Zero: ...
Ok, I've been gone for awhile. As you can tell from above, I've been pretty damn busy. But I'm still here, still alive, and... umm... busy. We've got a lot of cool shit going on. Sometimes I really wish I could elaborate on that... but oh well. Oh and just a suggestion, comments do help. *hint, hint*
Any-who, I'd like to take the time while I have this minute to rant/inform everyone about what the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban REALLY means. First of all, hey, I'm glad the thing expired. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS A STUPID, USELESS, AND INEFFECTIVE PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATURE!!!
Ok, so now you guys know my point on this matter... But let me explain. There is a difference between REAL military assault weapons AND the "assault weapons" as they are defined in the 1994 ban under the Clinton administration. Listen up now, 'cause not many people (sadly) know this.
When you ask someone what the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban means, they'll more than likely tell you, "It means that people can now go out and buy machine guns, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc...". This is a sad and uninformed response that many people believe and that others *cough* John Kerry *cough*, want you to believe.
First of all, "machine guns, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc..." have nothing to do with the "Assault Weapons" Ban of '94. These types of weapons are military assault weapons that have ALWAYS been banned since the 1930s. Even before the so-called '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban, they were illegal to posess or even use.
So what exactly was the "Assault Weapons" Ban talking about when it refers to "assault weapons"? Listen/read very closely.... The term "assault weapons" in the '94 Ban is defined as any firearm that cosmetically or ergonomically resembles a military weapon. To help clarify this, the following is an excerpt borrowed from www.awbansunset.com:
[RTI] ZeroFunction
Ok, I've been gone for awhile. As you can tell from above, I've been pretty damn busy. But I'm still here, still alive, and... umm... busy. We've got a lot of cool shit going on. Sometimes I really wish I could elaborate on that... but oh well. Oh and just a suggestion, comments do help. *hint, hint*
Any-who, I'd like to take the time while I have this minute to rant/inform everyone about what the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban REALLY means. First of all, hey, I'm glad the thing expired. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS A STUPID, USELESS, AND INEFFECTIVE PIECE OF CRAP LEGISLATURE!!!
Ok, so now you guys know my point on this matter... But let me explain. There is a difference between REAL military assault weapons AND the "assault weapons" as they are defined in the 1994 ban under the Clinton administration. Listen up now, 'cause not many people (sadly) know this.
When you ask someone what the expiration of the "Assault Weapons" Ban means, they'll more than likely tell you, "It means that people can now go out and buy machine guns, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc...". This is a sad and uninformed response that many people believe and that others *cough* John Kerry *cough*, want you to believe.
First of all, "machine guns, fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc..." have nothing to do with the "Assault Weapons" Ban of '94. These types of weapons are military assault weapons that have ALWAYS been banned since the 1930s. Even before the so-called '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban, they were illegal to posess or even use.
So what exactly was the "Assault Weapons" Ban talking about when it refers to "assault weapons"? Listen/read very closely.... The term "assault weapons" in the '94 Ban is defined as any firearm that cosmetically or ergonomically resembles a military weapon. To help clarify this, the following is an excerpt borrowed from www.awbansunset.com:
"Most of us that have reasonable knowledge and experience with firearms recognized from the start that the AWB definitions were primarily about the cosmetic features of the weapons and not their actual functionality or lethality.This fact is supported by a quick comparison of a rifle that was banned (Colt AR-15) and one that was not. (Ruger Mini-14) Both of these weapons fire the same exact cartridge and bullet, the .223 Remington. Both are semi-automatic. Both can accept detachable magazines. Functionally, these are very similar weapons. So what is the main difference? The AR-15 has a black synthetic stock and looks like a military weapon. The Ruger Mini-14 has a wooden stock, and looks more “conventional.” "
Wow, two weapons that share the same lethality and capabilty of mass carnage and violence... But just 'cause one looks more "evil" or "militaristic" than the other, it gets banned. Hmmm.... 'kinda makes you question the legitimacy of the law, huh? Did it [the '94 Ban] stop Columbine? Did it stop Jonesboro? Or did it even stop the D.C sniper shootings? Hell no. The only thing this law accomplished was to frustrate and complicate the lives of legal gun owners (whether you agree/like them or not). So yeah, I'm glad this thing is over and done with.
Sorry to rant like this, this is already a waaayyy too long post. But I thought it was necessary to help clarify this and help stop the popular disinformed concept from spreading.... That and I haven't posted in a month so I figure I'd catch up.
*braces for the public backlash and imminent flaming*
[RTI] ZeroFunction
Comments:
Post a Comment
