Assault weapons ban expiring.

So the assault weapons ban here in the USA is set to expire, and it looks like the Congress/Senate dont have the political backing/will to vote to extend it.

I say good riddance!

First off, this shows the power of the gun lobby....The NRA!!
The fact is they are organized and have alot of voters that would not be kind when elections came around if the legislators took action.

2nd....now look at the ban, what does it really do?
Full auto fire weapons have ALWAYS been banned! We are talking about semi-auto weapons with flashier looking bodies and extras. A 9mm handgun will shoot the SAME AMMO just as FAST as the 15 guns on the list will.
What usually gets these guns on the list is things like type of scope, type of stock/grip, size of ammo magazine and other options, not the type of bullets or the rate of fire. so whats the differance?

As i work in the news, i KNOW that AK-47's are being used by CRIMINALS on a semi annual basis....(these guns are bigger than a pistol, and draw more attention, you cant just stuff it down your pants)...
BUT,
their shooting the same bullets that their more concealable handgun uses at the same rate of fire....also note that shooting as fast as you can from the hip is way more innacurate than holding up a pistol and looking down the sights. (the pistol is lighter and easier to use too)

Note i said CRIMINALS are the ones causing these weapons to be used for illegal purposes. When is the last time you've heard about a law abiding citizen that owns the same kind of guns commiting a crime with them?

HHMMM, if only criminals have these guns, and responsible citizens dont,
then i guess that means that the criminals have the upper hand vs a citizen protecting his family, using his gun for sport, or mearly legally collecting them and not using them.
This is not right. This removes the good citizens rights to bear arms because of a minority of citizens have a problem.

Al queda seems to always have FULL AUTO guns when i see them on TV, so in this age of terror, we the people SHOULD at least have a SIMILAR (Non-auto) weapon for defense.

Now i know cops,and many will say that these guns are dangerous, but how can this be when the pistol and the AK-47 shoot the same calibre of ammo at the same rate of fire?

We've seen the video of the 2 bank robbers in california, shooting FULL AUTO at the cops....again they were CRIMINALS were talking about here.
so obviously the ban didnt keep the bad guys from getting and modifying the guns.

What did the cops do when hit with this? They went to a gun store and confiscated similar type weapons to use against the bad guys!!!! Hmmm, now if similar weapons had not been available thru legitimate means, they would have been screwed.

This law seems well intentioned, but in reality stopped NOTHING....it exempted all the legit weapons that were on the list and already in posession by law abiding citizens...(taking away no guns from anyone)

More people die from being shot with cheap pistols than rifles, let alone something like an ak-47, tech-9, or any of the flashy, expensive guns on the list.

Ill bet there are lines on monday, when the ban expires, of legal citizens trying to buy these guns and accessories.

So what are the thoughts about this law expiring?



[edit on 10-9-2004 by CazMedia]

Well, I for one have these weapons now, I purchased/inheritaded them before the ban went into effect 10 years ago. I will probably be in line monday to get some more. I am a collector so I like to have them.

Small thought: why did a country that has had gunpowder for waaaaay longer than the west dcide that using "guns" (or some other gunpowder based killing machine) was immoral and kind of like cheating?

Those guns are illegal? Not here in AZ. I have a Mac-11, and an SKS. You can buy AK's, AR-15's, pretty much anything, just not fully auto, but as fast as you can squeeze the trigger, the way my Mac-11 recoils off the trigger finger, it's almost like it's fully auto.

it's funny how some people get upset about the sunsetting of a law that had no teeth in it. logically speaking, all the gun makers had to do was change a few cosmetics and the gun was leagle.

Indeed!

Especially in these days you don't know when your going to be attacked by domestic criminals or international terrorists.

I was reading a Tom Clancy novel called "The teeth and the tiger" and a bunch of terrorists broke into malls and begun shooting up the place and several armed citizenry managed to somehow subdue the terrorists untill the national guard arrived and finnished them off. Of course it's only a novel but these things could happen!

I say we need more guns.. not less. Taking guns away from the citizens does not take the guns away from the criminals. I was in an argument at one time with a European who says if we keep guns in the hands of the government only there would be less crime.. all of which is CRAP. An armed citizenry deters a would-be criminal because he wouldn't know which guy would be carrying some weapon to shoot his arse when he tries to put criminal acts upon innocent people. Naturally, not everyone citizen will be carrying a gun but some will and we would be better off!

You just can't always wait for the police to arrive when the guy is shooting everyone up.. you gotta take action yourself if you can to save your people.

Why is there so much street crime in some countries in Europe especially the UK? Simply because there is no deterence against crime except the police.. and the police aren't always there to stop things at a blink of an eye. If the criminal knows some of the people might be armed.. it may deter him.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by RedOctober90]

Man, I can't wait until Monday. I have already ordered my collapsible stock and some other previously banned items, and they should be here on Wednesday/Thursday.

