# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Obama Administration to seek new Assault Weapons Ban

## AandF6969

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1




> The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
> 
> "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
> 
> Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
> 
> "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
> 
> Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
> ...


 : 1106:

----------


## BgMc31

Although I'm a supporter of the pres. This is one area I don't agree with him. While I don't see the need for assault weapons for hunting or home defense (I am an avid hunter and weapons collector), an all out ban on these weapons is a slippery slope when characterizing what is considered an assault weapon. Besides it would never pass either houses of congress. It would be political suicide for congress people who preside over large rural communities.

----------


## AandF6969

> Although I'm a supporter of the pres. This is one area I don't agree with him. While I don't see the need for assault weapons for hunting or home defense (I am an avid hunter and weapons collector), an all out ban on these weapons is a slippery slope when characterizing what is considered an assault weapon. Besides it would never pass either houses of congress. It would be political suicide for congress people who preside over large rural communities.


The second amendment is not about hunting or home defense... The second amendment is about a final "check and balance" against a tyrannical, oppressive government. 

To put it bluntly, the Second Amendment is about killing people.

----------


## *RAGE*

I am taking my gun and moving to mexico

----------


## gst528i

little by little stripping people's power. Giving the govt more power. WOOT

----------


## Razzberry

Score one for the criminals if they succeed.

----------


## Nooomoto

I'm sure the Mexican drug cartels will be completely shut down by an assault weapons ban. This whole thing about drug cartels and their military-version assault rifles is a smoke screen being used by politicos to further a liberal agenda. Banning assault weapons (of which I own several, and yes I would use them to defend my home and have been properly trained to do so) in the US isn't going to change the activities of the Mexican drug cartel's. They obviously don't give a flying fk about the laws set forth by Obama's or any other administration.

Fking liberals.

----------


## spywizard

> little by little stripping people's power. Giving the govt more power. WOOT



just like england, seems to be working for them *rolls eyes

----------


## AandF6969

I read about the Mexcian cartels and how they were using AUTOMATIC weapons and grenades... hmm funny, how the **** would a SEMIAUTO ban change that?

----------


## *RAGE*

> I read about the Mexcian cartels and how they were using AUTOMATIC weapons and grenades... hmm funny, how the **** would a SEMIAUTO ban change that?


A ban it not going to change anything...except for us,,,,the criminals with still get there you wont...

----------


## Flagg

Yes, because comparing America to the UK as some sort of modern day Russia seems to be the latest internet thing.. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Kratos

I'd like to know who the citizens are in favor of more gun control. Sure there are some, but for some reason I highly doubt the majority. I don't think the American people are demanding these actions and laws for some reason. Anytime I hear arguments in favor of gun control, it's the politicians telling us we need stricter gun laws. I've yet to meet someone who's stated it as their reason for voting for a specific candidate. It seems to be what politicians in power want.

----------


## Nooomoto

> I'd like to know who the citizens are in favor of more gun control. Sure there are some, but for some reason I highly doubt the majority. I don't think the American people are demanding these actions and laws for some reason. Anytime I hear arguments in favor of gun control, it's the politicians telling us we need stricter gun laws. I've yet to meet someone who's stated it as their reason for voting for a specific candidate. It seems to be what politicians in power want.


I bet none of them live on the border to Mexico! Imagine having to deal with automatic weapon toting drug runners and enforcers, when you can't own a semi-auto assault rifle? I remember on the news a couple weeks ago hearing about a town in Arizona that had 400 kidnappings occur in 2008...400!

Police are nifty and all, but they usually aren't there when you need them. They show up after everyone has been dropped, putz around the scene and put yellow tape every where. They also call press-conferences, which is immensely helpful.

----------


## amcon

impeach now!!! save our country... if this law passes it will slowly allow for more and more amendments to it that will lead to the lack of guns to the general society ... watch for amo regualtions coming asap behind this!!!

----------


## quarry206

the guns that use to be banned are typically not weapons that america's were buying anyways.. AR-15's and AK-47/AK-74 were not part of clintons ban..

but i honestly believe this is all just talk, kinda like what EVERY administration does just to make it look like they are serious. thats why they down play a time frame...

This is the same thing Bush did in 2004 about gay marriage, said he was going to put an end to it, he said he was going to push bills against it, then after he won all he said about gays and lesbians was wishing the best for his Vice-presidents lesbian daughter for have a baby that would be raised by her and her lesbian lover... 

ITS JUST POLITICAL BULL_SH*T DON'T LOOK SO DEEP INTO IT

----------


## AandF6969

> the guns that use to be banned are typically not weapons that america's were buying anyways.. AR-15's and AK-47/AK-74 were not part of clintons ban..


AR15's and AK47's were most definitely part of the Clinton gun ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

"By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms "

----------


## quarry206

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

those are the Clinton requirements for an Assault weapon..


i personally bought both an AR-15 and an AK-47 in Florida in 2003 during the ban. legally without a class III permit... so what i didn't have a flash suppressor or bayonet mount, who cares... and please hear me out, i am totally against the ban, i am also against the taking away of any of our rights. but as long as we have the political system that we have it won't be changed.

once again though people are ripping into the a side bar of what i sad.. the point still is the bill was past back then by both house of or congress, not just the president The point of what i wrote is every president has people in their cabinet that talk out of their ass in front of the media..I am just very against people putting blame on any political figures that have nothing directly to do with it. if we went throughout history and talked about every idea that was thrown on in a new conference and never put into action we could go on forever..

crime will never be changed by the speed of ease of the ability to get a weapons!

----------


## AandF6969

I do recall seeing on barackobama.com that he supports reinstating the Assault Weapon ban. That, and his heinous voting record regarding guns are what make me question anything that comes out of his mouth. 

While in IL, he voted to ban handguns, ban semi-autos, allow weapon confiscation in the event of a natural disaster... etc etc.

----------


## BgMc31

Could someone point to a successful country with absolutely no gun control? Canada has it, Australia has it as well. Both countries restrict assault weapons as well. I point out those countries because when Obama won the presidency, those are the two countries I saw many of you wanting to run to.

Then again there are countries with no gun control, Jamaica, Brazil, Mexico, Aghanistan, etc.

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I just want to know what valid argument there is for no gun control. The simple argument of the 2nd admendment isn't good enough for me. Saying that, IMO, is akin to religious fanatic saying homosexuality is wrong simply because it says so in the bible. Ridiculous IMO.

