum?

Well, that was certainly not something I thought of, thank you for pointing
it out.

Joel. phx

rec.crafts.metalworking


Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having
read all the books...

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:31:40 +1200, Helmut wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

......................
Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. .................
................................................ .................
The big issue Adam..............................

Gunner

The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap
in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't
foot
it in the appropriate forum?

As I recall..Herbert was not much on decorum or the Proper way to do
things.

Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having
read all the books...

Yawn.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:01:02 -0500, Bob Robinson
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
snip
the 4th
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
snip

It makes me wonder what your agenda really is when you completely ignore
the so-called Patriot Act, which completely nullifies the 2nd amendment
by doing away with the 4th. Where's your righteous indignation and your
call for overthrow of the government in the face of this travesty??

Bob

When the Patriot Act is used against innocent American citizens and
really guts the Constitution (the courts are still out on this), Ill
join you at the barricades. Please bring your own rifle and sufficient
ammo.

Oh..and don't forget the rope we will use to hang the *******s.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

I'm sorry but there is an obvious lack of knowledge about assault
weapons below. The "assault weapons ban is on semi-automatic weapons,
typically in .223 caliber. The muzzle energy of that cartridge is
about 1200 ft lbs. The energy from a 12 gauge rifled slug in a shotgun
is 2745 ft lb, or 2.3 times that of the assault weapon. Do you feel
that shotguns should be banned as well? They are also semi-automatic
weapons. Kerry's Bill (1431) would do that. Full automatic weapons
were banned in 1934, and that ban is not affected by the end of the
current ban. I agree with Bush. He defends the right of the individual
to keep and bear arms. I disagree with Kerry, who has indicated that
he wants to distroy the 2nd Amendment. For example, he was one of only
15 Senators to oppose final passage of the Firearms Owners` Protection
Act. His votes on that act indicated that if Kerry had his way, gun
owners would have to register to purchase .22 rimfire ammunition, and
would be subject to a 10-year prison sentence for selling a gun to a
friend or family member.
Kerry voted to eliminate the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.
Kerry voted to hold gun owners responsible if their firearms were
stolen and misused.
Kerry voted repeatedly to ban gun shows.
Kerry voted to strip federal bankruptcy protections away from the gun
industry.
Kerry voted to "commend" the so-called Million Mom March-- the crowd
that was demanding gun registration.
Kerry voted to charge an unlimited gun tax on firearm purchasers.

On the votes that the anti-gun groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence, the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun
Violence, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, considered to be the
most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position
100 percent of the time.

I hope I didn't disrup the thought process below, but I felt that the
record needed to be set straight.

Gunner wrote in message . ..


On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:31:40 +1200, Helmut wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

......................
Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch. While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. .................
................................................ .................
The big issue Adam..............................

Gunner

The big issue is that Gunner Asch never forced off-topic political crap
in an inappropriate newsgroup. Perhaps unlike Gunner Asch, you can't
foot
it in the appropriate forum?

As I recall..Herbert was not much on decorum or the Proper way to do
things.

Also as usual, when posing as an expert, you come up short, not having
read all the books...

Yawn.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

I usually stay away from the political posts, but I thought this might
cause some chatter. I always wondered how someone could get 3 Purple
Hearts and not do any hospital time. Four and a half months in country??

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm


Jake in Escondido

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle
" a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an
intermediate cartridge"

Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from
current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for
clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and
I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively.

Also, when I expressed my concern about the definition of "assault
weapon" needing constant updating, I was not thinking only of projectile
weapons, but of any future handheld device designed for military with
lethal capability at distance. I'm just imagining that in 100 years we
may have rifle-like devices that do not necessarily shoot bits of metal,
yet I can imagine the debate over ownership of these weapons will change
far less than the weapons themselves.

-Adam

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY
DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE
REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY
OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL****
DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE
IS PAST.

Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch.

OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your
interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional
character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent
in choosing your alias, for which I apologize.

While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your
dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting
insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you
can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er
Adam....chuckle....

In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so.

Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus,
riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less.

The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and
the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for
old dead white guys.

