I agree with you Blake. I'd LOVE to see smoking made illegal as well but I know that won't happen. I also wish all states (at least here in America) were smoke free, however even if they are smoke free, some of the businesses may not enforce it. I went to a bar in New York & people were smoking in there b/c the owners didn't enforce the clean air law or act or whatever it is. However, as I stated I don't believe tobacco will be outlawed b/c as Patrick said, there's too much money in it. Tobacco's been around for centuries & owners would rather kill people with their product than be put outta business. In the United States we tried prohibition for alcohol & that got reversed. I also don't think tobacco will be made illegal b/c if that is, then people will want alcohol done away with as well (and I don't want that). I think before anything is made illegal, more things will be made legal first (such as marijuana and the such).

Vercetti,

When this ban expiration comes do you think no innocent lives will be taken with such weapons so easily to get? If only one life was taken (which I'm sure there will be more than one) then I think it wouldn't be worth it, because I think someones life is more important than a hunter being able to rip a deer to shreds with his newly bought AK 47.And if people did get these weapons for protection, then anything that frighten them they probably would use it on. Which doesn't make me feel any safer if I would walk outside of my house knowing any of my neighbors, on a bad day could shoot up the neighborhood(not that I live in such a neighborhood.The arguement saying that it is they're right to bare arms doesn't stand for shit, because the government also said it was okay to own a slave. I'm simply pointing out that the government isnt always right, which it seems to be getting worse every decade!

I agree with you Blake. I'd LOVE to see smoking made illegal as well but I know that won't happen. I also wish all states (at least here in America) were smoke free, however even if they are smoke free, some of the businesses may not enforce it. I went to a bar in New York & people were smoking in there b/c the owners didn't enforce the clean air law or act or whatever it is. However, as I stated I don't believe tobacco will be outlawed b/c as Patrick said, there's too much money in it. Tobacco's been around for centuries & owners would rather kill people with their product than be put outta business. In the United States we tried prohibition for alcohol & that got reversed. I also don't think tobacco will be made illegal b/c if that is, then people will want alcohol done away with as well (and I don't want that). I think before anything is made illegal, more things will be made legal first (such as marijuana and the such). [/b][/quote]Not only will smoking not be illegal, I think weed will be made legal! Although that would end dangerous dealings and all that, stuff like this just should'nt be acceptable.

That's what I'm saying. I've never tried marijuana but I don't have any objections to see it made legal if tobacco & alcohol are legal. The same argument could be made for alcohol that can be made for marijuana (with those STUPID anti-drug commercials! Man I hate those stupid things!!) Again I've never tried marijuana, but if they made it legal I'd probably give it a shot but since it's illegal I won't. What I don't get is why people look so down on people who smoke pot (like they're totally bad & evil) but yet we except alcoholics??

Innocent lives perish anyway ban or no ban. People die everyday from everything. It won't be that much different. Especially since the rich and criminals already have the guns. I bet my life that Scarface wannabe rappers own similar guns.

Innocent lives perish anyway ban or no ban. People die everyday from everything. It won't be that much different. Especially since the rich and criminals already have the guns. I bet my life that Scarface wannabe rappers own similar guns. [/b][/quote]DV--This "scarface wannabe rappers" thing is really getting annoying. It's all you've said the last 2 or 3 posts. The question is simple:
Do you think assault rifles, that were only legal in the military, should be able to be bought in regular gun stores by anyone who walks in?

All I want from you is a yes or no. I don't want to hear any of your background checks and criminal bullshit. Gimme a yes or no: Do you think assault rifles, that were only legal in the military, should be able to be bought in regular gun stores by anyone who walks in?

The U.S. was built on freedom. If I want to own a crazy Deer-ripping apart Uzi, then that is my God given right as an American. Quit wasting tax payers money to keep innocent people away from guns and start putting it into keeping them out of criminals.

If I wanted to live in a country where there are 8000 restrictions on me, then I would move to China.

The question is simple:
Do you think assault rifles, that were only legal in the military, should be able to be bought in regular gun stores by anyone who walks in?

Didn't you already get this through? I explained my plan. The current availability I have no care for. I would put restrictions as I said before. I don't think they should restrict it, but I don't think a license and a walk to a gun shot should be the way to buy it.

But I'm talking about the ban that expired. I don't care about your personal plan. We all have personal feelings about all of this, but the truth is, assault rifles that were only legal in the military can now be bought at a regular gun shop. Plain and simple. -Pat

Makes no difference to me. If there's no proper restrictions then there is no intellect in their minds.

Do you seriously not see anything wrong with heavy artillery being bought so easily?

And Vercetti,
Can you seriously put a price on someone’s head just over guns.

You all would be speaking a different tune if one of your friends were shot down by a AK 47, by a person who was able to get it so easily! :rolleyes:

This thread my actually showcase my political objectivity... :p

I don't think assault guns should be legalized for hunting, or anything, because they are deadly weapons that are designed for military use only. Not that any other gun isn't a deadly weapon, but c'mon...when you whack a fucking doe with an AK-47, there isn't going to be much venison left to eat.

So in that frame of mind, I don't think that the ban should expire.

On another token, I fully support the NRA. The constitution clearly lays forth the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I think the day they take away our guns is the day they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

DV has made great points - the black market is already making sure the drug dealers have a steady supply of guns. I guarentee that most, if not 99% of gun crimes involving these weapons, the weapon was either obtained alongside trug trafficking, or for the purpose of supporting drug traffic.

If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

I still think though this ban should stay in affect. The last thing we need is some crazy asshole who buys a Mac-10 shooting up a whole tree-mount of turkey hunters because he can't handle the recoil. :p

Do more to get the guns away from the cokeheads who use them.