I bring this up because over the last couple days, there has been two heinous crimes gun crimes recently. One in Germany (who has the tightest gun control laws on the planet, I think), the other in Alabama who has a large gun ownership population. Not to mention the recent church shooting a couple days ago. I'm looking for solutions, there has got to be some type of effective middle ground on this. I don't think arming everyone will solve the problem, nor will taking all guns away from everybody will either.

----------


## Nooomoto

> I bring this up because over the last couple days, there has been two heinous crimes gun crimes recently. One in Germany (who has the tightest gun control laws on the planet, I think), the other in Alabama who has a large gun ownership population. Not to mention the recent church shooting a couple days ago. I'm looking for solutions, there has got to be some type of effective middle ground on this. I don't think arming everyone will solve the problem, nor will taking all guns away from everybody will either.


Imagine if the victims in all of these crimes had guns to defend themselves against the criminals who obviously aren't too concerned with the laws of our society? Law enforcement obviously could not protect these people. When this is the case, which it is...it is up to you to defend yourself. How exactly do you plan to do that when someone (a criminal) uses a gun against you, and your hands are tied because you're a law abiding citizen that chooses to not own a weapon?

----------


## BgMc31

> Imagine if the victims in all of these crimes had guns to defend themselves against the criminals who obviously aren't too concerned with the laws of our society? Law enforcement obviously could not protect these people. When this is the case, which it is...it is up to you to defend yourself. How exactly do you plan to do that when someone (a criminal) uses a gun against you, and your hands are tied because you're a law abiding citizen that chooses to not own a weapon?


All the victims in the Alabama shootings had guns in their homes. They just didn't/couldn't get to them. Do you expect to allow teenagers in school to carry guns (in the Germany incident)?

The perpatrator of both crimes and the church killing were all legal registered gun owners. Clarification...the parents of the german school shooter was a registered gun owner.

----------


## Nooomoto

They got caught slipping. My M4 and Glock 23 are ready to go. Had they been better prepared, maybe some of the deaths couldve been avoided.
I expect school children to be protected by someone with the ability to properly do so.

----------


## BgMc31

So you expect police in every classroom? And you would expect every person to walk around armed without any oversight? That's just not logical! I have a CCW as well (because of my job), but there are several places I cannot carry the weapon(s). Having a firearm won't prevent idiots from shooting up places nor will it guarantee someone will use their own weapon to protect everyone else. Unless you've seen combat or been in situations where deadly force has to be used, you cannot guarantee whether you'll be able to respond appropriately and not end up shooting an innocent bystander. That is why I'm in favor of gun licensing.

----------


## Nooomoto

Well I won't get into where I've been and what I've done with you. But rest assured anyone coming in my house wishing harm upon my family will not be leaving on their own accord.

I don't have a problem with licensing someone who wishes to own a firearm. What I have a problem with is banning assault rifles. 

Guns will not prevent bad things from happening, but they can soften the blow. There are many incidents which could have been drastically less tragic had someone taken it upon themselves to stop a rampaging gunman. Theres no reason that large amounts of people should die at the hands of one deranged individual who feels he has the right to walk around shooting people.

Criminals are criminals. By definition, they break laws. Banning assault weapons will not prevent criminals from obtaining and using these weapons, it will only handicap people's ability to defend themselves.

In your own town of Las Vegas, there was a man named Jose Vigoa. For two years he ran rampant up and down the strip taking armored trucks and casinos for millions of dollars. No one could stop him. Why? Because he was prepared. He was a criminal, he saw weaknesses and exploited them. He was bringing AK-47s and MAK-90s against Smith & Wesson revolvers. What if some of the people he killed had been better armed and trained to deal with a situation? He cut down two armored car guards in a parking lot, in broad day light, on the strip.

----------


## spywizard

> AR15's and AK47's were most definitely part of the Clinton gun ban.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
> 
> "By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms "



and the current one says "any weapon that needs a magazine"

that pretty much covers 80% of weapons owned by Law abiding citizens

----------


## BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, *BgMc*.

You're a Christian right? I'm a bit confused about this statement of yours:




> Saying that, IMO, is akin to religious fanatic saying homosexuality is wrong simply because it says so in the bible. Ridiculous IMO.


So it would be religious fanaticism to hold that homosexuality is wrong even though it is explicitly stated in the Bible that it is?

----------


## BgMc31

> Well I won't get into where I've been and what I've done with you. But rest assured anyone coming in my house wishing harm upon my family will not be leaving on their own accord.
> 
> I don't have a problem with licensing someone who wishes to own a firearm. What I have a problem with is banning assault rifles. 
> 
> Guns will not prevent bad things from happening, but they can soften the blow. There are many incidents which could have been drastically less tragic had someone taken it upon themselves to stop a rampaging gunman. Theres no reason that large amounts of people should die at the hands of one deranged individual who feels he has the right to walk around shooting people.
> 
> Criminals are criminals. By definition, they break laws. Banning assault weapons will not prevent criminals from obtaining and using these weapons, it will only handicap people's ability to defend themselves.
> 
> In your own town of Las Vegas, there was a man named Jose Vigoa. For two years he ran rampant up and down the strip taking armored trucks and casinos for millions of dollars. No one could stop him. Why? Because he was prepared. He was a criminal, he saw weaknesses and exploited them. He was bringing AK-47s and MAK-90s against Smith & Wesson revolvers. What if some of the people he killed had been better armed and trained to deal with a situation? He cut down two armored car guards in a parking lot, in broad day light, on the strip.



I was speaking in generalizations not specifically about you. The average citizen wouldn't be able to properly handle a high stress situation. 

Poor choice of examples when using Jose Vioga. Why? Because he robbed casinoes with armed guards and armored cars with armed guards. Regardless of the firearms the guards were still armed.

Assault weapons by definition are designed for close to medium range combat when multiple threats or targets are present, correct. Most violent crime in this country consists of one person perpatrating these heinous acts. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority show otherwise.

Please answer the initial question...name a country with no gun control laws or that allow assault weapons that have proven to lower crime or gun crime in general.

----------


## BgMc31

> Peace be unto you, *BgMc*.
> 
> You're a Christian right? I'm a bit confused about this statement of yours:
> 
> 
> 
> So it would be religious fanaticism to hold that homosexuality is wrong even though it is explicitly stated in the Bible that it is?


I am a Christian, but I like to think of myself as a free thinking Christian. I don't believe in everything the bible teaches, but I agree with some principles that it teaches. The Bible in IMO, or any other holy book isn't the end all be all. It's a guideline to live your life. As a human being given free will by our creator, it is my choice to be able to agree and disagree with a book written by man. And until God, Allah, Buddah, or any other higher power tells me directly what is right or wrong, I am within my right to follow the teachings of man or not.