I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able
to predict the future of weaponry.

And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"?

Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this
point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would
imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much
less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all
too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor
in unfortunate accidents.

I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault
weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_
owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal
experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing
urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun
legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in
mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're
concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment
rights.

-Adam

And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"?

Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this
point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would
imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much
less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all
too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor
in unfortunate accidents.

I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault
weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_
owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal
experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing
urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun
legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in
mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're
concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment
rights.

Having just re-read this proposed ban, and seeing the types of weaponry
listed, I think I have a good understanding of what my real concern is
with these weapons, and I'd like your view on it. My real concern is not
with the law-abiding owners of these weapons, but with the relative ease
with which they seem to find their way into illegal ownership and
ultimately to crime scenes. Have a look at the chart on this page for
example:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...570665,00.html

Law enforcement officers in particular seem quite vocal about "renewing
and strengthening" the production ban on these weapons as a means to
making their jobs (and the the US as a whole) safer. What I'm asking is
this: is there another solution that preserves the rights of the militia
and the 2nd amendment, but that can also reverse the recent trend of
increasing numbers of violent crimes (including Columbine and DC sniper
style mass murders) involving assault weapons?

-Adam

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:19:04 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:

What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle
" a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an
intermediate cartridge"

Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from
current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for
clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and
I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively.

The above definition is the accepted technical definition of the
firearms industry, both military and commercial. The Germans invented
the first assault weapons.

Also, when I expressed my concern about the definition of "assault
weapon" needing constant updating, I was not thinking only of projectile
weapons, but of any future handheld device designed for military with
lethal capability at distance. I'm just imagining that in 100 years we
may have rifle-like devices that do not necessarily shoot bits of metal,
yet I can imagine the debate over ownership of these weapons will change
far less than the weapons themselves.

-Adam

Of course. But "small arms" will always be "small arms", no matter if
its a round lead ball or a bolt of plasma coming out of the end of the
man portable weapon.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:53:58 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY
DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE
REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY
OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL****
DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE
IS PAST.

Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch.

OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your
interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional
character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent
in choosing your alias, for which I apologize.

Accepted.

While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your
dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting
insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you
can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er
Adam....chuckle....

In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so.

You will enjoy. Equally as pragmatic but far less surreal than Catch
22 and the good guys win in the end.

Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus,
riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less.

The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and
the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for
old dead white guys.

I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able
to predict the future of weaponry.

Nor does the type of weapon make much difference.

And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"?

Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this
point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would
imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much
less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all
too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor
in unfortunate accidents.

Such arms are used in a tiny fraction of one percent of crimes or
accidents. Other types of firearms..hummm you do realize that if you
own a swimming pool, you are 1000 times more likely to have a death or
maiming than if you own a firearm?

I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault
weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_
owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal
experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing
urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun
legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in
mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're
concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment
rights.

Laws only effect those whom are willing to obey them. Criminals by
definition do not care one way or another if something is illegal.
Drugs for example have been illegal for many many years, yet they are
easily obtained on virtually any street corner.

There are an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US
every year. These DGUs seldom involve a shot being fired.

# In 1997, a total of 32,436 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 54% (17,566) and firearm homicides
40% (13,252) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 981
unintentional firearm deaths and 367 for which intention was
undetermined.
# In 1996, a total of 34,040 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 53% (18,166) and firearm homicides
41% (14,037) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,134
unintentional firearm deaths and 413 for which intention was
undetermined.
# In 1995, a total of 35,957 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 51% (18,503) and firearm homicides
44% (15,835) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,225
unintentional firearm deaths and 395 for which intention was
undetermined.

Source: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Report of Final
Mortality Statistics, 1996. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45,
No.11, Supplement 2. June 12, 1997. p 10, 55.


Now you will notice the term Homicide used above. Homicide is defined
as the killing of a human being for any reason, be it legal or
illegal. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.
The numbers above reflect murders AND the lawful killing of criminals
by police and citizens totaled together.

The population of the US is around 290,000,000 with the number of
firearms estimated to be around 300,000.000 arms of all types.

