Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols.

The AK-47 CANNOT be fully automatic in its civilian form without a federal firearms license.

thats called gun control. AKA "common sense gun laws"
Is there some invisible force that prohibits it from being made fully automatic?

[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Yes, laws prevent it. Do you believe that banning AK-47s entirely will stop anyone who is already willing to risk 10 years in the pen by converting the currently legal semi-automatics to fully automatic? Criminals will not be deterred by banning semi-automatic AK-47s. It will merely take the weapon out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

But to that end, even a lowly Ruger 10/22 can be (illegally) converted to a fully automatic. Should those be banned, too?

reply to post by vor78


So - you shouldnt enact common sense laws because people will just break them?

I guess you shouldn't lock your doors at night because people will just pick the lock. Maybe you should leave the top down on your convertable with the expensive stereo still intact. I mean - they could just rip out the fabric and take it anyways.

The point of any law is to deter the common criminal from doing it. Law is not a magical force field that, once enacted, physically prohibits anyone from doing it. The secondary purpose of any law is to allow means for consequence.

Getting in a knife fight is different than getting in a fist fight.

Even if someone dies in both instances.

Whats the difference?

Assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill

Murder with a deadly weapon...stuff like that ( i dont know the exact terms, im not a lawyer)

But i do know there are differences


You make the argument that we should not enact laws simply because they'll be broken.

I agree with you on this: they will be broken.

But how many more people do you think would do 105mph on the interstate through Illinois if the speed limit signs (that say 65) didnt exist?

[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


I understand what you're saying, but you can pass all manner of laws intended to deter crime if you're willing to encroach on the rights of the vast majority of citizens who will never commit the crimes the law is intended to prevent. I don't think it will prevent weapons crime, so in the end, I think it just punishes law-abiding citizens unfairly and unjustly.

My main concern is that it won't end there. The line between a hunting rifle and assault rifle is a blurred one. Back to that Browning BAR I mentioned: if someone comes out with a 30 round magazine for it, would it now fit the definition of an assault rifle? Of course it would. It has essentially the same functionality as a civilian AK-47. The only reason its not on the gun ban hit list is because no one as of yet has manufactured anything larger than the 3-5 round factory mags.

The thing that really concerns me is when I see the SKS on the list. It has a fixed 10 round magazine. That's getting frighteningly close to 'hunting' rifle territory. For the first ten rounds, even a decent lever rifle marksman won't fall very far behind in the ability to make quick, aimed shots.

Instead of the weapon itself, I would be much more willing to listen to a ban on large capacity magazines (>10 rounds) or perhaps forcing a similar non-detachable magazine system as the SKS. I'm not immediately in favor of that, but its something I would consider as a worthwhile compromise. The assault rifle's power relative to other firearms derives from its ability to yield a large number of quick follow up shots, definitely not the power of each individual round by comparison. Limit that former ability and you neutralize the weapon's added effectiveness in comparison to 'acceptable' rifles on the market.


[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78


From what i take on your stance, you seem to say

"you either ban them all or you ban none"

I dont think you can draw that broad of a line in this instance.

12 gauge shotguns:

Cannot saw off the barrel past a certain length without a very hard to get permit.

Has to have a "plug" in it at all times. if you are hunting, and a game warden wants to pop your barrel and check for a plug - and you dont have it - big time trouble.
The plug prohibits more than 3 shells being loaded at any one given time.


When i set back and think about it, here's what *I* would propose for "Common sense gun laws"

• All fully automatic assault weapons are off limits. You can collect them, as long as its disarmed (like hand grenade collectors. The explosive chamber is filled with lead)
  
  
• You classify what is standard for recreation and hunting. All other weapons fall into various levels, each level requires certain permits.
  

(example): A shotgun is legal. Just need a FOID card.
A sawed off shot gun is illegal, unless you have the proper permit, which requires extensive background checks, and a waiting list.
Afterall - whats the rush?

You could apply this across the board, much like it is today.

Common sense gun laws say you don't need an Uzi. Period. Can't hunt with it because the recoil disallows any sort of aim. Its a "spray and pray" weapon. You hit something out of sheer spray of bullets.


A .30/30 is fine because it would take severe retrofitting to make something like that fully automatic. In essence, it's no longer a .30/30. Its a new gun all together. That blurred logic can be applied to any weapon.

An AK-47 is different. It takes a simple conversion. yes - you need a special permit for it - great, lets keep it that way. But lets add a tier to that equation.

You need a very special permit to obtain an AK 47 in the first place.

Why?

its a military grade weapon. There's a reason its the gun of choice for some terrorists. Just like the M4A1. Its created to kill and destroy, not hunt or skeet.