----------


## Nooomoto

I can't name a country with no gun control laws that is proven to have lower crime...lower crime when compared to what? I think the United States is prety f'kin great, and we've been allowed to have weapons for quite some time.

As far as the average citizen not being able to handle a high stress situation, you are right. But I'd rather give the average citizen a chance to effect his own survival, rather than handicap him.

I only used Jose Vigoa as an example because you live in Vegas, illustrating that these things do happen close to your home.




> Assault weapons by definition are designed for close to medium range combat when multiple threats or targets are present, correct. Most violent crime in this country consists of one person perpatrating these heinous acts. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority show otherwise.


Indeed they are designed for engaging multiple targets. I'll also agree that most violent crimes are committed by one person. But, going by The Rules of Action (military), I'd rather stack the odds in my favor. Fair fights are for boxers.

----------


## BgMc31

> *I can't name a country with no gun control laws that is proven to have lower crime...lower crime when compared to what? I think the United States is prety f'kin great, and we've been allowed to have weapons for quite some time.*
> As far as the average citizen not being able to handle a high stress situation, you are right. But I'd rather give the average citizen a chance to effect his own survival, rather than handicap him.
> 
> I only used Jose Vigoa as an example because you live in Vegas, illustrating that these things do happen close to your home.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they are designed for engaging multiple targets. I'll also agree that most violent crimes are committed by one person. But, going by The Rules of Action (military), I'd rather stack the odds in my favor. Fair fights are for boxers.


Lower crimes compared to country with strict gun control laws. I love this country, without a doubt, but questioning things about this country doesn't make one unpatriotic. And yes we've had guns since our inception but no one is trying to ban ALL guns. Just those that serve no purpose (IMO) outside law enforcement and military action. The argument that assault weapons would deter criminals, if we all had them is flawed, the numbers don't show that. Countries with no gun control that allow its citizens to have assault weapons are some of the most violent places in the world.

----------


## Nooomoto

> Lower crimes compared to country with strict gun control laws. I love this country, without a doubt, but questioning things about this country doesn't make one unpatriotic. And yes we've had guns since our inception but no one is trying to ban ALL guns. Just those that serve no purpose (IMO) outside law enforcement and military action. The argument that assault weapons would deter criminals, if we all had them is flawed, the numbers don't show that. Countries with no gun control that allow its citizens to have assault weapons are some of the most violent places in the world.


They do so serve a purpose...I once went hunting with an AR-15.

----------


## BgMc31

> They do so serve a purpose...I once went hunting with an AR-15.


Was it more effective than my Winchester 30-30 or my bolt action .308? If you are trying to make a point that its an effective hunting rifle then, ok. Yeah its effective just like any other firearm/rifle can be used for hunting. But is it necessary? Could you not do the same thing with the above mentioned weapons?

I own two assault weapons (M4 and an MP5), my job allows me to own these weapons, but I also recognize what these weapons are for and we use them as such (no I'm not in the military or law enforcement but I do work for a private security firm that specializes in diplomatic security). I know these weapons aren't for home defense or hunting. I also know that it took extensive training to use these weapons properly and I would not trust these weapons in the hands of the average citizen.

----------


## Nooomoto

> Was it more effective than my Winchester 30-30 or my bolt action .308? If you are trying to make a point that its an effective hunting rifle then, ok. Yeah its effective just like any other firearm/rifle can be used for hunting. But is it necessary? Could you not do the same thing with the above mentioned weapons?
> 
> I own two assault weapons (M4 and an MP5), my job allows me to own these weapons, but I also recognize what these weapons are for and we use them as such (no I'm not in the military or law enforcement but I do work for a private security firm that specializes in diplomatic security). I know these weapons aren't for home defense or hunting. I also know that it took extensive training to use these weapons properly and I would not trust these weapons in the hands of the average citizen.


I wasn't actually trying to make a point with that one, just being an asshole. But yes it was effective in that it killed the animal. Was it necessary? No...is hunting necessary? No.

You wouldn't trust assault weapons in the hands of the average citizen, but you'd trust pistols? I don't see the logic there. A pistol can be effectively just as dangerous as an assault rifle in certain situations. Cho walked around VT with pistols and killed 32 people, furthermore, he had terrible aim, and I'd bet money that his reloads were slow and labored.

Here's the thing...when you ban assault rifles, that legitimizes ignorance, hysteria and hype. It paves the way for the banning of other and all weapons. A country that does not allow me to own weapons as a private citizen, is not a country that I'm going to live in.

I'm cool with licensing and registering firearms, even mandatory classes beyond the bullshit CCW class...but an outright ban on assault weapons? No thanks.

As far as home defense, I would use my M4 for just that. I've found that for me, an M4 with a 10" barrel is the best close quarters weapon. I was taught the Rules of Action quite some time ago. They've been proven time and time again to work.

----------


## RuhlFreak55

> impeach now!!! save our country... if this law passes it will slowly allow for more and more amendments to it that will lead to the lack of guns to the general society ... watch for amo regualtions coming asap behind this!!!


i AGREE.....although...i don't give a **** what he bans....my rights are my rights....and the weapons are ALOT cheaper black market anyway without all the fagass gov't taxes and such

----------


## RuhlFreak55

if laws get in the way........well go around them

----------


## sloth9

I already have quite a few black market guns for just this reason,they are not illegal just not registered, not really worried if they take them away they have to come get them from me, and that will take a little more than a couple of cops. Sorry but that is the way I feel and you cant take that away. They do know that 8 gauge shotties can blast people in half up close enough just like gears of war.

----------


## RuhlFreak55

> I already have quite a few black market guns for just this reason,they are not illegal just not registered, not really worried if they take them away they have to come get them from me, and that will take a little more than a couple of cops. Sorry but that is the way I feel and you cant take that away. They do know that 8 gauge shotties can blast people in half up close enough just like gears of war.


that's the spirit....SCREW THE GOVERNMENT

----------


## BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, *BgMc*.

First, I want to say that I enjoy your posts, and so apologies in advance if this comes across as confrontational at all. 




> I am a Christian, but I like to think of myself as a free thinking Christian. I don't believe in everything the bible teaches, but I agree with some principles that it teaches. The Bible in IMO, or any other holy book isn't the end all be all. It's a guideline to live your life. *As a human being given free will by our creator, it is my choice to be able to agree and disagree with a book written by man.* And until God, Allah, Buddah, or any other higher power tells me directly what is right or wrong, I am within my right to follow the teachings of man or not.


