Assualt Weapons Ban

[blahblahblah]

What do you think about it? Please read the links.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/assault.weapons.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/12/gun.ban.ap/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

Bush has been getting a lot of flack for it, but I don't think its right. I think the blame should be on the shoulders of Congress - Both Democrats and Republicans for letting it expire.

I am against having people allowed to purchase assualt weapons - in fact 75% of America agrees with me. However, this assualt weapons ban is riddled with loopholes that did little to stop the proliferation of assualt weapons into the hands of American citizens.

Who do you think is responsible for letting this assualt rifle ban lift and do you think this bill is neccessary (remember the loopholes)?

Personally, after looking at the numerous loopholes, I don't think it is that bad of a thing with letting this law expire. As long as Congress passes an improved version sometime in the not-so-distant future.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

It wasn't doing any good anyway. Calling it an assault weapons ban was silly.

The peoples elected representatives in Congress and the Senate allowed the ban to expire so the those opposed to it lifting need to look closer to home for someone to blame or realize they do not represent the majority opinion and cannot have it their way.

I'm buying some new High Capacity Magazines as soon as they're on the shelves. The ones I have are cheap and need replacing.

 

[Varsity]

They might be on two sides of a conflict, but America and the Middle East are starting to have similarities...

 

[johnshafft]

blahblahblah my suggestion is to actually read up on the 'asault weapons ban'.

The ban actually banned accessories, large capicity magazines, and military styled weapons. it has always been illegal to full auto weapons with out the right permits. or to modify weapons into becoming full auto.

so the the assault weapon ban actually made it illegal to own any shotgun with a magazine that help more than 8 shells.

The ban also made it illegal for me to own, or make a silincer for my paintball gun

I also enjoyed your '75% america' care to back that up? I didnt see any mention of that on your links

its also hard to prove that the ban actually made any differnce other than restricting law abiding citzens from their constitutional rights, and raising the pricesin the firearms market

 

[outpost]

blahblahblah my suggestion is to actually read up on the 'asault weapons ban'.

The ban actually banned accessories, large capicity magazines, and military styled weapons. it has always been illegal to full auto weapons with out the right permits. or to modify weapons into becoming full auto.

so the the assault weapon ban actually made it illegal to own any shotgun with a magazine that help more than 8 shells.

The ban also made it illegal for me to own, or make a silincer for my paintball gun

I also enjoyed your '75% america' care to back that up? I didnt see any mention of that on your links

its also hard to prove that the ban actually made any differnce other than restricting law abiding citzens from their constitutional rights, and raising the pricesin the firearms market

Making a silencer might not be a great idea. Well for a real gun at least, because if you drill the holes wrong the gun can backfire and pretty much kill you.

 

[alehm]

I think the blame should be on the shoulders of Congress - Both Democrats and Republicans for letting it expire.

Ding ding ding.

I am wondering myself, if it weren't election year would have this expired? Anyone can complain after the law expires, but any politician with a backbone would have done something about this beforehand.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Ding ding ding.

I am wondering myself, if it weren't election year would have this expired? Anyone can complain after the law expires, but any politician with a backbone would have done something about this beforehand.

That's just it... The voters have the most influence on their reps during election time... Mid term they might try to get away with something that a large number of voters would take exception to but right now they'd be cutting their throats if they tried to extend the ban.

IMO these laws belong at the State level anyway... California is not affected by this one bit since they have far tougher local laws anyway...

 

[Joeslucky22]

I agree blahblah, Im not really for this myself.

But then again I don't own any guns and probably never will.

 

[DarkStar]

I agree with you 100% blah. This assualt weapons ban did very little to stop their proliferation. Better to let it expire and get serious about real gun control. The more I hear from you blah, the more I'm amazed that you're a Reprublican. You're.....just.....too sensible.

 

[Joeslucky22]

I agree with you 100% blah. This assualt weapons ban did very little to stop their proliferation. Better to let it expire and get serious about real gun control. The more I hear from you blah, the more I'm amazed that you're a Reprublican. You're.....just.....too sensible.

no...

He just knows which is better of the two.

 

[blahblahblah]

blahblahblah my suggestion is to actually read up on the 'asault weapons ban'.

The ban actually banned accessories, large capicity magazines, and military styled weapons. it has always been illegal to full auto weapons with out the right permits. or to modify weapons into becoming full auto.

so the the assault weapon ban actually made it illegal to own any shotgun with a magazine that help more than 8 shells.

The ban also made it illegal for me to own, or make a silincer for my paintball gun

I also enjoyed your '75% america' care to back that up? I didnt see any mention of that on your links

its also hard to prove that the ban actually made any differnce other than restricting law abiding citzens from their constitutional rights, and raising the pricesin the firearms market

Does it really make that much of a difference with a large and small magazine if he has the same gun? I don't think so.

