Assualt Weapons Ban

[Korgoth]

I do lean a little more towards the side of heftier gun control however. Considering my father was in a drug store that was robbed by a guy who wanted some sort of medication. He ended up holding a loaded gun to the back of my dads head. (He was the only other male in the store, so I suppose the robber saw him as the only threat).

 

[Foxtrot]

I do lean a little more towards the side of heftier gun control however. Considering my father was in a drug store that was robbed by a guy who wanted some sort of medication. He ended up holding a loaded gun to the back of my dads head. (He was the only other male in the store, so I suppose the robber saw him as the only threat).

But I am sure the guy would have been able to get the gun just as easily by illegal means. I know people at my school who sell guns out of the trunk of their car.

 

[CptStern]

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?

you need an assualt rifle to defend your home? time to find a safer neighbourhood

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm elated that this archaic era is over.

For one, my close friend can finally complete his collection and get the weapon he's been saving for when he gets back from Iraq.

Secondly, the AR15 I've had by sights on I can now buy without many of the lost features. And I know, I could simply get all preban parts (generally worn anyhow if you can find them, getting rare, but that adds up to quite a hefty price and it's simply too much of a hassle. Now I can get it without having to shop around for the individual parts, and the price could drop from around $1,600 to $900 if I wait a bit for the market to be restocked.

 

[Foxtrot]

you need an assualt rifle to defend your home? time to find a safer neighbourhood

He might not need one now, but what if he does in the future? It is sort of like the government telling you that where you live now is where you will for the rest of your life, I am assuming you won't like it but you wouldn't mind at the time because you are happy with where you live. Well 10 years later, all your neighbors are incredibly annoying, ecspecially the asians across the street who own 12 cars and always play their music so that the bass penetrates every wall within a 2 mile radius. Bet you wish you could move now...Same with the guns, we may not see a need to defend ourselves now but what if things changed and we had to? Not saying it will happen, you just shouldn't be so narrow minded(no offense).

 

[thenerdguy]

Well first of all. There is a very famous quote that im about to tell you.

If you outlaw guns then only outlaws with have guns!

Second just to clear it up. You can legally buy an AK-47. The only thing thats different from an Ak in Iraq and in the Usa is that in the Usa the ak will not be full auto. And the bayonet lug will be removed. Thats it!
(Now that the Ban is up ill be getting some lugs)

Also I have used an Ak-47 to hunt with and I liked it a lot more that using a 30.06 (A much higher powered and longer ranged rifle)
As for UZi's flooding the streats, I really dont think that will happen.

Now lets paycast something.

Now just for a minute think that your going to rob someone. Wouldnt you think twice about jumping someone that could be armed opposed to someone who isnt?

Now im not going to fight with you but most of you havnt even shot a rifle in your life. Now what if they outlawed computers or your favorit car or what ever you hold in high regard. How would you feel about that?

Besides its not the rifles them selfs. Its the person holding the rifle. If someone wants to kill someone they will find a way. So if you outlaw guns then why dont you outlaw cars/trains/rocks/hammers/tall buildings/fists/glass bottles/ plastic bags/pillows.

 

[<RJMC>]

let me undertand this

in 1994 clinton made a law that make ilegal the buy or wars weapons and now bush stop that law?

 

[seinfeldrules]

in 1994 clinton made a law that make ilegal the buy or wars weapons and now bush stop that law?

Nope. Reread.

 

[KiNG]

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

ya ok kick off the thread with some american bashing.

on topic though, i think assualt rifle should only be for military, theres no reason for citizens to have them.

 

[<RJMC>]

I am busy

 

[blahblahblah]

let me undertand this

in 1994 clinton made a law that make ilegal the buy or wars weapons and now bush stop that law?

No. Clinton made a law which prevents guns from being fully automatic, having large clips, and certain accessories. However, most automatic guns were renamed and slightly changed to get around this law. It never really fixed the problem. As you can read from gun lovers, more of a pain since they can't have bayonets on their AK-47 collection.