My issue is with the underlined part above. Isn't the basis of religion that the holy book is either the direct word of God (as Muslims believe about the Quran) or at minimum inspired by God (as most Christians believe about the Bible)? 

Basically what you said in the underlined part is the way I feel about virtually any other book in the world. Give me a book written by say Bill O'reilly or Ron Paul or whoever, and I would agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts of it. I mean, what I am saying is: is this not reducing the authority of a holy book to that of any other book on earth? 

But I think the real issue I had with your post was not your view that homosexuality is ok: you are entitled to your view. My issue was with your categorization of anyone who holds homosexuality to be wrong to be a religious fanatic. And this is not really a question or comment but just an observation: it does seem that the Abrahamic faiths will have a tough time confronting this issue in the next generation or so when it seems like it will become politically and socially impossible to even cogitate the Biblical view towards homosexuality. Right now, we live in a time in which we can voice our views--although in a very courteous and cautious manner--but I feel like in a few generations time it will be something that will become socially taboo altogether, akin to attacking someone's race.

I'm not really going anywhere with this: only pointing out an observation that I had. I really wonder how religion itself will fare in the generations to come. I don't think your view--that religion can be 'tweaked' to become more appropriate--is very sustainable. At most religion can then be a hobby, and as such, will die out in obscurity. I think that from a purely logical and mathematical approach, religion only makes sense from an all-or-none perspective...at least with regards to Christianity and Islam, which posit themselves as nothing short of absolute truths.

----------


## luxifer93

Police state here we go...

Chris Rock shoulda been the first black president

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDC-XQG1ifo

----------


## sloth9

> that's the spirit....SCREW THE GOVERNMENT


I have had that mentality for a while now way before Bush, but now that we have a communist lickhead like Obama I feel even stronger about Screw the Gov. We need less gov. not more, I mean look what they do to steroid users, and dealers, I mean come on our gov. thinks steroids kill and make all these people crazy. I got their crazy hanging,lol

I really hated it when Bush signed that stupid act in 04 cause it made my supps. illegal, I had more gains off those than the new crap that I wont take, Screw you gov. take my supps from me now I am doing juice how you like me now! 2 big middle fingers up to our Government.

----------


## MuscleScience

> *I'd like to know who the citizens are in favor of more gun control.* Sure there are some, but for some reason I highly doubt the majority. I don't think the American people are demanding these actions and laws for some reason. Anytime I hear arguments in favor of gun control, it's the politicians telling us we need stricter gun laws. I've yet to meet someone who's stated it as their reason for voting for a specific candidate. It seems to be what politicians in power want.


I will tell you who wants a ban on guns, they account for about 50% of our population.....WOMEN!!!

----------


## quarry206

> and the current one says "any weapon that needs a magazine"
> 
> that pretty much covers 80% of weapons owned by Law abiding citizens


which current one is that? this article is just about BS talk about maybe supporting a bill... If there is a bill out there i have never heard about it... and the if you are refering to HR-45 that is not a weapons ban, that bill would one only apply in states that don't have a system already, and does not ban, just puts restrictions on sell and movement... and that bill was introduced by senator rush during the last days of the bush term and has a very slim slim chance of every even coming to a vote.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> I am a Christian, but I like to think of myself as a free thinking Christian. I don't believe in everything the bible teaches, but I agree with some principles that it teaches. The Bible in IMO, or any other holy book isn't the end all be all. It's a guideline to live your life. As a human being given free will by our creator, it is my choice to be able to agree and disagree with a book written by man. And until God, Allah, Buddah, or any other higher power tells me directly what is right or wrong, I am within my right to follow the teachings of man or not.


Cool. I posted a response to this in my "Ask a Muslim" thread. Not so much a refutation, but just our view towards this. Since I'm the Jon Kerry of this website, expect it to be long-winded.  :7up:   :7up:   :7up:

----------


## eliteforce

I think the 'assault weapons ban' was pointless..I can't believe the semi-automatic version of the m-16 or ak-47 will really do more damage than a good hunting-rifle or pump-action shotgun in a shooting rampage .. someone who wants to murder as many people as possible is most likely aim and shoot.. handguns are the most dangerous because they can be concealed, the most deadly rampages have been snipers and that disgruntled student at virginia tech used handguns, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people if handguns were banned and 'assault' rifles were not because he used the fact that he could hide the weapons to his advantage, to sneak across campus and into classroom buildings.. there was another incident in texas in which a sniper tactic was used against a university campus, the sniper hid in a tower and kept killing until they were bale to locate the source of the fire.. a hunting rifle can more accurately shoot long distance which makes it more deadly than an ak-47

they use assault rifles in wars because usually the soldiers are in a group, spraying as much ordnance as they can at another group of militants, doesn't make it the most deadly weapon in these psycho attacks..

----------


## Nooomoto

> they use assault rifles in wars because usually the soldiers are in a group, spraying as much ordnance as they can at another group of militants, doesn't make it the most deadly weapon in these psycho attacks..


Uh...ok. The "spraying" you are referring to is usually only done by the squad machine gunner, using some sort of squad assault weapon. The "spraying" is not actually random spraying, but suppressing fire, and is done to suppress the enemy, allowing the team/unit/squad/platoon to move up while the enemy's heads are down.

Beyond that, there are many different formations that are employed. The platoon leader uses formations for several purposes: to relate one vehicle or squad to another on the ground, to position firepower to support the direct-fire plan, to establish responsibilities for sector security among vehicles or squads, or to aid in the execution of battle drills and directed courses of action. Just as they do with movement techniques, platoon leaders plan formations based on where they expect enemy contact and on the higher commander’s plans to react to contact. The platoon leader evaluates the situation and decides which formation best suits the mission and situation. 

Simply put, assault style weapons are versatile and extremely effective in the right hands. A trained operator can quickly and effectively clear an area of all targets. Proper use of an assault weapon makes it possible to quickly and accurately identify and eliminate threats. Many operators choose to use their weapons on "semi-auto", as accuracy goes down after the first shot is fired while the barrel of the weapon begins to walk up. 

The notion that properly trained soldiers/operators indiscriminately "spray" targets is ridiculous. This is the sort of ignorance that fuels peoples fear of assault weapons. Please educate yourself on such matters before posting.

