Is it true that the senate has passed a law to make these guns legal?  What are they thinking?  If they do that the streets are just going to get worst than it already is.  Its going to turn into some a ROBO COP movie or something.

What’s an oozie? Is that like some sort of weapon that shoots that green stuff from the ninja turtles?

I know Uzis are pretty cool, though.

[quote author=“Tighr”]What’s an oozie? Is that like some sort of weapon that shoots that green stuff from the ninja turtles?

I know Uzis are pretty cool, though.

burn.

ya, i think i’ll go buy an ak47 now..when do they start sellin them at wal mart?

What’s wrong with wrong with the legislation?  Drug dealers and gang members get their hands on them wether they are legal or not—it’s time to start arming for the revolution :D

:lol:  right, haha, uzis….. what was i thinking?  :think:

AK 47- the pot strain is the best.. woohoo.. I need a bong load!

woot, I’m gonna go buy an AK-47 then.. 8)

They didn’t pass a new law. The ban just expired.

I see your location says NorCal.. what part?

Central Valley, commute to “live-no-more” (livermore) everyday :o

[quote author=“antman22”][quote author=“Tighr”]What’s an oozie? Is that like some sort of weapon that shoots that green stuff from the ninja turtles?

I know Uzis are pretty cool, though.

burn.

ya, i think i’ll go buy an ak47 now..when do they start sellin them at wal mart?

Never, don’t you remember “Bowling for Columbine”? Or was that K-mart… :?

As for the bill, what I’ve heard is that it’s pretty useless, and that’s why they didn’t renew the ban… :think:

All you Cali people, I’m pretty sure this won’t really change much for you. I think you guys already have really strict guns laws…  :think:

EDIT: and btw, I think you can already buy AK47’s…I’d post a link to a gunsite, but I don’t want to encourage any violence… keep it in the video games :mischeif:

im buying a AK to go hunting with it.

I know where that is.  I was raised in SF. Livermore has nothingin it- do you work at the Labs?

They didn’t pass a law, they simply let the ban go.  Bush didn’t push congress to renew the ban and congress didn’t want to make time for it. So now you can by Kashalnikovs, Uzies, and other assault weapons. Great, now I kill all of my fellow students in one magazine.  This is fucked up.

Come on man, we already talked about this in the other thread. Presidential effect on legislation returns small yields, but the President will take all the credit when things go his (her, someday 😛) way 😛 You’ve got to be listening to the news, all the reports I’ve heard on it, claim it’s pretty useless.

No you cannot buy AK47’s or Uzi’s…they are still banned by a previous law…though, I am pretty sure you have been able to buy variants of the AK for a very long time. My friend’s dad owns one, and another friend of mine actually owns a Chinese AK variant. Face it, you can find the AK in most black markets for about 50 bucks…If the criminals in this country want them, they aren’t going to have that hard a time smuggling them in…We have weak borders :(

According to this article , mainly what is being banned are the accessories of weapons. You’ve always been able to buy automatic weapons (search AR-15), this just allows for more shot capacities, suppressors, collapsible stocks, and bayonets.

While I can see why some of these things were banned, I don’t see the point in most prohibition acts. If someone wants something bad enough, they’re going to get it. This really doesn’t affect me at all, because folks, you could already buy high-shot mags…hate to break it to you. There are several places that sold pre-ban accessories, so if I wanted to buy a 30-shot mag for the AR-15, I could have done so for the past ten years. All this does, is lower the price :think:

I’m not for offering the bayonet though, that’s just not right…no civ. should need a bayonet.

i dont know but is all over the news.  You can buy a gun now since the law has expired and you better buy a gun soon before they put a new law up

^^^read my post 😛

I realize it wasn’t Bush’s fault that it didn’t get renewed and you’re right it probably didn’t do much but I feel safer when stuff is in writing. 