Bush had nothing to do with stopping this law. This was all Congress's fault. Bush has even said that he would sign the law into effect if it ever came to his desk. However, Congress never acted.

Complicating this more is that this law has not been proven to decrease gun violence in the US.

I personally don't see why one would want an automatic weapon for their collection. What are the implications if it was stolen or used by a child? Related, why can't I buy a RPG then, after all it is pretty much the same type of weapon - something to collect.

As for defending one's self - who is going to carry an AK-47 with them to the drug store to make sure they are not robbed? What if a person did use it on a person - would the person mind that they pretty much blew away a person (after all we are talking about extremely high powered weaponary)?

Restrictions are neccesary for safety. The same goes for cars. The Porsche 959 is one of the sexiest cars ever created, yet it isn't street legal in the US. This is because it never passed through emissions and crash testing. Does that mean that we should get rid of all safety laws because a car I really like is not allowed in the United States? I don't think so. There are numerous alternatives that are available for purchase. Sure they are not as exotic as a Porsche 959, but they are more than enough for the avid collector.

I personally think that assualt rifles should be restricted based on the premise of "only a determined person will get a hold of one." I don't want to ever have to worry about the average Joe Schmoe who gets angry with his employer and easily gets an automatic rifle and blows away people. I want to make it difficult as possible for him to do so - if not prevent it. Even if (heaven forbide) that guy did buy a handgun instead, the potential damage is greatly reduced.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

On a similar point, what if my drug collection is almost done except for the crack cocaine section?
Should I be allowed to have a kilo of columbian white on my coffee table?
How about some anthrax, for my exotic diseases collection?

Also, hunting is a really crappy reason to own an assualt rifle. If the deer in your area need ten armour-piercing rounds to go down, you're better off buying chicken nuggets at Loblaws.

 

[bliink]

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.

where's the killer going to get the gun? he's gonna steal/buy it from someone who bought it legally. I wouldnt be surprised if most weapons used in crimes were originally in legal ownership.

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.)

a higher crime rate- yeah, with firearms? no.

 

[blahblahblah]

haha, my Porsche 959 link doesn't work above. Tripod links are censored here. :O

Here is another one that isn't blocked (in case you don't know what the Porsche 959 is).

http://www.qv500.com/porsche959p1.htm

 

[johnshafft]

blahblahblah, how many times do we keep on having to say the assault weapon ban was not a ban on automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have still been legal to posesess as long as you have the right pemits (Class 3 firearms dealer if I remeber correctly). the assault weapon ban was a purly cosmetic and mag/clip size ban. it didn't not infringe on the right to own full auto weapons, or ammo sizes.

oh the 959 was legal to posess in the US it just had to be classified for offroad use (track) or it had to have the proper safty equipment, and emissions. and this argument is weak nothing in the constitiution protects your right to drive, while your 2nd amendment rights in the constitution clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " and thats why thier was no bans on fully auto, or ammo sizes

also another statistic for fully automatics as of the early 90s one 1 legal full auto weapon had ever been used in a crime, and that weapon was stolen.

Posted May 26, 2003 =
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/assault_weapons.htm

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/05/05/wow-a-glimmer-of-truth-in-assault-weapons-ban-coverage/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=truth+about+the+assault+weapons+ban&spell=1

and one more

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=truth+about+the+assault+weapons+ban&spell=1

 

[Mechagodzilla]

blahblahblah, how many times do we keep on having to say the assault weapon ban was not a ban on automatic weapons.

I guess you need to keep on saying it until you notice that he said that we need an actual ban on assault weapons in order to replace the ineffective ban that's ending soon.

 

[blahblahblah]

I guess you need to keep on saying it until you notice that he said that we need an actual ban on assault weapons in order to replace the ineffective ban that's ending soon.