"common sense" gun laws proposals from Obama are just what i've talked about.

Its not about "give me your hunting rifle"

its about "give me that rifle that you can't use for hunting"

I agree with you up to a point. I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment is entirely about hunting, but also self-defense and as a last-ditch national defense. That's more of an academic argument here, however; I personally would not feel underarmed even if the SHTF and all I had was a .30-30. But many would. I also disagree on having a magazine plug at all times. Hunting? Sure. Home defense? Definitely not.

I also disagree that the AK has no use as a hunting weapon. Like the AR-15, I think they're perfectly acceptable hunting rifles in their civilian format. But we've been through that and will have to agree to disagree.

Uzis? Its a worthless piece of garbage and indeed has no other use than military (and barely has that). Encase them all in concrete and drop them to the bottom of the Atlantic for all I care.

Truth be told, I don't think we're incredibly far apart on the subject. I disagree with most aspects of an AWB, but I'm not 100% against your position in principle. I think the main difference is that you trust the government not to overstep and ban far more than they should. I think they'd probably use it as a pretext to incrementally ban firearms until virtually all were gone. I've just seen too much gun banning overseas in recent years to not get paranoid anytime gun legislation is hinted. I don't want the US to be like Britain where in 10 years we're talking of banning pointy objects.

Its really not a partisan issue for me. Its part of the reason I won't vote for Obama, but its also part of the reason I couldn't support Romney or Giuliani on the other side. I only give McCain's on-again, off-again gun control antics a pass because he's been on the right side of the assault weapons ban every time its come up. Its pretty much my litmus test on the issue. That's not to say I trust him 100% on it.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


"common sense" gun laws proposals from Obama are just what i've talked about.

Its not about "give me your hunting rifle"

its about "give me that rifle that you can't use for hunting"

That is not correct. He wants to ban all semi automatics, period. All handguns Period. Destroy all ammunition currently in posession of citizens and only allow his micro numbered abortions.

Apparently no one has read the quote at the bottom of my posts.

reply to post by Illahee


He wants to put gun control into the hands of the states.

Period.

I know you want us to avoid facts, because they make you look wrong.

But i choose to go against the notion of censorship on this one.

Barack Obama doesnt want your hunting rifle, and he never has.

Fact.

reply to post by vor78

McCain's on-again, off-again gun control antics a pass because he's been on the right side of the assault weapons ban every time its come up. Its pretty much my litmus test on the issue. That's not to say I trust him 100% on it.

its a little off on our personal discussion - but not "Every time"

# Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
# Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

and

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

Supports ban on certain assault weapons

Source


I believe in common sense gun laws. I would change my own direction a little, if this decision were up to me, and say you could own an AK47, but i believe you need to go through an extensive background check, and pay permit fee's, waiting period, etc, prior to.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


He did vote against the AWB in '94 and was against the reauthorization. He also includes it as a part of of his official campaign platform. But believe me, I know that McCain is far from perfect on the issue of gun rights overall, hence my statement about his 'on-again, off-again' support of the issue overall. I generally give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is something that concerns me a little. Again, Republicans, Democrats...there are gun banners on both sides of the isle. Just more at the present time on the Dem side.

Obama concerns me on the issue because its difficult to know just how much restriction he wants. That in itself is worrisome because we do know for a fact that he wants new gun control laws and to make the assault weapons ban permanent (something I do not agree with). I do wish he would be asked to go into specific detail on the issue. Does he support HR 1022 or something more or less restrictive? I don't know. That particular bill is much more restrictive than the '94 version as it does not include a 'grandfather' clause.

On the issue of what laws should be in effect, I don't have a problem with the background checks and such as long as anyone with a clean criminal history (including the occasional misdemeanor) can pass. It shouldn't be ridiculously difficult so as to itself act as a form of a ban. I also have no problems with requiring a gun safety course for first time buyers. Licensing and registration? Not as much. Again, it goes back to the trust issue and I really don't trust the federal government with a database of gun owners and the weapons they own.