Essentially the bill forbade assault weapons from being kept in the home. It also bans the manufacture of 19 weapons, including AK-47’s, Uzies, and Colt AR 15’s. Copies or duplicates of the weapons are banned.  Even if you don’t think this is a big deal, I think it’s something that should have been renewed anyway. You can’t honestly claim that you need a Kashalnikov, the international symbol for revolution, for hunting or home protection. That’s ridiculous.  A simple glock is enough for home security. These are military assault weapons, not your father’s saturday night special.  I personally feel that not renewing this is a pledge from Bush to gun lobbyists who were pushing for this not to get renewed.

One last thing…who needs a bayonet? Honestly, unless you’re a civil war reenactor I guess.  But then again, we did use bayonets up through the vietnam war. So it could be handy if the Viet Cong attack us.

[quote author=“sweet jesus”]I realize it wasn’t Bush’s fault that it didn’t get renewed and you’re right it probably didn’t do much but I feel safer when stuff is in writing. 

Essentially the bill forbade assault weapons from being kept in the home. It also bans the manufacture of 19 weapons, including AK-47’s, Uzies, and Colt AR 15’s. Copies or duplicates of the weapons are banned.  Even if you don’t think this is a big deal, I think it’s something that should have been renewed anyway. You can’t honestly claim that you need a Kashalnikov, the international symbol for revolution, for hunting or home protection. That’s ridiculous.  A simple glock is enough for home security. These are military assault weapons, not your father’s saturday night special.  I personally feel that not renewing this is a pledge from Bush to gun lobbyists who were pushing for this not to get renewed.

One last thing…who needs a bayonet? Honestly, unless you’re a civil war reenactor I guess.  But then again, we did use bayonets up through the vietnam war. So it could be handy if the Viet Cong attack us.

There you go again with your conspiracy theories 😛

I’m 100% positive you can purchase Colt AR-15’s, but they lack slight modifications that the military M-16 series carries. I’ve seen this weapon up for purchase on several gun websites, so I’m positive you’re wrong there.

Also, read the ABCNews article on it. It says that there are previous weapons bans that include the AK-47 and Uzi, so I doubt this bill being dropped will affect anything.

I agree, it does make some people feel safe. For that, I won’t argue with you. You have a right to feel safe, and if a piece of paper makes you feel safe…then so be it :D However, I don’t feel you should feel any less safe because this bill hasn’t been renewed. Again, read the article…

Also, I’m not quite sure why you think it banned keeping assault rifles in the home. I know several people who own various assault rifles, and they are kept in their homes. If you are talking about particular assault rifles (the AK-47 or the Uzi), as I said before, they are still (presumably) banned because of prior legislative acts. However, I really don’t think the AK weapons series are banned… I could point to several places and say, “Look, AK’s available for sale to US citizens!” Not sure much has changed, except for the Uzi, which, I believe is still banned.

/beginning my political conspiracy theory

I feel that, when the people at the DNC got ahold of this story, they saw an opportunity to spin it into something they could use to their advantage. The puppets then spoke, and now you have this entire media flurry over nothing more than suppressors, collapsible stocks, and bayonets. I’ve seen suppressors for sale before, so I’m not sure that was affected all that much. Plus, we’re talking about things that can be home made, which in turns makes it more economical for the would-be criminals to not buy these things anyway.

I agree with you on the bayonets, and I’m sure if enough people care about this antiquated weapon being released to the public, then our great government (yeah, right) will pass measures to bring it back from the dead.

The Viet Cong…did you see “We Were Soldiers”? The Viet Cong soldiers depicted in that movie were courageous, seemingly fearless, and totally committed to their country. I don’t want to talk about whether or not we should have been there, though. That’s a mindless discussion now, as retrospective looks at this topic would yield little or no benefit.

I’m not sure I’d like to live in a world that is mostly governed by Communistic rule. Think of the former Soviet Union, and then think, that if the whole world were like that, of how much humanitarian aid we’d be being asked to give… Not an economically bright scenario for anyone…

I brought up the Vietnam thing as a joke, I almost mentioned the Viet Cong attacking Texas as a rip on Bush but I decided to hold back.