----------


## skeldno

HaHa spammer!!! Find another site mate! 

1 Those prices are shit
2 Your banned
3 Your banned
4 Your banned!!!
5 Your not welcome here!

----------


## eliteforce

thx for that education in assault weapons, i don't think that changes my point that assault weapons are no more dangerous in the hands of someone who just wants to kill as many people as possible by attacking an unsuspecting crowd than other weapons that were not banned..

and I do think in combat situations assault weapons are often used to 'spray' as much lead as possible so that maybe 1 bullet hits someone.. in africa or the way they used to fight in bierut or the balkans-with just an endless rat-tat-tat, during vietnam US service men used to spray m-60 and m-16 fire into the jungle all the time, i seen video of it, like one where a us soldier plugs a clip into his m-16 in vietnam, raises the gun over his head, with his head below the barriers so he can't see, and then just unloading the whole 30 rounds into the jungle..

----------


## thegodfather

BgMc,

1) Pointing out countries with no gun control laws is flawed. One, because many of the countries you mentioned are ineffective at enforcing any of the laws they do have on the books. They are what we political scientists would call a 'failed state.' The state itself has what is called "low capability," they lack the appropriate resources to provide infrastructure, security, etc. These failed states are often characterised by having non-governmental factions control some of their territories, they lack the power to appropriately collect taxes and to enforce policy decisions of the government. Gun control in failed states would be largely ineffective and irrelevant anyway. The simple fact is, that the rule of law in general is loosey enforced in these countries. 

2) 'Assault weapons have no legitimate use by citizens.' This is irrelevant. The government should not and usually is not in the business of telling people what they do or do not need. That is largely a social democratic ideology of the European type. Because 'assault weapons' (a liberally contrived termed in the first place) do not appear to have a legitimate "use" by private citizens is irrelevant. A firearm regardless of its type, is a piece of private property which the government has no business legislating. I oppose gun registration in its entirety. The originalist interpretation of the Constitution would say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the people against the tyranny of the government. It has been interpreted to mean that the people should have a commonplace military weapon. I have not seen many soldiers with 12 ga. shotguns and bolt action rifles. Under this doctrine, private citizens should be able to own the common military weapon of the time, in this case it would be the 'assault weapon.' 

3) Foreign policy. No consideration what so ever should be given to possible effects on Mexico when deciding domestic legislation. The United States being a sovereign entity should be making all of its decisions irregardless of foreign nations and their problems. Additionally, stating that assault weapons in America have any effect on crime in Mexico is unfounded, and not supported by any empirical evidece what so ever. 

4) If we look to a country like the United Kingdom, which is not a failed state. We see that when they completed their plan of outlawing all firearms, their violent crime rate rose roughly 60% in the first 3 years. Crimes with knives instead of firearms also rose significantly. The point here is, that whether or not firearms are outlawed, people will always find ways of killing one another. In Rawanda, 1 million people were killed with machedes. In England, the only people who have firearms are criminals and a select group of Police officers. This means, that law abiding citizens of the United Kingdom are forced to acquiesce their right to self defense to the police. *As we all know, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.* 

5) Since the 1980s, 38 states have adopted "Shall Issue" conceal&carry permits. This means that barring any criminal record or mental illlness, any citizen can obtain a permit to conceal and carry a firearm. Statistical evidence suggests that theses 38 states, when compared to those states who do not have "shall issue" policies, all have violent crime&murder rates lower than the national averages. It is additionally noted, that jurisdictions which have outright bans on conceal&carry, such as Washington D.C. have violent crime&murder rates significantly higher than national averages. We see that these "gun free zones," are actually a blessing to criminals, as they know that most law abiding citizens will be unarmed, making them easy targets. 

The United States was founded on a principle of personal accountability and individual autonomy. I believe we have seen a shift over the last 10 years in our populations ideology, toward that of the European model of social democrats. It seems that the people in this country now believe that the government can solve all of their problems, and it seems they are ready to acquiesce many of their responsibilities to the central government and to be coddled from cradle to grave. People ought to realise that the government cannot and in fact is not even obligated to protect you from danger at all times. The police often attempt to solve crimes after they happen, and it is the exception and not the rule that they prevent a crime from happening. 

I believe any law abiding citizen, upon obtaining a permit to purchase firearms, should be free to do so at their will, and without having to register any firearms they purchase. Additionally, under the wording of the second amendment, taking an originalist and doctrinal interpretation, I believe they should be able to bear these arms about their person and vehicle at their discretion, in any and all places, except those of a sensitive nature such as Federal buildings and courtrooms. I also believe, that private business's which ban the carrying of firearms on their premises, should be financially liable in civil court for any harm that might come upon the people on their premises because of their gun free policies. 

The End.

----------


## sloth9

Yeah but our government is becoming more and more like a European nation, America is great and if you leave it all alone like our economy with little direction it will fix its self. Lets not forget it was the government who wanted all of the people to own a house and this started part of the economic problem, yes it was indecent thieves trying to screw people, but our government let it happen. Any way what I am getting at is with little direction from our government our country can prosper, this is within guns, economy, drugs, everything. I also feel that you get what you put into a problem and everyone voted in Obama for a fast fix and thinking he was the magic fix, so all you goofballs are getting what you deserve, I have my precautions already set out, I have unregistered gun so they cant take them away cause there is no way to know I have them. I also have land with its own water supply, and gardening is awesome, and the best way to eat fresh fruits and veggies is if you grow it yourself, there is nothing like it. I am also building fences to keep game in or out too, Then I will stock the land. I dont want to sound like an extremist but I am preparing for the possible worst case scenario. Any way enough ranting and raving I dont want this to happen but remember always prepare for the worst for now on and you will be ok no matter who you vote for they will never be perfect and never always make you happy, so you dont need to rely on the government but you should only rely on yourself and maybe your family. Please dont massacre me on this I am not an extremist I just rely on myself for the most part.

----------


## RuhlFreak55

> Lets not forget it was the government who wanted all of the people to own a house and this started part of the economic problem


EXACTLY......it was their fault to begin with......we happen to live in a capitalist society.....and mixed with that socialist ludicrous policy there was bound to be a breakdown at some point. I blame no one for trying to make money with it....but you knew it had to blow up eventually, socialism and capitalism don't mix, and that's really why we have the recession to begin with.....it all started with housing....of course some things exacerbated it, but that's the main underlying cause

----------


## AandF6969

> The originalist interpretation of the Constitution would say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the people against the tyranny of the government. It has been interpreted to mean that the people should have a commonplace military weapon. I have not seen many soldiers with 12 ga. shotguns and bolt action rifles. Under this doctrine, private citizens should be able to own the common military weapon of the time, in this case it would be the 'assault weapon.'


