Gun banning and fast and furious...

[billc]

There may be more to the claim that the "Fast and Furious" disaster was actually aimed at private ownership of firearms in the states. The following article details the type of guns that were allowed to walk versus the type of gun the cartels actually prefer. The price point on the weapons details that buying guns in the U.S. is more expensive for the cartels than getting them on the black market. The article...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/smoking-gun...ets-of-ban-efforts-but-not-wanted-by-cartels/

AK-pattern rifles and pistols, and AR-pattern rifles are some of the most common semi-auto firearms in America. Interest in these weapons skyrocketed due to the drama anti-gun organizations drummed up when they coined the phrase “assault weapon,” attaching it to these and similar firearms in order to craft the 1994 AW ban. The side effect was to make these firearms far more desirable. Today, entire shooting sports have been developed around the AR in particular.
Interestingly enough, the selective-fire versions of these weapons can be had far more cheaply on the black market than the semi-automatic version in U.S gun shops (selective-fire versions, if they can be found, require an extensive background check conducted over weeks, and cost tens of thousands of dollars). A selective fire AK-47 or AKM can be had for $100 or (far less) depending on conditions on the black market, while semi-automatic versions routinely cost $400 and up in U.S. gun stores.
AR-15 rifles routinely cost $750 for the most basic versions, and quality versions can easily run more than $1000 each. The cartels raid armories and buy selective-fire M-16 and M-4 rifles from deserting or corrupt Mexican military members for far less than the semi-automatic rifles finding their way to the cartels with federal government assistance, or obtain them from the same South American armories that they get their grenades from. It is a bit harder to pin-down a “street price” for an M-16/M-4 in Mexico, but cartels can probably obtain them for $5o0 or less.
The point, of course, is that it isn’t remotely cost-effective for cartels to buy these weapons in the U.S.
Yet the AK- and AR-pattern weapons that are most bitterly opposed by gun-grabbing groups and politicians in the United States are the most common weapons purchased by Operation Fast and Furious.

 

[JohnEdward]

I doubt this argument will drop the ban on AK weapons. I am for the ban, and I am pro gun. Why? Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of every red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.

The only time I want to see these weapons in the public’s hands is when everybody needs one to protect the country. Sorry gun enthusiasts who get off shooting such a weapon and want the ban lifted. I think the ban should be lifted when needed. Yes, that would be in an ideal world.

 

[granfire]

I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one.

Just Joe Smoe does not need one.

 

[ballen0351]

I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one. Just Joe Smoe does not need one.

problem is where do we draw the line to say one gun is bad and one is not? An AK is not more or less of a danger then say a 12 gauge that you can buy at your local walmart. The AK is just became the poster child for the anti gun crowd and recieves bad rep kinda like the pit bull dog.

 

[granfire]

problem is where do we draw the line to say one gun is bad and one is not? An AK is not more or less of a danger then say a 12 gauge that you can buy at your local walmart. The AK is just became the poster child for the anti gun crowd and recieves bad rep kinda like the pit bull dog.

Try to knock something out of a tree with a shotgun a mile down range....

Guns have no alternate purpose than to go boom and make a life thing a dead thing. Targets are really only a training device.

I do agree, in itself any gun is as good or as bad as any other. But like pitbulls, certain guns attract a certain kind of 'user' who tends to abuse the item in similar manner.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I doubt this argument will drop the ban on AK weapons. I am for the ban, and I am pro gun. Why? Because I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of every red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.

The only time I want to see these weapons in the public’s hands is when everybody needs one to protect the country. Sorry gun enthusiasts who get off shooting such a weapon and want the ban lifted. I think the ban should be lifted when needed. Yes, that would be in an ideal world.

Most people who favor bans on so-called 'assault weapons' don't know what they are. Case in point ^^^

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can understand the thrill it offers a shooter to fire such a gun. And I don't even mind competitive marksmen to have one.

Just Joe Smoe does not need one.

Joe Smoe has a legal right under the 2nd Amendment. Your objection is noted and dismissed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Try to knock something out of a tree with a shotgun a mile down range....

Guns have no alternate purpose than to go boom and make a life thing a dead thing. Targets are really only a training device.

I do agree, in itself any gun is as good or as bad as any other. But like pitbulls, certain guns attract a certain kind of 'user' who tends to abuse the item in similar manner.

First, so-called 'assault rifles' don't have that kind of range or accuracy. See my above comments on people who favor bans on assault rifles not knowing what they are.

Second, 'scary gun syndrome' is no different that 'scary book syndrome'. You know, banning certain books that just attract the wrong kind of person... Yep, same-same.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Normally I would be all for a ban, but I help make assault rifles; so, buy up.

 

[granfire]

Joe Smoe has a legal right under the 2nd Amendment. Your objection is noted and dismissed.

Oh baloney!
There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.