[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin THE OP Was dead on target Bud . Obama Is Nothing More Than Any Other DemoCrap ! He's As Anti Gun As The Rest Of Them . You Are Blind ! Any Body That Supports Oslimea Hussein Is A Damn Fool !And Just To Let You Know , I Am Also A Bow Hunter And Have Hunted All My Life. Most People Don't Hunt With Semiauto AK'S Or Whatever You Care To Call Them ,THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS . But If A Person WANTS To Hunt With Them LET THEM ! I Hunt With A Bolt Action rifle But I Have And Still Do Use My Semi Auto HUNTING RIFLE On Occasion . I Don't Trophy Hunt And I Don't GUT SHOOT Any Animal. I Am An Ethical Hunter And When I Take My Shot I ALWAY'S Hit The Vital Area , And You Know What I'm Talking About Don't You ! Anyway's If I Just Happen To Have To Make That Rare Running Follow Up Shot Then I Can With A Bolt Action As Well With The Semi Auto . The Semi Auto Is Much Faster Doing That But I Can Pretty Much Do The Same Rate As A Semi With My Bolt ,Not Quite But Almost . And In Answer To Your Thinking Of The Holes That Slugs Make . Have You Ever Seen The EXIT Holes On An Animal When Bow Hunting With A MECHANICAL Cutter Head On Your Arrows ? They Also Leave A BIG HOLE !

reply to post by SHADOW WALKER


A few things:

1.) Learn to use paragraphs. They're so much more....appropriate for the reader

2.

That Supports Oslimea Hussein Is A Damn Fool

Anyone who cannot call him by his real name is the real fool. Congratulations on winning the most ignorant thing said today trophy.

I'll u2u you the certificate to print out and frame later.

I believe we have some topic derailing from the discussion of the OP. Please reply to the topic and your opinion of it or we need to request moderation before moving forward.

Topic derailment shows a lack of understanding of ATS expectations.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Illahee]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin Well Excuse Me "TEACHER" ! And While Your At It , Be sure to Keep Your Certificate On Your Wall As Well !

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


You seem to believe the 2nd Amendment is about hunting or other sporting uses of firearms. It isn't.

The people have just as much right to own each and every firearm currently available to the U.S. military. Why leave the people outgunned if we ever need to abolish a tyrannical government?

Where does government get the power to own certain weapons? From the people correct?

How can We The People delegate a certain power if we ourselves do not already possess said power?

reply to post by Illahee


Back to the topic, I think its pretty clear that with attitudes among gun owners as they are, any sweeping ban will run the risk of open revolt among the civilian population in most areas between the Rockies and Appalachians. The more they try to ban, the more likely it would be. Anything resembling a full ban would virtually guarantee it and for good reason. It would probably be unorganized at first, but all it would take would be for a state such Montana to leave (and they threatened secession prior to the outcome of Heller vs DC) and others would certainly follow. Civil War part 2 would ensue.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78


Thanks for the back on topic post. I have pretty much the same general vision myself as to the outcome. Knowing this I have to think what kind of monster or idiot would even think about bringing this about? Lot to think on. More than just an election or ideology. Its a matter of intelligence and lack of vision and anticipated outcomes.

Good response.

reply to post by Illahee


I think most of the politicians who support these broad gun bans are well-meaning, but just generally clueless and ignorant on the issue. Most of them don't own guns and don't even know anyone that does (except their armed security detail, of course). They've lived all their lives on the West Coast, New York City or Boston and have no idea how the rest of America lives or what its values are. All they see are the reports from the streets from those cities and yeah, I can understand where you'd be anti-gun if that's all you saw.

Honestly, I don't think they have the slightest clue that there are literally millions of Americans who feel as strongly about gun rights as is the case or that those same people in America's heartland are perfectly responsible gun owners. Of course, for many of the same politicians, the 150 million people in America's heartland are completely irrelevant anyway.

Folks please avoid being baited by Andrew E. Wiggin. He has been sponsoring Pro Obama threads and derailing any that are not his own views as in this one.

Here is an example from his own thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A couple of Andrews responses from page one of his sponsored topic:

"Please - by all means - go reread the article and actually post something about the topic, and not the poster.. its kind of frowned upon around here."

"is that what you meant to post and just messed up? ...or did you actually intend to post off topic? "

"Are you done posting off topic?
I would go rewrite the OP in crayon, but ATS doesnt have that font. "

And from page 2:
"If both are the same (which is the argument i make)
then which would you do?
You can choose "neither" and explain why
but you chose to discuss something all together difference.
Talk about the thread, or go bother someone else."


From this we are just short of moderator intervention and warnings. And this follows through on several political threads and posts.

Please avoid being baited off topic by this poster. Investigate the actions and decide for yourself.

Back to this topic.

The 'Assault Weapons Ban' should more appropriately be called the 'Scary Looking Gun ban'. Seriously, the people pushing for these sorts of laws know ZERO about firearms.


What makes an "Assault Weapon":

www.youtube.com...


The Truth About "Assault weapons":

www.youtube.com...

"What's a barrel shroud?"

www.youtube.com...

Assault weapons more powerful than hunting rifles?

www.youtube.com...