Couldn't agree more. 

People... the second amendment is NOT about hunting or target shooting. It's not even about home defense. 

The second amendment is about killing people, people who are part of a tyrranical government to be more specific. The founders just got done killing a bunch of British soldiers that were oppressing the colonies, and they wanted to make sure the new country had the same "Plan B" in case the govt. got out of control.

From the Declaration of Independence - 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That *whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,* laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

----------


## mho

> Could someone point to a successful country with absolutely no gun control? Canada has it, Australia has it as well. Both countries restrict assault weapons as well. I point out those countries because when Obama won the presidency, those are the two countries I saw many of you wanting to run to.
> 
> Then again there are countries with no gun control, Jamaica, Brazil, Mexico, Aghanistan, etc.
> 
> I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I just want to know what valid argument there is for no gun control. The simple argument of the 2nd admendment isn't good enough for me. Saying that, IMO, is akin to religious fanatic saying homosexuality is wrong simply because it says so in the bible. Ridiculous IMO.
> 
> I bring this up because over the last couple days, there has been two heinous crimes gun crimes recently. One in Germany (who has the tightest gun control laws on the planet, I think), the other in Alabama who has a large gun ownership population. Not to mention the recent church shooting a couple days ago. I'm looking for solutions, there has got to be some type of effective middle ground on this. I don't think arming everyone will solve the problem, nor will taking all guns away from everybody will either.


The fact that it's in our constitution isn't good enough for you? WTF are you smoking man!?

EDIT: And the country you asked about is Switzerland. I wish I could live there.

----------


## BgMc31

> The fact that it's in our constitution isn't good enough for you? WTF are you smoking man!?
> 
> EDIT: And the country you asked about is Switzerland. I wish I could live there.


Nope the fact that its in our constitution isn't good enough for me!!! And as of right now, I'm not smoking anything. Catch me post workout at about 10-11pm and I may be a little lifted from the chron!!! LOL!!! My issue isn't what about the wordage or interpretation of a document but with the safety and security of our country and it's citizens. Like I pointed out before, just because its in the constitution doesn't make it right. People put far too much trust in documents (Constitution, Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.) written hundreds and thousands of years ago, instead of thinking of what applies to this day and age.

Anyway, Switzerland has extensive gun control laws too (some of the strictest in Europe), so please try again...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm


BTW, like Obama, I'm not for the elimination of all guns. As a matter of fact I own several myself (including two assault rifles). But my job allows me to have those firearms and I had to licensed to carry those weapons. That's my point of contention. All you people who believe that someone is trying to take your guns away are being conned by these gun stores to buy more of their product. It's funny because you puppets follow that stuff without thinking for yourself. Because of a misguided belief that Obama is going to take guns away, we've seen the largest increase in gun purchasing in years. But there is nothing that would indicate he is going down that road. Many may argue against this, but I guarantee that in 4yrs, we will all still have our guns, and then another 4yrs after that. Again, more chicken little syndrome!!!

----------


## mho

> Nope the fact that its in our constitution isn't good enough for me!!! And as of right now, I'm not smoking anything. Catch me post workout at about 10-11pm and I may be a little lifted from the chron!!! LOL!!! My issue isn't what about the wordage or interpretation of a document but with the safety and security of our country and it's citizens. Like I pointed out before, just because its in the constitution doesn't make it right. People put far too much trust in documents (Constitution, Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.) written hundreds and thousands of years ago, instead of thinking of what applies to this day and age.
> 
> Anyway, Switzerland has extensive gun control laws too (some of the strictest in Europe), so please try again...
> 
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
> 
> 
> BTW, like Obama, I'm not for the elimination of all guns. As a matter of fact I own several myself (including two assault rifles). But my job allows me to have those firearms and I had to licensed to carry those weapons. That's my point of contention. All you people who believe that someone is trying to take your guns away are being conned by these gun stores to buy more of their product. It's funny because you puppets follow that stuff without thinking for yourself. Because of a misguided belief that Obama is going to take guns away, we've seen the largest increase in gun purchasing in years. But there is nothing that would indicate he is going down that road. Many may argue against this, but I guarantee that in 4yrs, we will all still have our guns, and then another 4yrs after that. Again, more chicken little syndrome!!!


Thank you for posting that academic source  :Icon Rolleyes: . I'll have my rebuttal when I get home  :Big Grin:

----------


## NightWolf

I wish my country did not have any gun control, I would so 
post a youtube video shotting with my full automatic Glock  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## thegodfather

> Anyway, Switzerland has extensive gun control laws too (some of the strictest in Europe), so please try again...
> 
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
> 
> 
> BTW, like Obama, I'm not for the elimination of all guns. As a matter of fact I own several myself (including two assault rifles). But my job allows me to have those firearms and I had to licensed to carry those weapons. That's my point of contention. All you people who believe that someone is trying to take your guns away are being conned by these gun stores to buy more of their product. It's funny because you puppets follow that stuff without thinking for yourself. * Because of a misguided belief that Obama is going to take guns away, we've seen the largest increase in gun purchasing in years. But there is nothing that would indicate he is going down that road.* Many may argue against this, but I guarantee that in 4yrs, we will all still have our guns, and then another 4yrs after that. Again, more chicken little syndrome!!!


*
Thank you for playing, please try again.* 

*INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS* 

THE STATES PARTIES, 

AWARE of the urgent need to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, due to the harmful effects of these activities on the security of each state and the region as a whole, endangering the well-being of peoples, their social and economic development, and their right to live in peace; 

CONCERNED by the increase, at the international level, in the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and by the serious problems resulting therefrom; 

REAFFIRMING that States Parties give priority to preventing, combating, and eradicating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials because of the links of such activities with drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime, and mercenary and other criminal activities; 

CONCERNED about the illicit manufacture of explosives from substances and articles that in and of themselves are not explosives--and that are not addressed by this Convention due to their other lawful uses--for activities related to drug trafficking, terrorism, transnational organized crime and mercenary and other criminal activities; 

CONSIDERING the urgent need for all states, and especially those states that produce, export, and import arms, to take the necessary measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

CONVINCED that combating the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials calls for international cooperation, exchange of information, and other appropriate measures at the national, regional, and international levels, and desiring to set a precedent for the international community in this regard; 

STRESSING the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market; 

MINDFUL of the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on measures to eradicate the illicit transfer of conventional weapons and on the need for all states to guarantee their security, and of the efforts carried out in the framework of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD); 

RECOGNIZING the importance of strengthening existing international law enforcement support mechanisms such as the International Weapons and Explosives Tracking System (IWETS) of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

RECOGNIZING that international trade in firearms is particularly vulnerable to abuses by criminal elements and that a "know-your-customer" policy for dealers in, and producers, exporters, and importers of, firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials is crucial for combating this scourge; 

RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties; 

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention; 

REAFFIRMING the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states, 

HAVE DECIDED TO ADOPT THIS INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS: 

Article I 
Definitions 

For the purposes of this Convention, the following definitions shall apply: 

1. "Illicit manufacturing": the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials: 

a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or 

b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or 

c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing. 