You don't say.

oh the 959 was legal to posess in the US it just had to be classified for offroad use (track) or it had to have the proper safty equipment, and emissions. and this argument is weak nothing in the constitiution protects your right to drive, while your 2nd amendment rights in the constitution clearly states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " and thats why thier was no bans on fully auto, or ammo sizes

The constitution is not the end all document for the United States of America. It merely provides a framework on which to base our laws off of. That is why the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and amendments are so short. They are merely designed to give us a general direction on which to act.

Also, the founding fathers did not anticipate the existence of fully automatic rifle's. Much like the founding fathers never anticipated that we would have cars today. The constitution provided a general framework on how we should create additional laws. On a purely theoretical level, I should be able to freely obtain nuclear weapons because I have the right to bear arms and form a militia. Yet, my right is restricted to purchase nuclear weapons because the Bill of Rights only provides a framework for us to build on and because of that new laws are created outlawing nuclear weapons. It is not an end all definition as you claim it is.

In addition, how does owning a automatic rifle create a milita? Do you participate in semi-regular military training? After all that is a key in being a militia-men. One cannot claim protection under miltia hood unless you participate in semi-regular training.

However, some of you want automatic weapons for collectors purposes thus defeating the purpose of a militia. Not to be used in training and in the defense of a nation, but to hang on a wall and show your friends.

 

[CyberSh33p]

You don't say.



The constitution is not the end all document for the United States of America. It merely provides a framework on which to base our laws off of. That is why the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and amendments are so short. They are merely designed to give us a general direction on which to act.

Also, the founding fathers did not anticipate the existence of fully automatic rifle's. Much like the founding fathers never anticipated that we would have cars today. The constitution provided a general framework on how we should create additional laws. On a purely theoretical level, I should be able to freely obtain nuclear weapons because I have the right to bear arms and form a militia. Yet, my right is restricted to purchase nuclear weapons because the Bill of Rights only provides a framework for us to build on and because of that new laws are created outlawing nuclear weapons. It is not an end all definition as you claim it is.

In addition, how does owning a automatic rifle create a milita? Do you participate in semi-regular military training? After all that is a key in being a militia-men. One cannot claim protection under miltia hood unless you participate in semi-regular training.

However, some of you want automatic weapons for collectors purposes thus defeating the purpose of a militia. Not to be used in training and in the defense of a nation, but to hang on a wall and show your friends.

well, if you at least know how to shoot the thing, you're already more effective than you would be with smaller arms

 

[Mechagodzilla]

well, if you at least know how to shoot the thing, you're already more effective than you would be with smaller arms

Sure, just add more bullets with more force and less accuracy, and assault rifles are obviously the safer choice. :O

And that whole militia thing is outdated. The US will seriously never be attacked by ground troops.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Sure, just add more bullets with more force and less accuracy, and assault rifles are obviously the safer choice. :O

And that whole militia thing is outdated. The US will seriously never be attacked by ground troops.

now that you've said that, canada is going to invade tomorrow. thanks a lot.

and yeah, more bullets and firepower = better, right? if you can't aim well, you compensate by shooting more. you'll probably hit them more than your own guys.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

and yeah, more bullets and firepower = better, right? if you can't aim well, you compensate by shooting more. you'll probably hit them more than your own guys.

Except in America there's only "your own guys."

England certainly isn't going to attack anytime soon, and whatever international threat does exist, it's not going to be stopped by assault rifles.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Except in america there's only "your own guys".

England certainly isn't going to attack anytime soon, and whatever international threat does exist, it's not going to be stopped by assault rifles.

didn't you read about the civil war starting in 2005?

 

[blahblahblah]

Sure, just add more bullets with more force and less accuracy, and assault rifles are obviously the safer choice. :O

And that whole militia thing is outdated. The US will seriously never be attacked by ground troops.

From my understanding of its context (of a militia), it was meant as a protection from the government should it ever become tyrannical. However, the way the current US democracy system is designed, that is impossible to ever happen.

When people complain of how slow the US government is on acting on certain issues, it is directly related to how the founding fathers set up the government to prevent any one person from gaining control and setting up a tyrannical government.

now that you've said that, canada is going to invade tomorrow. thanks a lot.