As for statistics, lets see what I can dig up for you.

The New York Times - Thursday, September 9, 2004 and I quote

A poll released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania foudn that 68 percent of Americans - and 32 percent of N.R.A member - support renewing the ban. The findings drawn from interviews with 4,959 adults, had a margin of sampling error of plus one percentage point.

Same article

A seperate national survey, conduced by Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster, on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, found that 74 percent of voters support renewing the ban...

This is from the paper copy of the NY Times, I don't think they have this article on their website.

I also saw a poll on headline news today saying that 74% of Americans are against the assualt weapons ban from expiring.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/kerry.monday.ap/index.html

Quick vote results at bottom of screen.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Does it really make that much of a difference with a large and small magazine if he has the same gun? I don't think so.

As for statistics, lets see what I can dig up for you.

The New York Times - Thursday, September 9, 2004 and I quote



Same article



This is from the paper copy of the NY Times, I don't think they have this article on their website.

I also saw a poll on headline news today saying that 74% of Americans are against the assualt weapons ban from expiring.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/kerry.monday.ap/index.html

Quick vote results at bottom of screen.

If 74% of the people wanted the ban exteneded than a lot of politicians just killed their careers by not doing it... Elections are right around the corner.

I think those sources are under estimating the number of gun supporters.

 

[blahblahblah]

If 74% of the people wanted the ban exteneded than a lot of politicians just killed their careers by not doing it... Elections are right around the corner.

I think those sources are under estimating the number of gun supporters.

I wish I had a scanner to copy this NY Times article I read. It is by far the most comprehensive articel about this subject.

Apparently the NRA used their substantial special interest powers to influence republican congressman. When combine with the non-chalant attitude of the democrats, you have the ingredients to let this law expire.

[Edit]: Continuation of above paragraph - And when you combine that with the media's tendency to be late on issues like this, it is no wonder why stuff happens like this.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I wish I had a scanner to copy this NY Times article I read. It is by far the most comprehensive articel about this subject.

Apparently the NRA used their substantial special interest powers to influence republican congressman. When combine with the non-chalant attitude of the democrats, you have the ingredients to let this law expire.

Understand though that the NRA exists because of the support of a great many people who vote.

Federal laws aside States have their own gun control laws.. California has the strictist... Those laws get there, or don't get there by popular vote. So if there were so much support for gun control why do we only see State laws in 6 States?

Except for California, gun control tends to come from the Eastern Sea board... The middle and western states are filled with avid hunters who are pro gun and pro NRA.

I think the bill fading away reperesents voter wishes... Or politicians not sticking their necks out. The nonchalent attitude of the Dems as you put it.

 

[Bigcheese]

do you think a guy that was going to kill or w/e he needed a weapon for would give half a ***t if a weapon was illegal or not? no, so its useless all it dose it make it so responsible people cant have them. it doesn't do anything for crime prevention.

and as johnshafft said it only bans some stupid stuff.

and might i remind you that england has a weapon ban and they have a much higher crime rate. (i did a debate in school and researched all this.)

 

[johnshafft]

A seperate national survey, conduced by Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster, on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, found that 74 percent of voters support renewing the ban....

um why would you quote a a multiple biast poll? that would be like asking this site if hl2 is going to be fun and is better than doom3

 

[el Chi]

I am against having people allowed to purchase assualt weapons - in fact 75% of America agrees with me. However, this assualt weapons ban is riddled with loopholes that did little to stop the proliferation of assualt weapons into the hands of American citizens.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if that was the point. A law that, on the surface of things, makes it seem to many (if not most) that the government has a strangle hold on extremely dangerous guns. However in practise one could obtain them through exploiting the loopholes.
Just my take on things.
But I totally agree with you that such weapons are ridiculous and completely unnecessary to your average person and anyone trying to argue otherwise is usually talking nonsense.

 

[blahblahblah]

um why would you quote a a multiple biast poll? that would be like asking this site if hl2 is going to be fun and is better than doom3

Fine, lets throw that one out. I still have 2 polls backing up my position. I'm sure I can find additional polls if I looked. I still have the majority of American who agrees with me.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

....I still have the majority of American who agrees with me. (sic)

No you don't... You can only speak for yourself... Senators and Congressmen are the only ones who can speak for the people and they have... It's gone.

 

[blahblahblah]

No you don't... You can only speak for yourself... Senators and Congressmen are the only ones who can speak for the people and they have... It's gone.

What about the polls I have just listed? Are you saying Congress did the right thing?

Can you justify why you need an automatic weapon? (regardless of this bill's loopholes)

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

What about the polls I have just listed? Are you saying Congress did the right thing?