So a simple exercise in math will show you that firearms homicides etc
involve a minute fraction of the population and of the number of
firearms in private hands. However if you believe Hollywood or the
media, we are knee deep in bodies. One should further note that if
the homicides of minitory males between the ages of 13 and 25, BY
minority males between the same age range, are removed, the homicide
rate of the US falls to within a couple points of that of the UK,
where firearms are virtually banned for all intents and purposes.
Those deaths of course are gang killings over honor, territory or
rights to sell drugs on the streets.

One should further note..that firearms deaths and injuries, by all
types has been steadily falling for the last 13 years and are now
lower than the totals of the early 60s. In addition, 42 States now
have "shall issue" Concealed Weapons permit systems, which tends to
explain the also rapidly falling crime rate (of all types).

I believe that in 2002, legal assault weapons were involved in 5
homicides. ( 5) Five. And there are an estimated 30 million of them
in the US at present. The crime rate before the Assault Weapons Ban
was equally as low.

You might not be aware of it..but do you know that in most US states,
fully automatic machine guns are quite legal for citizens to own? A
$200 Federal tax stamp and a background check are all that is required
to own, collect, and shoot one. That and the huge price that they now
cost as a result of the 1984 restrictions caused.
Know how many legal machine guns have been used in homicides since
1934? (1)one. A cop fired up his cheating wife with his department
issue weapon.

So they are not much of an issue either, with an estimated 250,000 in
private hands.

The Knob Creek shooting event is a wonderful and fun place to go visit
http://www.machinegunshoot.com/ Check the photo gallery G

However..I digress. Please do reread Kerry's platform with an open and
informed mind. Also try to keep an open mind when reading or watching
the spew from both the antigun fanatics and the media and Hollywood.

They have only one agenda..and thats to take firearms away from the
citizens and make the Government the only entity with the ability to
defend itself..and when that happens..sooner or later...this happens:
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

Gunner Asch

-Adam

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:19:04 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
What is the definition of an assault weapon? This week? Next month? In 2
years?

A weapon intended for military use, in combat. The particular specs will
change continuously, and there is always going to be a grey area and
disagreement on where exactly the lines are drawn between personal
defense weapons or historical collectible weapons and contemporary
battlefield weapons.

Ah..Adam? There is only one meaning for the term Assault Rifle
" a select fire (meaning machine gun) military rifle firing an
intermediate cartridge"

Whose definition is this you are quoting? Is it a definition from
current US laws, an encyclopedia of guns, the dictionary? I'm asking for
clarification because I'm not a gun enthusiast (as you already know) and
I've just never heard Assault Rifle defined so exclusively.

The Sturmgewehr 44 was the first assault rifle. The Germans organized
their infantry around machine gun teams in the first world war and for the
first years of the second world war. But modern blitzkrieg (lightning war)
moves too fast for effective use of heavy machine guns in the assault.
So they developed the Sturmgewehr 44 as the rifle for assault troops.

Capable of full automatic fire, it supplied the rate of fire of a machine gun,
but in a light and much more portable package. To achieve that lightness,
the assault rifle had to be designed for a low power cartridge so recoil
wouldn't make it uncontrollable in auto fire, and so an individual infantryman
could carry the relatively huge amounts of ammunition automatic weapons
tend to expend.

All following assault rifles have been modeled on this original sturmgewehr
(assault rifle). The two best known examples today are the Soviet AK47
and the US M16. So the class of weapons gets its name from the original
German weapon which served as the prototype for all other weapons of
this class.

The idea of the assault rifle is a light weapon capable of a large rate of
*automatic* fire. Its primary tactical purpose is to give the advancing
infantryman something to hold onto so his hands wouldn't shake quite
so much. It wasn't designed primarily to kill, that's the job of artillery. It
was mainly intended as a "spray and pray" way to keep any remaining
enemy's head down while troops advanced over ground already well
plowed by artillery.

The light cartridge is designed primarily to wound rather than kill. That's
because the military calculated that a wounded enemy takes two of his
buddies out of line to carry him back to an aid station while a dead man
only occupies the efforts of the graves registration unit after the battle
is over. Thus it is militarily more valuable to wound a man rather than kill
him.

