Go ahead, I'll laugh because your wrong, ONCE AGAIN, READ MY ABOVE POST, that LAW IS NOT IN EFFECT ANYMORE, mainly because it is total bullshit. You really need to do your research chief.
If you follow the original discussion you'll see that those laws were what were being discussed. Even though the sunset clause has killed it, I would argue that until a new law reclassifies the term "Assault Weapon", you would use the definition in that legislation. Regardless, the original poster who claimed that Clinton incorrectly classified those weapons as "Assault Rifles" was wrong.
Maybe you should try reading your own damn source, and i QUOTE
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but no firearm that holds more than ten rounds is an assault weapon, that is just plain ludicrous and subscribed only to liberal media and left wing ideologues that want nothing more than firearms gone. So please, in the interest of responsible gun owners, use the term assault weapons for what they are, Class 3's SBR's, AOW's, I'll accept assault rifles for now, but christ one question for you sir. What does the AR in AR-15 stand for?
Wikipedia.The ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.
I don't know what point you were trying to make, but no firearm that holds more than ten rounds is an assault weapon, that is just plain ludicrous and subscribed only to liberal media and left wing ideologues that want nothing more than firearms gone. So please, in the interest of responsible gun owners, use the term assault weapons for what they are, Class 3's SBR's, AOW's, I'll accept assault rifles for now, but christ one question for you sir. What does the AR in AR-15 stand for?
And like albertwesker[re] already stated that was all part of a bill that has sunseted, which means that it is gone doesn not apply anymore. So you are the one that needs to STFU. And you sound like a moron calling a magazine a clip, if your going to debate something you need to use the correct terms or no one is ever going to take you seriouly, just like right now.Bubbalo wrote:
ATM I'm looking at:
http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_as … eapons_ban (yeah, I know, that's why it isn't my only source)
And I'm sorry if you object to my terminology. Maybe when we've settled the best way to combat violent crime we'll have time to discuss. Until then, STFU. I'm gonna keep talking about clips just to spite you.
With all due respect, and I mean the utmost respect, I know its been heated about this lately, what? You think ar-15's are assault rifles? You think ANY firearm capable of holding more than ten rounds is an assault rifle. Please elaborate why you think this?Bubbalo wrote:
Regardless, the original poster who claimed that Clinton incorrectly classified those weapons as "Assault Rifles" was wrong.
Yes please I would like to hear this as well...
You people should really read before you post. Yes, it's expired. I knew that when this started. The post, however, was in response to someone who said that Clinton incorrectly classified them as "Assault Rifles", which was wrong. I also find it funny that you were calling me wrong when you'd clearly never heard of the law. So very funny..........I'll give you guys time to go fire off a few clips to let off some steam................
Just out of curiousity, does clip have a technical meaning?
Just out of curiousity, does clip have a technical meaning?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-25 00:06:41)
very well said.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't entirely agree with the commonly held view that the fact that guns are legal in the US is what makes gun crime rates there so much higher than in other western nations (where gun ownership is either illegal or very strictly regulated). The easy availability of guns is partly to blame but the main culprit is the particular brand of capitalism peddled by the US. US capitalism is a real 'survival of the fittest' and is particularly ruthless. Capitalism produces winners and losers. US capitalism in particular produces a very wide (and ever widening) gap between the winners (the 'haves') and the losers (the 'have-nots') in society. With guns available to these desparate 'have-nots', surrounded by affluence, it seems an easy option for them to turn to gun crime to make their miserable lives temporarily more bearable. This gap is what I believe is responsible for the higher prevalence of gun crimes in the US. It is evident not just in the US but, as I have seen for myself, all throughout latin america as well where similar gaps between rich and poor exist.
Canada, which exercises a European brand of capitalism, has no such gun problems.
Umm no, you really need to take a law class. Once a bill is in sunset, it does not set precedent, it does not become common law.Bubbalo wrote:
I would argue that until a new law reclassifies the term "Assault Weapon", you would use the definition in that legislation..
No, but given that there is no other definition for the term Assault Weapon, it would be reasonable for a media source to use that definition. I'm not talking about going to court, I'm talking about for general usage.
LMFAO I've heard of the law, I just couldn't believe you were quoting something that had sunseted 2 years ago, that DOES NOT Set precedent. It didn't register because it was ridicolous. As long as your firing off those clips from a garand, than fine have at it. You still have yet to answer my questions. Are you avoiding them?Bubbalo wrote:
You people should really read before you post. Yes, it's expired. I knew that when this started. The post, however, was in response to someone who said that Clinton incorrectly classified them as "Assault Rifles", which was wrong. I also find it funny that you were calling me wrong when you'd clearly never heard of the law. So very funny..........I'll give you guys time to go fire off a few clips to let off some steam................
Just out of curiousity, does clip have a technical meaning?
1
2You think ar-15's are assault rifles? You think ANY firearm capable of holding more than ten rounds is an assault rifle. Please elaborate why you think this?
What do you think the AR stand for in AR-15?