Can you justify why you need an automatic weapon? (regardless of this bill's loopholes)

The only polls that mattered over the past 10 years--elections--the American people spoke, and repudiated the anti-gunners` position.

Edit: An automatic has nothing to do with this topic. Full Auto's were always, and still are, illegal and Semi Auto's were never a part of the ban that was just lifted. It was a stupid law and the voters said so.

 

[h00dlum]

Ban all weapons (except for hunting and maybe sport) and you wont have as much crime and stuff in the states..

 

[johnshafft]

Does it really make that much of a difference with a large and small magazine if he has the same gun? I don't think so.

so your telling me a traditional shotgun with 10 rounds is a threat to society? where as the same shotgun with 8 rounds is now safe?

if who has the gun an honest citzen or a criminal? well if we go by your logic we should ban all guns because the DC sniper only needed 1 bullet to kill each of his victims.

This was a poorly written peice of democratic legislation, that needs to die.

Should it be illegal to purchase a weapon just because it has a military styled grip? when the same weapon minus the grip is legal?

Should it be illegal to purchase a weapon just because a bayonet can be attached to it?

all this bill did was penalize honset citzens.

better money was spent on controling the flow of drugs into the states, because the drugs, the greed, and the culture of the drugs created the violince.

 

[Bigcheese]

Bigcheese: and might i remind you that england has a weapon ban and they have a much higher crime rate. (i did a debate in school and researched all this.)

h00dlum, need i say more?

 

[blahblahblah]

The only polls that mattered over the past 10 years--elections--the American people spoke, and repudiated the anti-gunners` position.

Anti-gun stances are only a small portion of the entire package of an elected official.

Four years ago did you think that a Congressman's stance on intellegence gathering was important as it is today? Elected officials have the responsibility to meet all the reasonable demands on its US citizens while providing proper compromise to make all citizens happy.

I don't think anybody's rights are being restricted with an assualt weapon ban. Gun lovers still have all of their hand gun and high powered rifles. They just can't have an AK-47 or an Uzi.

 

[johnshafft]

Can you justify why you need an automatic weapon? (regardless of this bill's loopholes)

the assault weapon ban had nothing to do with full auto weapons.

 

[blahblahblah]

so your telling me a traditional shotgun with 10 rounds is a threat to society? where as the same shotgun with 8 rounds is now safe?

if who has the gun an honest citzen or a criminal? well if we go by your logic we should ban all guns because the DC sniper only needed 1 bullet to kill each of his victims.

This was a poorly written peice of democratic legislation, that needs to die.

Should it be illegal to purchase a weapon just because it has a military styled grip? when the same weapon minus the grip is legal?

Should it be illegal to purchase a weapon just because a bayonet can be attached to it?

all this bill did was penalize honset citzens.

better money was spent on controling the flow of drugs into the states, because the drugs, the greed, and the culture of the drugs created the violince.

Is there a specific need for a 10 round shotgun? I doubt it.

As for the DC sniper, the rifle was a typical hunting rifle. I personally don't hunt myself, but I am all for hunting (assuming proper precautions, etc). I don't see a reason why you should ban a gun that has an actual purpose (to hunt large wildlife).

I have already said that this bill was poorly written and should probably die. But that means that Congress should be working on a successor, but they are not.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Anti-gun stances are only a small portion of the entire package of an elected official.

Four years ago did you think that a Congressman's stance on intellegence gathering was important as it is today? Elected officials have the responsibility to meet all the reasonable demands on its US citizens while providing proper compromise to make all citizens happy.

That's exactly why the ban is gone.

I don't think anybody's rights are being restricted with an assualt weapon ban. Gun lovers still have all of their hand gun and high powered rifles. They just can't have an AK-47 or an Uzi.

10 Years ago when the ban was introduced the NRA (Large group of people who support the 2nd ammendment) Went down the list of politicians who voted for the ban in a grass roots movement to get voter support to oust Congressman and Senators who supported the ban... They did it. The people have spoken whether you as an individual agree or not.

 

[johnshafft]

I don't think anybody's rights are being restricted with an assualt weapon ban. Gun lovers still have all of their hand gun and high powered rifles. They just can't have an AK-47 or an Uzi.

why because you associate them with the military? the uzi fires a 9mm and since a majority of the uzis fire semi auto all it really is big pistol.

same goes for a ak in single fire it fires a single 7.62 round which is noted for its longer range and better penetration. what hunter doesnt want better range and better killing power? but again just because its associated with doesn't mean it has to be used for it. in fact if you were to look at the amount of AKs in the US you would think we would be under a total state of warfare. yet murder rates a way down as compared to when the drug and gang culture was running rampent.

 

[johnshafft]

Is there a specific need for a 10 round shotgun? I doubt it.