Oh Noes!!!!!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

didn't you read about the civil war starting in 2005?

Actually, now that I think of it, civil war is the biggest (if not only) ground-based threat to America.*

But even then, I don't think that close quarters combat would be considered a good idea if neither side had guns.


*Partisan pointer: civil war is extra likely if Bush wins! :E

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

Bush is taking more and more things from us...evil Bush

 

[blahblahblah]

Bush is taking more and more things from us...evil Bush

Please tell me that was sarcasm....did you even read this thread? The more I think about your post, your post confuses me.

 

[CyberSh33p]

Actually, now that I think of it, civil war is the biggest (if not only) ground-based threat to America.*

But even then, I don't think that close quarters combat would be considered a good idea if neither side had guns.


*Partisan pointer: civil war is extra likely if Bush wins! :E

you know, I believe it too the way things are going :\

canada is looking awful nice, can I come live with you?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

No. Clinton made a law which prevents guns from being fully automatic, having large clips, and certain accessories. However, most automatic guns were renamed and slightly changed to get around this law. It never really fixed the problem. As you can read from gun lovers, more of a pain since they can't have bayonets on their AK-47 collection.

Bush had nothing to do with stopping this law. This was all Congress's fault. Bush has even said that he would sign the law into effect if it ever came to his desk. However, Congress never acted.

Complicating this more is that this law has not been proven to decrease gun violence in the US.

I personally don't see why one would want an automatic weapon for their collection. What are the implications if it was stolen or used by a child? Related, why can't I buy a RPG then, after all it is pretty much the same type of weapon - something to collect.

As for defending one's self - who is going to carry an AK-47 with them to the drug store to make sure they are not robbed? What if a person did use it on a person - would the person mind that they pretty much blew away a person (after all we are talking about extremely high powered weaponary)?

Restrictions are neccesary for safety. The same goes for cars. The Porsche 959 is one of the sexiest cars ever created, yet it isn't street legal in the US. This is because it never passed through emissions and crash testing. Does that mean that we should get rid of all safety laws because a car I really like is not allowed in the United States? I don't think so. There are numerous alternatives that are available for purchase. Sure they are not as exotic as a Porsche 959, but they are more than enough for the avid collector.

I personally think that assualt rifles should be restricted based on the premise of "only a determined person will get a hold of one." I don't want to ever have to worry about the average Joe Schmoe who gets angry with his employer and easily gets an automatic rifle and blows away people. I want to make it difficult as possible for him to do so - if not prevent it. Even if (heaven forbide) that guy did buy a handgun instead, the potential damage is greatly reduced.

I don't know where you keep getting this Auto stuff from but the ban never had anything to do with Auto's. It shows that you don't know the subject. You should hook up with someone and go plinking and learn... Don't just rely on a google education.

Full Autos were illegal to import, buy, and sell well before this ban and Semi-Auto's were legal during and after this ban.

 

[bliink]

didn't you read about the civil war starting in 2005?

Letting civilians arm themselves will probably aid a civil war instead of protect against one

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Letting civilians arm themselves will probably aid a civil war instead of protect against one

And maybe that's the message to the Govt. in the 2nd Ammendment... Get it?

 

[bliink]

And maybe that's the message to the Govt. in the 2nd Ammendment... Get it?

why cant we all just... get along? :cheers:

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

why cant we all just... get along? :cheers:

We can... If everyone would follow me out to the range we'd all have a great time together plinking bean cans, watermellons, and pop bottles.

 

[CyberSh33p]

why cant we all just... get along? :cheers:

cold unfeeling... cyborg brain... not understanding...

love?

 

[el Chi]

From my understanding of its context (of a militia), it was meant as a protection from the government should it ever become tyrannical. However, the way the current US democracy system is designed, that is impossible to ever happen.

You mean like usurping an election and then passing restrictive laws inhibiting people's basic freedoms for "their own good"?
I mean... What?