I agree, but that term is INCORRECT if you have any prolonged experience to MANY different firearms. It just doens't make sense friend. I really am trying to help you. The problem is, is you're not listening. There IS another definition, I've stated it clearly more than three times in this thread. An assault weapon is any firearm capable of automatic fire or being of the nature of an SBR, or AOW. bam, please use that instead of the liberal media's one because theirs is incorrect. Sorry to say but your boy Clinton, was INCORRECT.Bubbalo wrote:
No, but given that there is no other definition for the term Assault Weapon, it would be reasonable for a media source to use that definition. I'm not talking about going to court, I'm talking about for general usage.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 00:12:49)
Its only reasonable if you agree with the media giving a bad name to firearms that ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.Bubbalo wrote:
Assault Weapon, it would be reasonable for a media source to use that definition
Neither of them are relevant. I am not talking about Assault Rifles. I'm assuming that the answer to both is no given that other people who sound like they care (yourself, the guy I was originally responding to) think this. When I need to know, I'll find a definition in a relevant (technical)dictionary. Until then, it doesn't matter, because we're talking about Assault Weapons (or rather, we're talking about Clinton's law, which used the term Assault Weapons)
Ok when you put it that way, and please tell me you agree that the term is in effect, not ACCURATE. Also you STILL have failed to answer ONE of my questions, you really are having trouble with this aren't you.Bubbalo wrote:
Neither of them are relevant. I am not talking about Assault Rifles. I'm assuming that the answer to both is no given that other people who sound like they care (yourself, the guy I was originally responding to) think this. When I need to know, I'll find a definition in a relevant (technical)dictionary. Until then, it doesn't matter, because we're talking about Assault Weapons (or rather, we're talking about Clinton's law, which used the term Assault Weapons)
And please reconsider my definition, it is widely accepted by the majority of sensible firearm owners, i did not just make it up.What do you think the AR stands for in AR-15?
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 00:16:28)
Here is some pertinent info from a very credible source. A very relevant (as you put it) source.
A quote if you will
A quote if you will
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.htmlDefinitions
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
Oh and also, another flaw with your arguement about firearms with magazines above 10 capacity. The Clinton ban only stopped new manufacture of said devices, it did not label firearms with these magazines assault weapons basically due to the fact that any firearm capable of holding a detachable box magazine could possibly hold a magazine that could hold more than ten rounds.
For the last FUCKING time:
I do not FUCKING care. I never have FUCKING cared, I never will FUCKING care. It could stand for FUCKING Albino Rhododendrons, I still wouldn't give a damn, FUCKWIT. The terminology is FUCKING accurate, because it is the FUCKING law, and apparently there have been no other FUCKING definitions.
And so far as I am FUCKING concerned, the only FUCKING sensible firearm owners are FUCKING farmers and others who use them as part of their FUCKING job (yes, including soldiers) but would rather guns didn't exist.
I will not FUCKING post again, you dense piece of shit.
I do not FUCKING care. I never have FUCKING cared, I never will FUCKING care. It could stand for FUCKING Albino Rhododendrons, I still wouldn't give a damn, FUCKWIT. The terminology is FUCKING accurate, because it is the FUCKING law, and apparently there have been no other FUCKING definitions.
And so far as I am FUCKING concerned, the only FUCKING sensible firearm owners are FUCKING farmers and others who use them as part of their FUCKING job (yes, including soldiers) but would rather guns didn't exist.
I will not FUCKING post again, you dense piece of shit.
The way you worded it, it sounded like you were quoting a current law. Refer to my above post about your flaw. You said anything with a clip over ten rounds is an assault weapon. simply NOT TRUE, even according to your OWN SOURCE.Bubbalo wrote:
According to US law, anything with a clip over ten rounds is an assault weapon. So those would be.
YOUR OWN SOURCE STATES that it only stopped manufacture of new magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It mentions absolutely nothing of labeling firearms as assault weapons do to such magazines being inserted. Other than this article. But it still has nothing to do with the 10+ rounds and labeling.
You simply cannot even make a coherent arguement now unless you backpedal.declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.
First of all, calm down, I'm not swearing that much. It is NOT the law, the law sunseted, and a sunseted bill does not set precedence. Take a law class. If you don't care, than go away. The only sensible firearm owners are farmers. You've got to be kidding me. Are you for real. I am dense? Hah you don't even have the common courtesy to answer my questions and debate with me in a sensible fashion. And you call me dense. Good luck. And please take that law class.Bubbalo wrote:
For the last FUCKING time:
I do not FUCKING care. I never have FUCKING cared, I never will FUCKING care. It could stand for FUCKING Albino Rhododendrons, I still wouldn't give a damn, FUCKWIT. The terminology is FUCKING accurate, because it is the FUCKING law, and apparently there have been no other FUCKING definitions.
And so far as I am FUCKING concerned, the only FUCKING sensible firearm owners are FUCKING farmers and others who use them as part of their FUCKING job (yes, including soldiers) but would rather guns didn't exist.
I will not FUCKING post again, you dense piece of shit.