As for the DC sniper, the rifle was a typical hunting rifle. I personally don't hunt myself, but I am all for hunting (assuming proper precautions, etc). I don't see a reason why you should ban a gun that has an actual purpose (to hunt large wildlife).

I have already said that this bill was poorly written and should probably die. But that means that Congress should be working on a successor, but they are not.

can prove their isnt a reason for it? you cant you can only say because they said so. 2 extras round means a hunter can shoot 2 extra birds for dinner.

ahh you just caught yourself you want to ban the ak yet at the same time you shouldnt ban a gun that has an actual purpose. why cant you use an ak to hunt with?

a new bill is unneeded. its a waste of tx payer money

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

....
I don't think anybody's rights are being restricted with an assualt weapon ban... (sic)

That's all gun control can do... Remove the right of the people to purchase certain types of weapons... So yes it is removing our rights...

I now have the right to go out and buy an exact replica of the weapon I use at work minus the 3 round burst (AR-16)... Pistol grip, 30 round mag, compensator, bayonet lug and all... For 10 years I didn't have the right to buy a new one and the prices of the previously manufactured and used ones (Which were still for sale under the ban) were getting high.

 

[Immortal]

I just dont't see why americans( im using a steriotype so exscuse me) need to have so many guns. I mean if american had a ban on guns dont you think alot less people would die?

 

[Mr.Headcrab]

Over in Grand Rapids, i can buy a WASR-10, which practicaly is an AK47, its just Romanian, and its semi auto, along with that i can get as many 10 round mags as long as i have money, and the rounds arent that expensive, i can get a 500 box for 89.99, its not the normal rounds, its 7.62 ball, it can still easily kill someone though.

 

[gh0st]

since the legislation made very little difference in the overall scheme of things, i dont really care. i dont have a rifle at the moment, i will likely buy an ar-15 or a similar rifle in the next couple months. id rather have a handgun anyway, since i dont hunt much anymore.

 

[Joe]

I just dont't see why americans( im using a steriotype so exscuse me) need to have so many guns. I mean if american had a ban on guns dont you think alot less people would die?

Your country has such a ban, and crime rates involving firearms have only increased.

 

[FoxDie]

I don't think anybody's rights are being restricted with an assualt weapon ban. Gun lovers still have all of their hand gun and high powered rifles. They just can't have an AK-47 or an Uzi.

Actually, AK-47's and UZI's are still available. Like the others have mentioned, the ban only got rid of "scary" parts of the weapons, such as slightly larger magazines, military grips, and flash hiders (which do nothing but prevent the shooter from being blinded if shooting at night...) I don't understand why this ban was ever put into place, since most firearm related deaths are caused by handguns, not assault rifles.

Plus, fully automatic weapons are still legal in a large amount of states. It is hard (and expensive) to obtain the permits, but it is possible. FYI, if I recall correctly, the only murder committed with a legal full-auto weapon in the past 20 years was by a police officer who stole the weapon (not kidding.)

As for the DC sniper, the rifle was a typical hunting rifle. I personally don't hunt myself, but I am all for hunting (assuming proper precautions, etc). I don't see a reason why you should ban a gun that has an actual purpose (to hunt large wildlife).

The weapon that the DC sniper used was actually a weapon that had to be changed in accordance with the assault weapon ban. It was a Bushmaster AR15 rifle, and did not have a flash hider, a large magazine, or any other scary parts. Didn't seem like it made much of a difference to me. Most of these weapons can be used for hunting, and they are (along with casual target shooting.)

 

[B.Calhoun]

Why would people want assault rifles anyway? to go hunting, i think not. To rob a bank, oooooohhhh yeah.

 

[Joe]

Why would people want assault rifles anyway? to go hunting, i think not. To rob a bank, oooooohhhh yeah.

Hmmm, to target shoot? To defend ones home? For... get this... fun? Why do some people collect stamps? Why do some collect cars? I personally think the two latter are incredibly boring, and useless hobbies, should we ban them based on that as well?

 

[Korgoth]

So collecting guns is such a wonderfull hobby? Just like stamp collecting eh? Well what about germ/bioweapons, what if someone wanted to start a small pox missile collection for fun? Or maybe collect a few nuclear weapons?

If you can't kill a deer from thirty yards with a butterknife your just a puss!

(obviously this post is a joke, I could care less about gun control either way. I find it funny though, the people who seem to love the government so much and believe that they can do no harm are the same ones harping that we need weapons to protect ourselves from the government just in case lol)

 

[Foxtrot]

According to the NRA(so what if it is biased, they use unbiased statistics/legit) all these restriction on weapons have had no affect on violence at all, even assault-type weapons used in violent acts. I am not sure where I stand on this, I don't want to own a gun and a gun has never affected me or anyone I know...so I could go either way.