Assault weapons ban lifted?

[PyRo]

I want a P38, those things are just sweet. Dig yours up today http://thelostsquadron.com/

[Sir_Brass]

mainly b/c it could stand up against their zeros. Now those things were scary. not exactly heavilly armored, but they were maneuverable as hell. in a head to head engagement, whoever was the first to chicken had to deal with the guy on his tail. And talking to a WWII fighter ace not too long ago (this man was AMAZING!! Still up and around at 96 years of age!! WOW! not even a presumed-terminal illness could kill him!), a zero is something you DON'T want to have on your tail, b/c that would mean you wave bye bye to your plane, and quite possibly your life as well.

[bleachit]

if I remember correctly, from a aviation magazine article I read a few years back, almost all of the US fighters in the Pacific could out dive a zero, so that the was the preferred method of getting them off your tail. I dont know for sure, but by the time the corsair and hellcat went operational, the zeroes were pretty much outclassed, I think. especially when their experienced pilots killed off more and more throughout the war.

[Lopy-slopy]

Wow, too much nationalism here, from my canadian point of view, it just seems like another case of americans saying "in our constitutions it says we can own whatever the heck we want with which to hurt things with so that's exactly what I'm gonna do." The constitution is like the bible, it can be interperited differently by differnt people, and people will fight for their rights as they interperit them. Most people here will not change their views on their rights so their is no use in trying too. I think this is sad, That kind of attitude has caused many wars and does not help socity evolve and become better.

Most importanly, as said before in this thread, it's over 200 years old, no matter how well it was written back then, the world is very differnt today, and you need to be able to accept change in the way your country works. I'm not saying any of the fundemental freedoms should be changed, but people should alow for certain things to be alterd so they are relevant to today. I know that people are more than willing to give human life rather than change their rights, but is it realy worth it?

No one here can argue with the fact that no civilian NEEDS an assult riffle. you can always buy some other kind of gun. IMO the fewer gun out their, the better, but I dont want to start another for or against gun argument here. This is just my view on this debate, it may be unconstitutional, but it does make sence in keeping people safe, and I think saving lives is more important than a peice of paper.

[bleachit]

to quote Lenny

"you need an assault rifle to hunt today's modern super animals. Like the flying squirrel, or electric eel."

[PyRo]

*Agrees, super animals require super weapons

[tony emerson]

A little website to help you understand the 1994 assault weapon BAN

[breg]

It's no doubt that the gun laws in this country are a hot topic.

I sincerly hope that the bill goes the way of Michael Jackson's hetrosexuality. Mostly because I was raised around firearms of various types, and since I was raised that way, I have a heathly respect for them and what they are capable of.

That, and being a perspcetive gun owner myself, I would like to see some of the restivctive laws dissappear.

I had a friend that had a pre-ban SKS and he was telling me that with magazine X and folding stock it was illegal. Some of that just makes no sense to me.

BTW, just to make offical, Collegeoy: You're trolling ... Just Kidding

[m-98]

Look I agree with you all, I believe that we should consider the technology we have today when interpreting the Contitution. I was just pointing out that some people have different ways of interpreting it (I have trouble expressing my thoughts with words). It's like a book, one person sees one thing, another sees something different.

I have had my question answered and I would like to thank everyone for pointing out my mistakes.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by m-98
Well, if we interpret the Constitution literally we can only have muzzle loading muskets and cannons because that is all they had back then.

False

If we interpret it literally we can bear all arms, because it doesn't place any restriction on the types of arms permitted. It doesn't specify cannons and muskets.

However, as pro gun as I am, I am all for sensible regulation. Frankly, machine guns and grenade launchers are just a recipe for too many accidents to justify, so I've never minded that kind of restrictions.

[shartley]

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. 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. Furthermore, the right to bear arms for protection of ones self and possessions shall not be infringed upon.http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/rkba.html#our-rights

There are some FANTASTIC articles there, as well as other great information. Be careful though, you may end up reading for days.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley
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. 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. Furthermore, the right to bear arms for protection of ones self and possessions shall not be infringed upon.http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/rkba.html#our-rights

There are some FANTASTIC articles there, as well as other great information. Be careful though, you may end up reading for days.

Wow, a great post and sums up my ideas on this subject. Great post.

[Albinonewt]

Shartly:

And important thing to remember when discussing the well regulated militia is that 200+ years ago what is now considered the National Guard was simply just regular people that showed up with their own arms to drill and train. A well regulated milita at that point was simply regular folk, not professional soldiers like today's national guard.

Let us also not forget the meaning of the word militia:

PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: m-lsh KEY
NOUN: 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

We do not currently have one of these anymore, as the National Guard (professional soldiers) have long replaced the need. But I would argue that the fact we no longer maintain a militia does not negate our constitutional right to do so.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Shartly:

And important thing to remember when discussing the well regulated militia is that 200+ years ago what is now considered the National Guard was simply just regular people that showed up with their own arms to drill and train. A well regulated milita at that point was simply regular folk, not professional soldiers like today's national guard.

Let us also not forget the meaning of the word militia:

PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: m-lsh KEY
NOUN: 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

We do not currently have one of these anymore, as the National Guard (professional soldiers) have long replaced the need. But I would argue that the fact we no longer maintain a militia does not negate our constitutional right to do so.

[MaChu]

So does this mean that the public is open to purchase selective fire arms that only law enforcement were allowed to now?