2. "Illicit trafficking": the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it. 

3. "Firearms": 

a. any barreled weapon which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive, except antique firearms manufactured before the 20th Century or their replicas; or 

b. any other weapon or destructive device such as any explosive, incendiary or gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile, missile system, or mine. 

4. "Ammunition": the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets, or projectiles that are used in any firearm. 

5. "Explosives": any substance or article that is made, manufactured, or used to produce an explosion, detonation, or propulsive or pyrotechnic effect, except: 

a. substances and articles that are not in and of themselves explosive; or 

b. substances and articles listed in the Annex to this Convention. 

6. "Other related materials": any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm. 

7. "Controlled delivery": the technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials to pass out of, through, or into the territory of one or more states, with the knowledge and under the supervision of their competent authorities, with a view to identifying persons involved in the commission of offenses referred to in Article IV of this Convention. 

Article II 
Purpose 

The purpose of this Convention is: 

to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

to promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experience among States Parties to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

Article III 
Sovereignty 

1. States Parties shall carry out the obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states and that of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states. 

2. A State Party shall not undertake in the territory of another State Party the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions which are exclusively reserved to the authorities of that other State Party by its domestic law. 

Article IV 
Legislative Measures 

1. States Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of the legal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses. 

Article V 
Jurisdiction 

1. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense in question is committed in its territory. 

2. Each State Party may adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the offense is committed by one of its nationals or by a person who habitually resides in its territory. 

3. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention when the alleged criminal is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person to another country on the ground of the nationality of the alleged criminal. 

4. This Convention does not preclude the application of any other rule of criminal jurisdiction established by a State Party under its domestic law. 

Article VI 
Marking of Firearms 

1. For the purposes of identification and tracing of the firearms referred to in Article I.3.a, States Parties shall: 

a. require, at the time of manufacture, appropriate markings of the name of manufacturer, place of manufacture, and serial number; 

b. require appropriate markings on imported firearms permitting the identification of the importer's name and address; and 

c. require appropriate markings on any firearms confiscated or forfeited pursuant to Article VII.1 that are retained for official use. 

2. The firearms referred to in Article I.3.b should be marked appropriately at the time of manufacture, if possible. 

Article VII 
Confiscation or Forfeiture 

1. States Parties undertake to confiscate or forfeit firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials that have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked. 

2. States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal. 

Article VIII 
Security Measures 

States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories. 

Article IX 
Export, Import, and Transit Licenses or Authorizations 

1. States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

2. States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization. 

3. States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations. 

4. The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

Article X 
Strengthening of Controls at Export Points 

Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to detect and prevent illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials between its territory and that of other States Parties, by strengthening controls at export points. 

Article XI 
Recordkeeping 

States Parties shall assure the maintenance for a reasonable time of the information necessary to trace and identify illicitly manufactured and illicitly trafficked firearms to enable them to comply with their obligations under Articles XIII and XVII. 

Article XII 
Confidentiality 

Subject to the obligations imposed by their Constitutions or any international agreements, the States Parties shall guarantee the confidentiality of any information they receive, if requested to do so by the State Party providing the information. If for legal reasons such confidentiality cannot be maintained, the State Party that provided the information shall be notified prior to its disclosure. 

Article XIII 
Exchange of Information 

1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as: 

a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

b. the means of concealment used in the illicit manufacturing of or trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and ways of detecting them; 

c. routes customarily used by criminal organizations engaged in illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

d. legislative experiences, practices, and measures to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and 

e. techniques, practices, and legislation to combat money laundering related to illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

2. States Parties shall provide to and share with each other, as appropriate, relevant scientific and technological information useful to law enforcement, so as to enhance one another's ability to prevent, detect, and investigate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials and prosecute those involved therein. 

3. States Parties shall cooperate in the tracing of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials which may have been illicitly manufactured or trafficked. Such cooperation shall include accurate and prompt responses to trace requests. 

Article XIV 
Cooperation 

1. States Parties shall cooperate at the bilateral, regional, and international levels to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

2. States Parties shall identify a national body or a single point of contact to act as liaison among States Parties, as well as between them and the Consultative Committee established in Article XX, for purposes of cooperation and information exchange. 

Article XV 
Exchange of Experience and Training 

1. States Parties shall cooperate in formulating programs for the exchange of experience and training among competent officials, and shall provide each other assistance that would facilitate their respective access to equipment or technology proven to be effective for the implementation of this Convention. 

2. States Parties shall cooperate with each other and with competent international organizations, as appropriate, to ensure that there is adequate training of personnel in their territories to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. The subject matters of such training shall include, inter alia: 

a. identification and tracing of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

b. intelligence gathering, especially that which relates to identification of illicit manufacturers and traffickers, methods of shipment, and means of concealment of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and 

c. improvement of the efficiency of personnel responsible for searching for and detecting, at conventional and nonconventional points of entry and exit, illicitly trafficked firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

Article XVI 
Technical Assistance 

States Parties shall cooperate with each other and with relevant international organizations, as appropriate, so that States Parties that so request receive the technical assistance necessary to enhance their ability to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, including technical assistance in those matters identified in Article XV.2. 

Article XVII 
Mutual Legal Assistance 

1. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual legal assistance, in conformity with their domestic law and applicable treaties, by promptly and accurately processing and responding to requests from authorities which, in accordance with their domestic law, have the power to investigate or prosecute the illicit activities described in this Convention, in order to obtain evidence and take other necessary action to facilitate procedures and steps involved in such investigations or prosecutions. 