But seriously folks... As far as I can tell, and forgive me if I'm missing something here, all the people I have seen in support of, or as an acting part of militia groups have always seemed either overly paranoid (as you said blah... the tranny they expect doesn't really seem a viable option for a government - it's better to be subtle) or as if they just need an excuse for their ludicrously, pointlessly powerful guns. To be honest, if I felt my government was going over the line, I really wouldn't feel any safer with these militants.

 

[Hapless]

Automatic=multiple rounds fired with one pull of the trigger.
Semi-automatic=one round fired with one pulll of the trigger
Burst=3 rounds fired with one pull of the trigger

Automatic firearms have been illegal for most citizens to possess, sell, etc. since the era of Capone, when the gangsters were using BARs and Thompsons. That was the impetus for passing that ban. The 1994 law banned high capacity magazines (not clips, but that's a horse of a different color), flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. These things gave so-called assault weapons their "military look." This was what the ban tried to do away with. One could still own an AR-15 without the above items, and fire the same .223/5.56 round fired from pre-ban AR-15's. Furthermore, to call these weapons "assault rifles" is somewhat of a misnomer. An assault rifle is designed for military use for assaulting, hence the name. To attempt to assault a position, in this day and age where automatic weapons are the norm on the battlefield, with a semi-automatic weapon would be suicidal. The supporters of the ban didn't like the fact that these guns looked really scary, and looked exactly like their military counterparts. As I said, a rifle chambered in .223 that looks like any other "civilian" rifle, will still kill someone quite handily, as will a rifle chambered in 7.62 and so on. I would venture to guess, without looking at statistics, that semi-automatic handguns and revolvers are used in more crimes than so-called "assault rifles." A bulky rifle is very hard to conceal. Now, in the case of the infamous LA bank shootout, the robbers were using weapons that were illegal PRIOR to the ban, and this occurred when the ban was in effect. So as we can see, the ban didn't stop them from obtaining or modifying these weapons.

I know that it is often quoted in the media that police officers support the ban, but this could not be further from the truth. A police chief or sheriff may speak out claiming he is speaking for the entire department, but this is pure politics. The same goes for concealed carry laws, which have been shown in numerous studies, in those states that allow concealed carry, to reduce violent crime, particularly crime involving firearms. The argument is often made that police officers will be forced to assume everyone is carrying a gun. Well, wake up folks, we already do and have for some time. The saying goes that anywhere a police officer goes, there is at least one gun there, that being the one the officer is carrying. This is because numerous officers are killed with their own gun every year. Another saying is that when deciding what NIJ rating your body armor should have, make sure it's at least high enough to stop the caliber you carry.

To recap:

Automatics were already banned except for those who undertake the application process for the Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to obtain.
The 1994 ban only did away with predominantly cosmetic things that made civilian versions of military rifles look like their counterparts.


For the record, I do not belong to the NRA; I own one gun, a Glock 22, which is my duty weapon and the only firearm I have ever owned; and I am a police officer. I also served 3 years in the U.S. Army, 4 months and 16 days of which was spent in the first Gulf War, from Christmas Day of 90 to May 10 of 91.

 

[Revisedsoul]

To attempt to assault a position, in this day and age where automatic weapons are the norm on the battlefield, with a semi-automatic weapon would be suicidal.

i may be wrong, and i know im nit picking and goign completely offtopic. but isnt the us army supporting semi-automatic weapons to conserve ammo on the battlefeild

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

You mean like usurping an election and then passing restrictive laws inhibiting people's basic freedoms for "their own good"?
I mean... What?

But seriously folks... As far as I can tell, and forgive me if I'm missing something here, all the people I have seen in support of, or as an acting part of militia groups have always seemed either overly paranoid (as you said blah... the tranny they expect doesn't really seem a viable option for a government - it's better to be subtle) or as if they just need an excuse for their ludicrously, pointlessly powerful guns. To be honest, if I felt my government was going over the line, I really wouldn't feel any safer with these militants.