Anyway, I didn’t pull those facts about the laws banning policies from the DNC, screw Kerry. I got them from the BBC News website which outlined the basics of the ban and how it may affect gun purchases. Don’t insult me by telling me everything is a conspiracy theory just because it doesn’t align with your political views.  This simply data I got from a website just as you did.  Most states probably have, or at least should have a ban on the sale and distribution of these weapons, so no this ban not being renewed probably won’t have a big impact. It’s a matter of principal, not practice.

Hold on their buddy, wasn’t trying to make fun of the whole post, just this part:
[quote author=“sweet jesus”]I personally feel that not renewing this is a pledge from Bush to gun lobbyists who were pushing for this not to get renewed.

This is a theory, some, like me, would call it a conspiracy theory. I wasn’t saying your whole post was a conspiracy theory.

I honestly didn’t know where you got that information about the illegal act of keeping an assault rifle in a privately owned home. I question it because I know several people who own assault rifles, including AK variants. Not because it’s from the BBC, which I’ve heard is as Liberal as you get (like what the Liberals say FOX is to Republicans).

Felt a little tension there, and we’ve been getting along okay lately 😉 Hope that clears it up…

I think we simply have a misunderstanding in what we each consider a conspiracy theory. I usually reserve the phrase for something outlandish like aliens using the Nazca lines in the Andes as landing stations. The phrase also reminds me of that stupid Mel Gibson movie. Anyway, for my idea that Bush didn’t renew the ban as means of getting in good with the gun lobby I would simply use the word theory.  I’m not saying it’s certain, I’m saying that it’s a reasonable assumption considering that gun rights are often a conservative issue rather than a liberal one, which is why Kerry got all pissy about it.

As for the BBC being liberal, I would agree that their’s is usually a more liberal stand-point but that’s because England is traditionally a more liberal country than the US. They provide the best around-the-world news with quick updates and details which is why I read it.  Like I’ve mentioned before, I usually get my US political news from a US website but BBC presented the simple facts about the ban and why it’s non-renewal might be an issue.  I also like their news because it gives a good outside view of news which is helpful when dealing with a subject that I would like a more objective view.  They often present cases from both sides.

In respect to the theory vs. conspiracy theory, it’s not what you said that is something most would consider a conspiracy…it’s what you implied by saying it.

Basically, that Bush would allow criminals to own things that could potentially harm innocent people, just to line his pockets with gun-lobbyist’s money. A conspiracy theory by definition is, “An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.” I think we can both agree that what was implied is a conspiracy. It may not be too difficult a leap for people’s brains to make, but it certainly is a thing of conspiracy.

As for BBC, I’m not sure which European News organization is was, but during the early days of Iraq, I remember a US news report that basically told of a European News report that was totally and completely false…a politically motivated piece. They refused to apologize for, or acknowledge, it’s fallacy. Ever since then I’ve kind of disregarded the more politically stained reports that come out of there.

I agree that an objective bias is a good thing to have when reporting the news, but I’m not sure they are completely objective or unbias when it comes to politics. I’m not sure any news agency is… It just all comes down to the one you choose that makes you sleep better (or worse, depending upon how you like your news) at night… Basically, whichever broadcaster puts out stories that are more in-tune with your inner feelings as to how the world is or how it should be. It isn’t really about who’s giving you the news or what their political agenda is, because you’ll reject it if you don’t agree with it.

I think my political views are pretty apparent, but you can’t fault me on what I believe 😛

Are you talking about when the BBC apparently said that Blair had greatly exaggerated the prevalence of WMD’s to war against Iraq?  That’s the only one I can think of.  I’ll need to read more about it before I can render a judgment.  I think we can both agree that news, from any source is going to be biased. We could go and look at Iraq or any event for ourselves and we’d still bicker about it probably 😛 My fate as a historian will be the constant struggle ascertain objectivity but it’s not possible.  Curse you Renaissance and your stupid objectivity theories!!

I know where that is.  I was raised in SF. Livermore has nothingin it- do you work at the Labs?

Yeah I know, however, Livermore is WAY better than Tracy. I don’t work at the labs (I used to work right across from them though! hehe) but I go to LPC there full time.  After this year is up, I’ll be transferring out of there into the university. 

Maybe once I get to Cal Poly,  I’ll plan a trip to L.A. and say what’s up 😊