2. For purposes of mutual legal assistance under this article, each Party may designate a central authority or may rely upon such central authorities as are provided for in any relevant treaties or other agreements. The central authorities shall be responsible for making and receiving requests for mutual legal assistance under this article, and shall communicate directly with each other for the purposes of this article. 

Article XVIII 
Controlled Delivery 

1. Should their domestic legal systems so permit, States Parties shall take the necessary measures, within their possibilities, to allow for the appropriate use of controlled delivery at the international level, on the basis of agreements or arrangements mutually consented to, with a view to identifying persons involved in the offenses referred to in Article IV and to taking legal action against them. 

2. Decisions by States Parties to use controlled delivery shall be made on a case-by-case basis and may, when necessary, take into consideration financial arrangements and understandings with respect to the exercise of jurisdiction by the States Parties concerned. 

3. With the consent of the States Parties concerned, illicit consignments under controlled delivery may be intercepted and allowed to continue with the firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials intact or removed or replaced in whole or in part. 

Article XIX 
Extradition 

1. This article shall apply to the offenses referred to in Article IV of this Convention. 

2. Each of the offenses to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable offense in any extradition treaty in force between or among the States Parties. The States Parties undertake to include such offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty to be concluded between or among them. 

3. If a State Party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it does not have an extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition with respect to any offense to which this article applies. 

4. States Parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offenses to which this article applies as extraditable offenses between themselves. 

5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the Requested State or by applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds on which the Requested State may refuse extradition. 

6. If extradition for an offense to which this article applies is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, the Requested State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution under the criteria, laws, and procedures applied by the Requested State to those offenses when they are committed in its own territory. The Requested and Requesting States Parties may, in accordance with their domestic laws, agree otherwise in relation to any prosecution referred to in this paragraph. 

Article XX 
Establishment and Functions of the Consultative Committee 

1. In order to attain the objectives of this Convention, the States Parties shall establish a Consultative Committee responsible for: 

a. promoting the exchange of information contemplated under this Convention; 

b. facilitating the exchange of information on domestic legislation and administrative procedures of the States Parties; 

c. encouraging cooperation between national liaison authorities to detect suspected illicit exports and imports of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; 

d. promoting training and exchange of knowledge and experience among States Parties and technical assistance between States Parties and relevant international organizations, as well as academic studies; 

e. requesting from nonparty states, when appropriate, information on the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials; and 

f. promoting measures to facilitate the application of this Convention. 

2. Decisions of the Consultative Committee shall be recommendatory in nature. 

3. The Consultative Committee shall maintain the confidentiality of any information it receives in the exercise of its functions, if requested to do so. 

Article XXI 
Structure and Meetings of the Consultative Committee 

1. The Consultative Committee shall consist of one representative of each State Party. 

2. The Consultative Committee shall hold one regular meeting each year and shall hold special meetings as necessary. 

3. The first regular meeting of the Consultative Committee shall be held within 90 days following deposit of the 10th instrument of ratification of this Convention. This meeting shall be held at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, unless a State Party has offered to host it. 

4. The meetings of the Consultative Committee shall be held at a place decided upon by the States Parties at the previous regular meeting. If no offer of a site has been made, the Consultative Committee shall meet at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. 

5. The host State Party for each regular meeting shall serve as Secretariat pro tempore of the Consultative Committee until the next regular meeting. When a regular meeting is held at the headquarters of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, a State Party that will serve as Secretariat pro tempore shall be elected at that meeting. 

6. In consultation with the States Parties, the Secretariat pro tempore shall be responsible for: 

a. convening regular and special meetings of the Consultative Committee; 

b. preparing a draft agenda for the meetings; and 

c. preparing the draft reports and minutes of the meetings. 

7. The Consultative Committee shall prepare its own internal rules of procedure and shall adopt them by absolute majority. 

Article XXII 
Signature 

This Convention is open for signature by member states of the Organization of American States. 

Article XXIII 
Ratification 

This Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. 

Article XXIV 
Reservations 

States Parties may, at the time of adoption, signature, or ratification, make reservations to this Convention, provided that said reservations are not incompatible with the object and purposes of the Convention and that they concern one or more specific provisions thereof. 

Article XXV 
Entry into Force 

This Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following the date of deposit of the second instrument of ratification. For each state ratifying the Convention after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification, the Convention shall enter into force on the 30th day following deposit by such state of its instrument of ratification. 

Article XXVI 
Denunciation 

1. This Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any State Party may denounce it. The instrument of denunciation shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. After six months from the date of deposit of the instrument of denunciation, the Convention shall no longer be in force for the denouncing State, but shall remain in force for the other States Parties. 

2. The denunciation shall not affect any requests for information or assistance made during the time the Convention is in force for the denouncing State. 

Article XXVII 
Other Agreements and Practices 

1. No provision in this Convention shall be construed as preventing the States Parties from engaging in mutual cooperation within the framework of other existing or future international, bilateral, or multilateral agreements, or of any other applicable arrangements or practices. 

2. States Parties may adopt stricter measures than those provided for by this Convention if, in their opinion, such measures are desirable to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials. 

Article XXVIII 
Conference of States Parties 

Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, the depository shall convene a conference of the States Parties to examine the functioning and application of this Convention. Each conference shall determine the date on which the next conference should be held. 

Article XXIX 
Dispute Settlement 

Any dispute that may arise as to the application or interpretation of this Convention shall be resolved through diplomatic channels or, failing which, by any other means of peaceful settlement decided upon by the States Parties involved. Article XXX Deposit 

The original instrument of this Convention, the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, which shall forward an authenticated copy of its text to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication, in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. The General Secretariat of the Organization of American States shall notify the member states of the Organization of the signatures, of the deposits of instruments of ratification and denunciation, and of any reservations. 

ANNEX 

The term "explosives" does not include: compressed gases; flammable liquids; explosive actuated devices, such as air bags and fire extinguishers; propellant actuated devices, such as nail gun cartridges; consumer fireworks suitable for use by the public and designed primarily to produce visible or audible effects by combustion, that contain pyrotechnic compositions and that do not project or disperse dangerous fragments such as metal, glass, or brittle plastic; toy plastic or paper caps for toy pistols; toy propellant devices consisting of small paper or composition tubes or containers containing a small charge or slow burning propellant powder designed so that they will neither burst nor produce external flame except through the nozzle on functioning; and smoke candles, smokepots, smoke grenades, smoke signals, signal flares, hand signal devices, and Very signal cartridges designed to produce visible effects for signal purposes containing smoke compositions and no bursting charges.

----------