(Previous generations of military rifles, called main battle rifles, were
designed to a different philosophy. They were designed to achieve one
shot kills. So they used full power rifle cartridges, as did heavy machine
guns, and troops were trained to actually *aim* at the enemy rather than
simply spraying shots in the enemy's general direction.)

The original Sturmgewehr 44 fired the 7.92mm Kurtz (short) version of
the German main battle rifle round. The AK47 fires a 7.62x39 short
version of the Soviet main battle rifle round. A similar US round would
be the .30 carbine cartridge. The M1 carbine doesn't qualify as an assault
rifle, though, because it doesn't have the capability of fully automatic
fire.

(The M1 carbine was developed by the US as a replacement for an
officer's pistol. The idea there was that the pistol is a nearly worthless
combat arm for anything but very close quarters fighting, but they didn't
want to load an officer down with a main battle rifle, so the MI carbine
came to be as a light and handy replacement for the pistol. There is a
variant, the M2, which is capable of fully auto fire, and was issued to
some paratroopers in WWII, but the US didn't adopt that as its primary
assault rifle.)

Instead, in the 1960s, the US adopted what troops immediately dubbed
the "Mattel Toy" because of its plastic stock construction. The M16
carries the low power round concept to an extreme by adapting a civilian
woodchuck hunting cartridge, the .222 Remington, turning it into the
..223 or 5.56mm NATO round. In other words, they used a cartridge
originally designed for hunting 20 pound rodents.

(In the 1970s, the Soviets copied that idea, and came out with the
AKM74 assault rifle, which also fires a low power .22 cal round.)

As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is
intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a
soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics
employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every
hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are
just now coming to grips.)

Gary

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:25:50 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:

rights.

Having just re-read this proposed ban, and seeing the types of weaponry
listed, I think I have a good understanding of what my real concern is
with these weapons, and I'd like your view on it. My real concern is not
with the law-abiding owners of these weapons, but with the relative ease
with which they seem to find their way into illegal ownership and
ultimately to crime scenes. Have a look at the chart on this page for
example:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...570665,00.html

Ill give you a heads up Adam...anything with Violence Policy Center
mentioned is based on fraud, spin and outright lies. They are the most
rabid of the antigun fanatics. Did you notice the use of the word
"crime scene"? Not homicides, not murders. If you dumped the ashtray
out of your car..its a Crime Scene. Notice the nifty way they push
their propaganda? The Colombine Twins also used a shotgun (most of
their victims were killed by a duck hunting shotgun) and they had
accumulated a large quantity of propane tanks they had planned on
exploding, which if sucessful, would have cause horrendous casualties.
See any mention of either the legal and more lethal shotgun or the
legal propane tanks?

Law enforcement officers in particular seem quite vocal about "renewing
and strengthening" the production ban on these weapons as a means to
making their jobs (and the the US as a whole) safer. What I'm asking is
this: is there another solution that preserves the rights of the militia
and the 2nd amendment, but that can also reverse the recent trend of
increasing numbers of violent crimes (including Columbine and DC sniper
style mass murders) involving assault weapons?

-Adam

Another heads up..the majority of rank and file LEOs are NOT in favor
of gun control. Period. Each and every time you find mention of any
that are..you will notice that they are police chiefs and
administrators. Political animals whos livelyhood depends on
supporting the Cause of the moment. I should mention that I myself am
an ex police officer.

Further..Two..(2) crimes in 10 yrs involving assault weapons (as the
antis define them) does not make a rising crime wave. In fact, Ill bet
you that either of us can do a google search and find other devises
that are far more often used for mass murder. Automobiles driven
intentionally into crowds, plastic bags and garrots and knives in the
hands of serial killers as another example.

You do know who the Center for Disease Control is, correct? For years
they have been on the anti gun bandwagon as they have been sponsors of
the Violence Policy Center, etc etc..up til late last year....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/032559.htm

feel free to look at this further in greater depth. Google is your
friend.