And Vercetti,
Can you seriously put a price on someone’s head just over guns.

You all would be speaking a different tune if one of your friends were shot down by a AK 47, by a person who was able to get it so easily! :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]I'm sorry, you're right. ban them all. Only criminals should use them anyway.

Then you don't fully support the NRA. They don't want any restrictions, support purchasing weapons without background checks at gun shows, and are against the ban on assault weapons.

I'm not all that well versed in the specific gun laws in Great Britain, but I know they have very strict compared to ours. I also know that murders with guns in this country approach 15-20,000 each year. Maybe someone on the other side of the Atlantic knows how many there are in England each year.

That's arguable, JJ

From MS's on-line encyclopedia, Encarta:

Amendment 2

"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.

Comment: Legal scholars disagree about what right is protected by the Second Amendment. Some scholars have concluded that this amendment affirms a broad individual right to gun ownership. Others interpret the amendment as protecting only a narrow right to possess firearms as members of a militia. Supreme Court decisions have not resolved the debate. However, the courts have held that the Second Amendment does not preclude certain government regulations on gun ownership, such as laws prohibiting ownership of firearms by felons."

-I fully support the NRA in this frame of mind: when we have assholes like Michael Moore saying how the NRA is the root of all gun violence or that somehow the NRA is responsible for Columbine...it's ludicrous. Any organization that promotes gun safety gets a thumbs up from me.

-2nd Amendment controversy, I know. It does mention a militia. But that does not change the exact wording that gives citizens the "right to keep and bear arms." Militia or not.

Who says, in the world we live in today, we might need to call a militia against terrorists who take over a school or something?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a militia. In effect, we do. The National Guard.

But that didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution. What they did have were less formally organized para-military groups of citizens, and I think the writers of the Constitution intended to guarantee that right.

Of course, you could certainly and understandably argue that back then everyone probably had guns, rifles, whatever. I mean everyone. And it is certainly not far-fetched to think that the founding fathers sought to guarantee that right as well.

But times do change.

I'm not a "sportsman" (as I believe the hunters sometimes euphemistically refer to themselves), and I feel no need to have any weapons for my own protection, and I wonder why anyone, unless they are in some type of high-risk profession like diamond courrier or something, would feel that need.

I mean, if everyone had a gun, criminals and law-abiding citizens alike, the murder rate in this country would do what? Quadruple? Quintuple?

Well, true. But I still believe that every person has the right to own a firearms, albeit with restrictions (criminal record, gun bans, etc.).

I can see from reading all the posts there are a lot of misconceptions about the AWB that recently expired(thank god for that, it was a lame ass ban anyway)

I'll try to clear up some of those misconceptions. The guns that were banned were NOT banned based on how lethal they were, but rather if they had lethal sounding names, such as UZI, TEC 9, or if they had components that made them look like military style rifles.


Patrick has referred to guns used by the military can now legally be sold to the public. WRONG. The weapons used by the military have been heavily regulated since 1934, and none of us on this board can go into a local gun shop and buy one over the counter.

Every single gun that was banned is clasified as a semi-automatic, not fully automatic.

I could point out many other facts, but I'll let the website I got them from do the rest of my talking.

Very helpful

Like Double J said earlier, I also fully support the NRA, course I should I'm a life member.

Now bogey said in his post guns are bad. With all due respect to his views, no they're not they're simply used by bad people. There is a difference.

And Capo said guns kill. Well again with all due respect to his views, no they don't people kill it's just most times they use a gun to do it.


Now on to using the now legal guns for hunting, I've been a hunter for most of my life, and I know a lot of hunters, and believe me they would never consider using an ak-47, uzi, or a tec 9 to go hunting. Target shooting is a different matter all together.

I promise you, if someone was actually law-abiding enough to WAIT for the ban to expire before buying one of these weapons, he's not going to use it to kill someone. If you have enough disregard for law and order to actually kill someone, then you'd have no qualms about purchasing an illegal weapon, either.

And some of you were saying that before, only rich terrorists were able to buy them; whereas now Joe Schmo can get one too, and blast out half the people in his local suburban mall just because he had a bad day. Well, just because the ban was lifted doesn't mean another law was put in its place, ordering a "50% Off With Coupon" sale on all of these guns. They're still as expensive as they ever were, and your "average" American who makes, let's say 40 grand a year still can't afford it. As for the rich, they were JUST as easy to get before the ban as they are now. Anyone can find "connections," it's the easiest thing in the world. In fact, it might have been easier with the ban, because before, you'd just have your guy come over to your house with a variety of these weapons in the trunk of his car, and you'd pick one; or you'd tell him beforehand which one you wanted him to find for you. Now, you have to get off your ass, leave the house, and go to a gun shop to buy them. :rolleyes: Okay, that's a fact, but I was using it as a joke. Just to clarify, I don't personally have a "guy" who comes to my house with AK-47's.

Now let me say, I do not really see the point of having these guns available, but I don't see the point of the ban, either, for the reasons stated above. Since they're both equally ineffective, if I had to pick a side, I'd say we're better off without the ban, because as Kristen said, the last thing we need in this country is another restriction pinned on us. However, unlike Kris, if I did want 8000 restrictions pinned on me, I don't think I'd pick China; I think I'd go to Lebanon or Qatar... I've heard they've got really nice cities.

And hey, maybe people DO want to use these for target practice. Target practice sharpens the mind in several ways, and improves eyesight. It's not only used to practice for when the time comes to actually kill someone.