I am glad to see the AWB go, but it makes me wonder if the Brady campaign didn't learn their lesson this round and are going to try to make "scary" guns illegal with the next legislation that they attempt to pass. I also doubt that whatever comes next will include any type of sunset provision either.

I guess that's as good a reason as any to get out and vote.

It was one of those stupid feel good laws anyway.

Not unlike the Patriot act

I think if you're guns are registered to you then you should be allowed to keep them. If they aren't then they should definetetly be confinscated. Of course, there is the "Right to bear arms" in this country.

Originally posted by mrmulder
I think if you're guns are registered to you then you should be allowed to keep them. If they aren't then they should definetetly be confinscated. Of course, there is the "Right to bear arms" in this country.

I doubt if 1 in every 100 guns in the USA are registered.

I personaly dont think its any of the governments business what kind and how many guns I have

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by mrmulder
I think if you're guns are registered to you then you should be allowed to keep them. If they aren't then they should definetetly be confinscated. Of course, there is the "Right to bear arms" in this country.

I doubt if 1 in every 100 guns in the USA are registered.

I personaly dont think its any of the governments business what kind and how many guns I have

I can't argue with you their Amuk. I think the "Right to bear arms" should stand as is it. The NRA would go nuts if all guns in America were suddenly confiscated.

I personaly dont think its any of the governments business what kind and how many guns I have

I agree. The government has no right to take my property just because I didn't register it with them first.

[edit on 9/10/04 by para]

The NRA would go nuts if all guns in America were suddenly confiscated.

I would worry more about the other 75 MILLION gun owners. Those of us that are NRA members are more vocal...right now. If the govt. ever tried some wide scale turn in scheme I think we could be looking at a new civil war! (I hope not)

Yay ::shoots gun into air::

This was my post from ATSNN on the same subject:

It would be interesting to see a poll of people who actually KNEW what the ban actually accomplished. Many in the media seem to think that the ban actually banned "assault weapons" i.e. machine guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How ridiculous is the notion that private citizens should be able to tote machine guns? It takes someone with extreme positions like Alan Keyes to righteously argue that cause. Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- are against claiming Second Amendment protections for these guns and support the federal assault weapons ban.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.suntimes.com...

The semi-automatic rifles and pistols that this law banned were NOT fully automatic nor capable of burst fire (pull the trigger once and three bullets come out). They are less powerful than almost any deer hunting rifle on the market and have been used in less than 1% of all gun crime in the U.S......ever.
Those on the end of the leash may be asking "Why did they ban them then!?!?!?" Good question.
Simple answer: They look dangerous!
Here are the criteria for a so called assault weapon,

Detachable magazine on a semiautomatic rifle
and any two of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock [no gun in the pack on your camping trip]
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon [god forbid you can hold the rifle with comfort!]
a bayonet mount [Drive-by bayonet attacks must be on the rise]
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel [You MUST be blinded after that first shot by the muzzle flash!]
a grenade launcher [included to scare people, since grenades and launchers are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934]

and
A semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine
and any two of the following:

an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip [and that makes the bullet coming out the end more dangerous?]
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer [you must be inaccurate, blinded or deafened]
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned [you must burn yourself!!!]
a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded [because lighter firearms are "safer"]
a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm [just because]

The law did NOTHING to reduce crime as the statistics show.
This is hardly "a win for gun rights activists". This is a case of our rights being restored and the sunset of an unconstitutional law.

Originally posted by Vegemite
Yay ::shoots gun into air::

*Runs from falling bullets*

Originally posted by Fry2
This was my post from ATSNN on the same subject:

It would be interesting to see a poll of people who actually KNEW what the ban actually accomplished. Many in the media seem to think that the ban actually banned "assault weapons" i.e. machine guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How ridiculous is the notion that private citizens should be able to tote machine guns? It takes someone with extreme positions like Alan Keyes to righteously argue that cause. Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- are against claiming Second Amendment protections for these guns and support the federal assault weapons ban.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.suntimes.com...

The semi-automatic rifles and pistols that this law banned were NOT fully automatic nor capable of burst fire (pull the trigger once and three bullets come out). They are less powerful than almost any deer hunting rifle on the market and have been used in less than 1% of all gun crime in the U.S......ever.
Those on the end of the leash may be asking "Why did they ban them then!?!?!?" Good question.
Simple answer: They look dangerous!
Here are the criteria for a so called assault weapon,

Detachable magazine on a semiautomatic rifle
and any two of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock [no gun in the pack on your camping trip]
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon [god forbid you can hold the rifle with comfort!]
a bayonet mount [Drive-by bayonet attacks must be on the rise

]
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel [You MUST be blinded after that first shot by the muzzle flash!]
a grenade launcher [included to scare people, since grenades and launchers are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934]

and
A semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine
and any two of the following:

an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip [and that makes the bullet coming out the end more dangerous?]
a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer [you must be inaccurate, blinded or deafened]
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned [you must burn yourself!!!]
a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded [because lighter firearms are "safer"]
a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm [just because]

The law did NOTHING to reduce crime as the statistics show.
This is hardly "a win for gun rights activists". This is a case of our rights being restored and the sunset of an unconstitutional law.