(and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)

 

[JohnEdward]

Most people who favor bans on so-called 'assault weapons' don't know what they are. Case in point ^^^

Case in point ^^^^^That is my concern. Just because I favor a ban, does that make me what, ignorant? No, it makes me rational and a responsible gun owner. It is the kind of idiots who lack the respect for weapon, who think it is a toy of some kind that they have the God given right to have to play with. Those people shouldn't have a weapon. They don't want any type of ban, and what the ban lifted that it shows their ignorance and irresponsibility. People like that don't respect or deserve a weapon.

 

[ballen0351]

Oh baloney!There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.(and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)

If I recall correctly from my military days max range on a standard AK is only like 400 yards. Compared to a .308 which is over 900 meters and I can buy a 308 anywhere

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh baloney!
There are a lot of things that while generally covered have limiting factors asigned to them by laws. Like the1st amendment: if the general interest demands it your right is sharply curtailed! Like yelling fire in a crowded space.

No, not if the 'general interest demands it'.

(and those guns better be that accurate and powerful, naturally, much depends on the ammo...)

Well, they're NOT, and that is regardless of the ammo, which goes to my point. You don't know squat about so-called 'assault rifles' and yet you believe you know enough about them to ban them. You don't even know what they are.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That is my concern. Just because I favor a ban, does that make me what, ignorant?

No, you have every right to favor a ban, just as I have every right not to favor a ban. It doesn't make you ignorant. Not knowing what it is you want to ban, THAT makes you ignorant.

No, it makes me rational and a responsible gun owner. It is the kind of idiots who lack the respect for weapon, who think it is a toy of some kind that they have the God given right to have to play with. Those people shouldn't have a weapon. They don't want any type of ban, and what the ban lifted that it shows their ignorance and irresponsibility. People like that don't respect or deserve a weapon. Case in point ^^^^^

You can apply your same argument to the right to practice religion, speak freely, and read books; there are certainly people who cannot be trusted not to do something awful in the name of religion, to foment hatred and strife, and to read the ideas of those people who practice both. But the same Constitution which protects their right to worship Satan if they want, or to speak their minds in public debate, or to read hate literature or listen to 'hate radio' also allows people who are otherwise law-abiding to buy guns. The fact that they can't be trusted is not a legal reason to take their guns away. I put you in the same category as book burners; oppressors of liberty.

 

[ballen0351]

More people die from being fat then AK47s so I say we ban forks

 

[JohnEdward]

The people who support the ban are the ones I feel more comfortable with having then those who want the ban completely lifted like guy Bill quoted. Why because they respect and fear the weapon, and that is why they want the ban. It is the other idiots who are gung-ho and foaming at the mouth who want to drop the ban so they can get their hands on one. A fire arm isn't a toy, nor an aphrodisiac. It is designed to take life. It bothers me greatly when I come across people who see it as a toy, and an aphrodisiac, much less than someone who wants to kill someone else with it. Never the less, those yahoos, make me very uncomfortable with attitude. Fully automatic weapons are made to expend a high number of rounds in seconds, to kill and kill fast, to assault with little marksmanship skill. It isn't a sniper rifle where you have one shot. That in of its self in the wrong hands can end many lives very quick in a public place, and we have seen it done. One too many times. A disregard for the killing capacity and power of such a weapon to kill indicates great ignorance and lack of personal responsibility.

As a long time gun owner, I am worried as there is such a great lack of respect and responsibility of those who own and will be come gun owners and their accessibility to get their hands on such a weapon.

 

[ballen0351]

Your proving his point you know nothing about these weapons. Have you ever fired a full auto rifle? If you have then you know it takes a great deal of skill to hit anything at full auto. Most people after first round goes off send the next 10 in the air due to the recoil. Its much harder to shoot in full auto then in semi auto which is why the military stopped making the M16 in full auto because it was a waist of rounds

 

[billc]

I keep pointing out that a vitamin enriched gruel, served at a government commissary, issued in a government sanctioned quantity is really all the food we would need. It would end obesity, ensure everyone had enough to eat, and be a much easier way for the government to control, that is, monitor the health of the population. We could have government scales at each food distribution point to weigh each citizen. Why shouldn't we do this, I mean, if it saves just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

 

[billc]

The gung ho nuts already have the weapons and are the ones shooting people already. The sane, law abiding, responsible people are the ones who do not have the weapons, why...because they obey the law in the first place. Law abiding citizens are not the problem in any way, shape or form. Just last week or the week before, police officers were arrested selling weapons to criminals. Once again, the law abiding citizens are not the problem. I have no fear of my neighbors having assault rifles, pistols, deer rifles or even fully automatic weapons. I do fear street gangs, drug cartels and lone nut jobs, but here is the thing, they already have those weapons because they acquire them ILLEGALLY.

 

[billc]

And here we have, I am responsible, it is just everyone else who needs to be controlled controlled attitude.