God listen to your self, did you read any of the last five posts, it's not the law, the terminology is not accurate, and like what was stated above there are many other correct definition you just seem to be to thick headed to comprehend anything that has been said here. Are you mad or what listen to your self you are just as dense as the people you are directing comments at like the one you made above.
I said I wouldn't do it, I know:
Assault Weapon was the correct terminology for the period in which we are talking (i.e. Clinton did not use incorrect terminology). I'm sorry if I thought it was a given that if we were discussing Clinton's laws we would take them as law. Maybe I just get into hypothetical arguments too much. Whatever. Regardless, I am here going to tell why it doesn't matter:
THIS WHOLE THING STARTED BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID CLINTON CALLED SOMETHING AN ASSAULT RIFLE WHEN IT WASN'T WHICH IS FALSE SINCE HE CALLED IT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
As for refusing to answer you question:
I provided you with the links you asked for, and I gave you a guess on the others but told you I didn't know because it didn't matter to me. That is to say, I can't answer them for sure without doing some research, and I'm not researching that for the same reason I don't watch Neighbours: I'm not interested.
Now if you'll excuse, I'm going to go argue with a brick wall. I figure that has more chance of going somewhere.
Assault Weapon was the correct terminology for the period in which we are talking (i.e. Clinton did not use incorrect terminology). I'm sorry if I thought it was a given that if we were discussing Clinton's laws we would take them as law. Maybe I just get into hypothetical arguments too much. Whatever. Regardless, I am here going to tell why it doesn't matter:
THIS WHOLE THING STARTED BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID CLINTON CALLED SOMETHING AN ASSAULT RIFLE WHEN IT WASN'T WHICH IS FALSE SINCE HE CALLED IT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
As for refusing to answer you question:
I provided you with the links you asked for, and I gave you a guess on the others but told you I didn't know because it didn't matter to me. That is to say, I can't answer them for sure without doing some research, and I'm not researching that for the same reason I don't watch Neighbours: I'm not interested.
Now if you'll excuse, I'm going to go argue with a brick wall. I figure that has more chance of going somewhere.
+1Bubbalo wrote:
For the last FUCKING time:
I do not FUCKING care. I never have FUCKING cared, I never will FUCKING care. It could stand for FUCKING Albino Rhododendrons, I still wouldn't give a damn, FUCKWIT. The terminology is FUCKING accurate, because it is the FUCKING law, and apparently there have been no other FUCKING definitions.
And so far as I am FUCKING concerned, the only FUCKING sensible firearm owners are FUCKING farmers and others who use them as part of their FUCKING job (yes, including soldiers) but would rather guns didn't exist.
I will not FUCKING post again, you dense piece of shit.
guns are pointless, but i guess the human population has to be kept in check somehow right... heh
So are you trying to say that just because Clinton called a weapon an assault weapon, than it is an assault weapon?Bubbalo wrote:
I said I wouldn't do it, I know:
Assault Weapon was the correct terminology for the period in which we are talking (i.e. Clinton did not use incorrect terminology). I'm sorry if I thought it was a given that if we were discussing Clinton's laws we would take them as law. Maybe I just get into hypothetical arguments too much. Whatever. Regardless, I am here going to tell why it doesn't matter:
THIS WHOLE THING STARTED BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID CLINTON CALLED SOMETHING AN ASSAULT RIFLE WHEN IT WASN'T WHICH IS FALSE SINCE HE CALLED IT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
As for refusing to answer you question:
I provided you with the links you asked for, and I gave you a guess on the others but told you I didn't know because it didn't matter to me. That is to say, I can't answer them for sure without doing some research, and I'm not researching that for the same reason I don't watch Neighbours: I'm not interested.
Now if you'll excuse, I'm going to go argue with a brick wall. I figure that has more chance of going somewhere.
Such anger, I agree with your first point, well made. And your capped point, sure. I provided you with a definition of assault weapons, which you probably ignored...who's the brick wall? And the fact your own arguement was flawed by your own source. Sure call things whatever you want, thats cool, you won't be right, because just because the media and Clinton said it, doesn't make it right. Also, one last question, wtf is Neighbours???Bubbalo wrote:
I said I wouldn't do it, I know:
Assault Weapon was the correct terminology for the period in which we are talking (i.e. Clinton did not use incorrect terminology). I'm sorry if I thought it was a given that if we were discussing Clinton's laws we would take them as law. Maybe I just get into hypothetical arguments too much. Whatever. Regardless, I am here going to tell why it doesn't matter:
THIS WHOLE THING STARTED BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID CLINTON CALLED SOMETHING AN ASSAULT RIFLE WHEN IT WASN'T WHICH IS FALSE SINCE HE CALLED IT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
As for refusing to answer you question:
I provided you with the links you asked for, and I gave you a guess on the others but told you I didn't know because it didn't matter to me. That is to say, I can't answer them for sure without doing some research, and I'm not researching that for the same reason I don't watch Neighbours: I'm not interested.
Now if you'll excuse, I'm going to go argue with a brick wall. I figure that has more chance of going somewhere.