The intent of the Second Amendment is perfectly clear. Based on English Common Law, the Second Amendment guaranteed against federal interference with the citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Also, the revolutionary experience caused the Founding Fathers to address a second concern-the need for the people to maintain a citizen-militia for national and state defense without adopting a large standing army, which was viewed as the bane of liberty.

Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a preexisting right of every US citizen and protects it from being infringed. The 2nd Amendment protects the exsisting right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

i may be wrong, and i know im nit picking and goign completely offtopic. but isnt the us army supporting semi-automatic weapons to conserve ammo on the battlefeild

My M-16 has a 3 round burst instead of a full auto setting... At the same time we dropped the full auto option the Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) came into being. The bigger M-60 was not a squad element support piece. It's just too big and requires a fixed position to fire from. The SAW can be shoulder fired and operated by one person.

Full Auto AK's and the older M-16 A1's made no difference anyway. I don't care how strong or good you think you can shoot you have no idea where the rounds are going when you are spraying that many bullets.

Plus carrying 8 fully loaded mags is heavy... If you're firing on full auto you better have 16 more as back-up somewhere.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Automatic=multiple rounds fired with one pull of the trigger.
Semi-automatic=one round fired with one pulll of the trigger
Burst=3 rounds fired with one pull of the trigger

Automatic firearms have been illegal for most citizens to possess, sell, etc. since the era of Capone, when the gangsters were using BARs and Thompsons. That was the impetus for passing that ban. The 1994 law banned high capacity magazines (not clips, but that's a horse of a different color), flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. These things gave so-called assault weapons their "military look." This was what the ban tried to do away with. One could still own an AR-15 without the above items, and fire the same .223/5.56 round fired from pre-ban AR-15's. Furthermore, to call these weapons "assault rifles" is somewhat of a misnomer. An assault rifle is designed for military use for assaulting, hence the name. To attempt to assault a position, in this day and age where automatic weapons are the norm on the battlefield, with a semi-automatic weapon would be suicidal. The supporters of the ban didn't like the fact that these guns looked really scary, and looked exactly like their military counterparts. As I said, a rifle chambered in .223 that looks like any other "civilian" rifle, will still kill someone quite handily, as will a rifle chambered in 7.62 and so on. I would venture to guess, without looking at statistics, that semi-automatic handguns and revolvers are used in more crimes than so-called "assault rifles." A bulky rifle is very hard to conceal. Now, in the case of the infamous LA bank shootout, the robbers were using weapons that were illegal PRIOR to the ban, and this occurred when the ban was in effect. So as we can see, the ban didn't stop them from obtaining or modifying these weapons.

I know that it is often quoted in the media that police officers support the ban, but this could not be further from the truth. A police chief or sheriff may speak out claiming he is speaking for the entire department, but this is pure politics. The same goes for concealed carry laws, which have been shown in numerous studies, in those states that allow concealed carry, to reduce violent crime, particularly crime involving firearms. The argument is often made that police officers will be forced to assume everyone is carrying a gun. Well, wake up folks, we already do and have for some time. The saying goes that anywhere a police officer goes, there is at least one gun there, that being the one the officer is carrying. This is because numerous officers are killed with their own gun every year. Another saying is that when deciding what NIJ rating your body armor should have, make sure it's at least high enough to stop the caliber you carry.

To recap:

Automatics were already banned except for those who undertake the application process for the Federal Firearms License, which is very hard to obtain.
The 1994 ban only did away with predominantly cosmetic things that made civilian versions of military rifles look like their counterparts.


For the record, I do not belong to the NRA; I own one gun, a Glock 22, which is my duty weapon and the only firearm I have ever owned; and I am a police officer. I also served 3 years in the U.S. Army, 4 months and 16 days of which was spent in the first Gulf War, from Christmas Day of 90 to May 10 of 91.

Well said Officer.

 

[CptStern]

less guns, more pie