I agree alot of people that talk about this ban seem to think that when it sunsets everyone will be able to run out a get full-auto machine guns.

Alot of people that think they know something about the ban will bring up grenade launcher (or flare launchers) which is all the really are. People will say I dont want people to be able to get grenades. That law does not effect anyone getting their hands on 40mm grenades they will still not be able to touch them. Grenades are tightly regulated as destructive devices, and besides when has a 40mm grenade ever been used in a crime?

I think your right its a scare tatic

Look, I respect and agree with your position, more than you could know (I personally think nukes should be legal, if that tells you anything.

The problem I see with your post is that it is so full of un-truths. If an anti-gunner sees us stating outright lies, this will do nothing but hurt our cause. Plus, anyone who is interested in guns or gun issues should be well versed, so as to verbally whip back the ignorant hordes (instead of adding your own ignorance to the fray.)

I know the laws are about to sunset, and therefore won�t be of as much concern, but that 10 year "ban" will be used as fuel for both sides of the gun debate until the day the Libertarians succeed in ridding our nation of all victim disarmament laws, so we need to remember and spread the TRUTH about those laws.

This may be harsh, but understand I do think it is great you took the stance

Originally posted by CazMedia
Full auto fire weapons have ALWAYS been banned!

No, actually they never had been banned. You have to pay $200 tax and submit to an in-depth background check as well as register them with the BATF and allow them to inspect them every now and then. This only started in the early 30's as a response to increased gun crime due to prohibition. Then, in the 1980's, they made it illegal for anyone who was not law enforcement or military to import, buy, or manufacture any full-auto weapon that was not already registered to a private person, which had the effect of raising the cost of those guns to thousands of dollars for the worst examples. The Libertarian Party presidential hopeful calls for the repeal of every gun law in existence, including the National Firearms Act of 1934 that set all this in motion.

A 9mm handgun will shoot the SAME AMMO just as FAST as the 15 guns on the list will.

Actually, a 9mm shoots 9mm. So called "assault weapons" generally shoot medium caliber rounds such as the .223 5.56mm (ar-15/m-16) or the 7.62x39 (sks and ak family of weapons) although many have been configured in recent years to fire a large number of different rounds, including 9mm. These are not common. Caliber, however, had nothing to do with law. Armor piercing rounds are much more common for such military calibers, and are actually cheap and legal.

What usually gets these guns on the list is things like type of scope, type of stock/grip, size of ammo magazine and other options, not the type of bullets or the rate of fire.

Actually, optic devices such as scopes and lasers have nothing at all to do with law. A weapon is not affected unless it is semi-auto, so rate of fire DOES get a gun on the list.

their shooting the same bullets that their more concealable handgun uses

See above.

Now i know cops,and many will say that these guns are dangerous, but how can this be when the pistol and the AK-47 shoot the same calibre

Wow, you really like to say that, don�t you?

So what are the thoughts about this law expiring?

Been waiting for ten damn years.





[edit on 10-9-2004 by cavscout]

cavscout,
you were FAR from harsh, Ive beed dissed by Colonel, so anything less seems tame....(ahh any newbies really missed a treat with him)

As im a gun owner, but not a gun expert/enthusiast...accurate information is indeed more responsible.

when writting this, i was thinking of the uzi-9mm my step dad used to have, and the tech 9...and since i only own a 22c pistol and 22 cal rifle, im not as up to speed on the bigger weapons..(but id love to fire a few and be able to afford some, my wife would leave if i walked in with an AR-14 or Tech-9) I have an arsenal of more up close personal weapons like long swords, kantana, shuriken, nunchuku, knives, chain (manreki-gusari) and even a klingon full size batleth! (if it comes to needing to use a weapon, ill want to be close enough to see your eyes as they glaze over...LOL)

I know, dont bring a knife to a gun fight....
well everyone has to sleep sometime (or reload), and if im that bent that you need to be taken out...standing across the street just wont be as satisfying as feeling your last gasp...(if you say killed my family, that would make me somehow justify vigilante justice)

Thanks cavscout for helping to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Corinthas
Small thought: why did a country that has had gunpowder for waaaaay longer than the west dcide that using "guns" (or some other gunpowder based killing machine) was immoral and kind of like cheating?

Because well.....hmmm.....because they are communist and it's much easier to control an unarmed populous....ya think, maybe.