"October 06, 2003
CDC Report Questions Effectiveness of Gun Laws
A massive new federally-funded study of national gun controls laws --
including gun-buyer background checks and waiting periods -- conducted
by the CDC, found no proof that such laws reduce firearm-related
violence. In the report, titled "Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," researchers from
the Centers for Disease Control do not state flatly that gun control
laws are failing, merely that more study is needed. The CDC, however
stated it would not be conducting additional research."

There were 55 seperate studies that were used to form the report.

Now take a look at the home page of the Violence Policy Centers
webpage
http://www.vpc.org/

Can you spot the 15 outright lies I spotted on the first page alone?

Go to the Sks link for an example. By definition, even of the anti
gun fanatics..the SKS is not an assault rifle. The rifle pictured in
the ad show, is not a true SKS (which has a fixed magazine and holds
10 rounds) and importation of that particular rifle was banned in
1989. But they use that illistration to lead the reader into thinking
every SKS is identical. I can go on in greater detail if you so
desire..but Ill ask you this...
If their cause and agenda is so rightious..why do they lie so many
times on their website? If there was such a horrendous issue..why not
simply let the facts speak for themselves?

Chuckle..I should further point out that the cartridge fired in the
SKS, is about half as powerful as the average deer rifle cartridge and
is equivelent to that of the 3030 lever action rifle found in the rear
windows of half the pickup trucks in the US. A further note..virtually
every normal hunting round from a rifle will punch a hole through both
sides of a bullet resistant vest such as the police wear, ( and the
wearer inside)..so any "Evil Cop Killer Bullet" is the same ones used
to hunt game animals in the US.

Sigh..their agenda is quite clear. Ban any bullet that will punch a
vest..and nearly all sporting and hunting rifles suddenly go dry. No
hunting, no sport shooting, nada.
Chuckle..a 90 yr old pistol shooting the .30 Mauser cartridge will
punch most vests as well. And its a clunky old antique.
Hell..a good hunting arrow will blow right though most vests. Shrug

The agenda of the antis is quite clear, as is their 'any means
justifies the end" tactics.

Those folks are either very twisted, or very evil. Ill leave it up to
you to make your own decision as to which.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:35:46 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is
intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a
soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics
employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every
hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are
just now coming to grips.)

Gary

In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to
wound a single enemy soldier.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On 2 Aug 2004 12:28:10 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted:

In article , Gunner says...

Hint..Adam. The Second Amendment isnt about deer hunting. ...

Depends on yer definition of 'deer.'

Uh, Bill, is that you?


-
- Let Exxon send their own troops -
-------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 10:39:00 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted:

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 05:35:46 -0400, Gary Coffman
wrote:

As noted above, the assault rifle isn't intended primarily to kill. It is
intended to wound, and the little .22 cal round does this nicely if a
soldier manages to achieve a hit with it. (The spray and pray tactics
employed, however, mean many many rounds expended for every
hit achieved, a logistic nightmare with which the world's armies are
just now coming to grips.)

If you're attempting to mow down masses of unshielded advancing
troops, I can see the rapid rate of fire being a good thing. But
for most usage, full-auto rates should be slowed down considerably
to save ammo and make shots count. I put 90 rounds through an AK
in just over a minute at the Machine Gun Shoot, and I was selecting
several targets during that time and started with semi-auto mode to
see how it kicked and aimed. It's amazing how quickly rounds go.


In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to
wound a single enemy soldier.

Can you say "shotgunning"? I knew you could.

- - -
Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells live forever.
---
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming for YOU!

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:24:23 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


If you're attempting to mow down masses of unshielded advancing
troops, I can see the rapid rate of fire being a good thing. But
for most usage, full-auto rates should be slowed down considerably
to save ammo and make shots count. I put 90 rounds through an AK
in just over a minute at the Machine Gun Shoot, and I was selecting
several targets during that time and started with semi-auto mode to
see how it kicked and aimed. It's amazing how quickly rounds go.


In Vietnam..it was estimated that it took 14 Tons of munitions to
wound a single enemy soldier.

Can you say "shotgunning"? I knew you could.

The actual technical term is "spray and pray"

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann