Assault Weapons Ban

[JPSaxMan]

Now I realize this is a bit off topic but I'd like it to be open for discussion. And when it is in discussion, please keep the rudeness and other crude remarks down or out, please. And please read all of it. Don't just blast one another b/c you didn't read the whole page before rambling.

OK, first of all, I actually got done e-mailing Dianne Feinstein about the AWB. There was a list of exempted firearms from the assault weapons ban on her website: http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/exempted_guns.html
I put in my 2 cents of 2 guns I own that are not on that exemption list that I feel should be. I encourage all of you to do the same if you feel that way.

Now on to the point of the matter. What about the assault weapons ban? Well, obviously, the ban makes every other gun not in that exemption list banned from use or ownership by civillians. That stirs the crock pot quite a bit b/c there are 2 points of views on the issue.

First of all, for those in favor have their reasons. Obviously, we're not all gang members or actively involved in the maffia so we don't do anything else with these guns except target shoot. So, when the threat of them being taken away arises, of course it's going to stir anger.

But as responsible sportsmen, we should also look at the other side of the issue. I've known a few people who have had family members killed or seriously injuired b/c of assault weapons. Now...if that was your family or wife or even children....how would you feel about assault weapons? Come on, have an open mind.

My opinion? At this point, I have none. Because I see both sides of the issue. I think we should have the assault weapons b/c we never deserved to have them taken away from us. But...other than the occasional rotten pumpkin meeting an AK-47....what use do we have for them besides home defense? And even then, that's a tough issue b/c most people use handguns for self-defense.

Opinions are welcome, of course. Please, spill it all.

[7magWoodsman]

Wouldn't this have been better suited for the "Second Amendment and Political Issues Discussion Forum"?

But to be fair I say this: "How can anyone in their right mind think that America would be Safer with guns out of the Civilians hands and all those stolen guns still in the hands of the criminals?" "I say "WE" need to make it a LAW that civilians must be strictly "trained" and be ARMED at ALL times, and if we are caught without a firearm we should be fined and further more I think EVERY person should have a selective fire battle rifle in their residence and also be fully proficient in it as well. PERIOD."

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.

A Militiaman is ANY able bodied CIVILIAN that "may" by "Law" be called upon for military service.(Does the DRAFT ring a bell?) Also EVERY CITIZEN is expected to DEFEND the HOMELAND if necessary.

ANY ban on ANY ARMS in ANY WAY is a direct VIOLATION to our right to keep and bear arms.

[JPSaxMan]

First of all, WAY TO GO 7MAG!!!  You're probably right about the fact this would have been better suited for that forum, but I figure this forum gets plenty of traffic by itself and after all...it's an all around issue.

[NYH1]

I'm all in favor of "Rid of it", but it doesn't matter, in New York State our Republican governor, George E. Pataki signed and agreed with a law that mirrors the federal assault weapons ban. He also came up with the "ballistic finger printing". :evil:  Were screwed anyways! :evil:

I just hope people that aren't in the New York area and don't know who Pataki is, remember's the name in 2008! :bye:

[TNrifleman]

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or "sporting firearms."
 
I understand that Benjamin Franklin once said something to this effect:  
 
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[JPSaxMan]

For any new viewers, the reason this topic was a sticky b/c it previously was in the Remington Forum. So it was sort of out of place (and the worse part was I made it :oops: ). Just figured it would get some decent reviews but it hasn't. So...I moved it here. Now it has a better home!

[unspellable]

Fishman029,

I find it difficult to believe that you know of anyone, even second or third hand, who has lost a family member to an "assult" weapon.  I think you have fallen victim to the propaganda of the control crowd (Note that I said "control" not "gun control".) in which they abuse the Queen's English and torture words on the rack to make people think they mean the opposite of what they mean.

In the entire history of the United States there have been no (0, zero, nada, none, zilch) cases of a non-justifiable homicide with a legally possessed assualt weapon.  Look up the definition of an assualt rifle.

Since the 1930's when official records began to be kept, there has been only one non-justifiable hmocide with an automatic weapon, this weapon in the hands of a police officer, not a civilian.

Gun control is not about guns.

[JPSaxMan]

OK, ur right, I don't KNOW anybody PERSONALLY who had family killed with an assault weapon. But I have read of a recent tradgedy where a state senator's husband and son were gunned down by ASSAULT WEAPONS. So...u might wanna do some research next time. But yea...I've known of it. It was a reported case of homicide with assault weapons. But that was only the one side of the double-edged sword. I'm assuming you have a wife and children (or not consider maybe your girlfriend or parents or close friends)....if they were in a Quick-Joe or some other public establishement and it was held up and the perpetrator was using an AK-47 and blasted every single person in the place including your loved ones. Now...you tell me how you would feel. If you were still 100% for assault weapons, I'd call you not human. And I pray to God that would never happen to any of your loved ones...I was using it for an example.

[Jack Crevalle]

OK, ur right, I don't KNOW anybody PERSONALLY who had family killed with an assault weapon. But I have read of a recent tradgedy where a state senator's husband and son were gunned down by ASSAULT WEAPONS. So...u might wanna do some research next time.

I believe unspellable's point is that you are using the Diane Fienstien made-up, let-my-staff-of-liberal-weinies-look-at-pictures-of-weapons-that-make-them-feel-icky definition of an assault weapon, rather than it's true definition, a rifle capable of fully automatic fire using an undersized cartridge.

....if they were in a Quick-Joe or some other public establishement and it was held up and the perpetrator was using an AK-47 and blasted every single person in the place including your loved ones. Now...you tell me how you would feel. If you were still 100% for assault weapons, I'd call you not human.

Call me not human. This whole argument hinges on the falacy that if "assault weapons" (to use the diane fienstien defintion) were banned then they would miraculously disappear from the hands of those who had them illegally and they could no longer obtain them.

After 40 years or so of the "war on drugs" how much illegally drugs are stopped at the border? I've never seen higher than 20% claim.

It's illegal to enter this country without permission ( a visa, etc ) yet we have millions of illegal aliens here including known terrorists. Is it harder to detect a rifle than it is a person?

I'd feel like killing the killer but I wouldn't harbor any resentment against an inanimate object.

[JPSaxMan]

I guess you're right, Jack. Even if they are banned, they can still leak out of the Black Market. And I guess you're right in the fact by taking out the rage and anger from the crime on a gun. It wasn't the guns fault, I suppose.

[unspellable]

Kalisnikov (Hope I spelled that right!) had a great influence on the filed of fireamrs.  This is proven by the fact that any firearm longer that 18 inches that makes it into the news media is an AK47.  never mind the caliber.  Never mind the manufacturer.  Never mind the country of origin.  Never mind the magazine capacity.  Never mind the mode of fire.   never mind the accessories.  never mind the cartridge.

If it's in the news it's an "AK47 Assualt Weapon".

There has never been a felony of any kind or a homicide, justifiable or not, in the US involving a legally possesed AK47.  Period.

As for banning the so called "assualt weapons" they constitute less than 1 % of all firearms involved in crimes of all types.  This is smaller than the percentage of the type among all firearms.  Hence on a per 1000 firearms of a given make and model basis they are involved in fewer crimes than most other types.

Mexico has the most effective gun control possible.  They are simply priced beyond the reach of the average peasant.  Mexico has a higher homicide rate than the US.  They need to ban knives.

There is some evidence that in the US and England some 300 years ago the homicide rate using a skillet as the weapon of choice exceeded today's rate of homicides involving firearms.

[MATLOCK12C]

IN 1776 A FLINTLOCK WAS AN ASSAULT WEAPON, YET OUR FOUNDING FATHERS MADE SURE EVERY MAN HAD THE RIGHT TO OWN ONE.
What does that say about there intentions and trust in the common law abiding citizen.

[unspellable]

The Flintlock circa 1776

The founding father's opinion was one thing.

Another thing was that the British authorities attempted to confiscate 'em.  That was the incident that sparked off the Revolutionary War.  So in a sense, you could say the Revolutionary War and severing our connection with the late George III was over the issue of the right to bear arms.  A point largely forgotten today.

[rwng]

It wouldn't matter if an enraged lunatic entered a public establishment with an AK-47, a shotgun, a pellet gun or a rock. If that person is bent on doing harm to innocent people, everyone in the place would just cower and succumb to whatever actions came their way. Nobody would stand up to a person like that. (well maybe 1 out of 500) Heck the police will get there soon, then they will all be saved. :shock:  A person with evil in their soul will do what they want with what they have available. Remember the baseball bat incident down in Florida? I firmly believe that taking any guns out of any law abiding citizens hands is B.S.

[JPSaxMan]

rwng, no, I can't say as I did hear about the baseball incident in Florida. Please enlighten me and maybe others who are as dumbfounded as I am

[MATLOCK12C]

ANYTHING CAN BE USED AS A WEAPON :shock:
It's the "person" who makes it a weapon to do harm to others, not the object itself.  Guns are designed for a specific use, but DO NOT cause harm all by themselves. Hey, "Somebody" has to "touch" it to make it work!
If a "gun" can cause harm all by itself, then a "ink pen" can cause mis spelled words also!

[Major]

You are right MATLOCK12C, ANYTHING CAN BE USED AS A WEAPON!!!
 
I knew a man that was killed with a Pungy Stick.   Maybe we need to outlaw ALL lumber.    
 
And, if we really want to save lives lets get rid of cars.   Cars have helped kill more people in a year than have died from guns in the last 100 years.
 
The whole “gun control” issue is just a smoke screen to disarm the public so they can not protect themselves from a government that has run amuck.

[magooch]

Gentlemen, anyone who believes the Assault Weapons Ban is a just and useful thing, should remember the word "incrementalism".  First "Saturday Night Specials", then "Assault Weapons", then.....

[Patriot_1776]

This may sound like a redundant post or even construed as saying what has already been said, but I do agree with a couple of what was said above about anything can be a weapon.  If all guns are banned, then what?  You can't cut that delicious juicy steak now, because knives, or so called "edged weapons" are banned?  It could, you just never know.  Actually, watch for whom one votes for.  Alot of these gun laws seem quite oxymoron.  First of all, they basically said 10 years ago: "Once these AWs are rid of, crime will undoubtedly drop."  Did it? Or didn't it?  Perhaps it did, in the way of reducing the statistics of: % of people killed "by assault weapons."  Also, the other "oxymoron" factor is this: Why are there criminals?! Who are they?! The pure and simple truth is: They are those who DON'T obey the laws.  So, by enforcing a law, they expect the criminals to obey a law? Yeah right :roll:   That's why they've got the black market.  And they don't give a hoot about the laws...In fact, the laws of this nature are an AID to criminals; by disarming the lawful ones, they give the upper hand to the lawless ones.  In another instance, if ALL guns were banned, what would prevent the disgusting perveyors of evil from being more desirous to attain firearms of any class?!!  Therefore, that being said, thanks for bearing with me; I had to vent... I just can't stand this sort of sticking-your-head-in-the-sand theory of many politicans.  Crime is an enemy...You don't fight an enemy by disarming your own troops...There is no battlefield that can be won with words and no action.  And the only way to win any battle is to fight evil the right way.  God bless America, God bless those who died to make her free, and God bless those who desire TRUE freedom to do what is right no matter what the cost.        Patriot

[unspellable]

Not having a knife to cut your steak with because knives have been banned will nt be a problem because steaks will have been banned also.  (If you don't believe this, just look at PETA, tobacco, diet claims, etc.)

[Graybeard]

Wonder if there is any truth to the vicious but persistent rumor that those three Keep it but Enforce it votes were cast by Chucky Shumer, Billary Klinton and ScaryKerry??? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Patriot_1776]

Wonder if there is any truth to the vicious but persistent rumor that those three Keep it but Enforce it votes were cast by Chucky Shumer, Billary Klinton and ScaryKerry??? Inquiring minds want to know.

Not me, man.  I was #34 on the "Get rid of it" side.   Patriot

[Jay Johnson]

Go here and vote now!  http://www.foxnews.com

[alsatian]

How many people are killed by automobiles?  Well, OK, we can't ban automobiles.  How about banning automobiles that "nobody needs."  This is commonly said about assault weapons: "tell me why you need an assault weapon?"  Tell me why anyone needs a Corvette, Dodge Viper, Mustang GT, etc?  Need?  I don't think so.  Do they kill people?  You bet.

How many people are killed by motorcycles?  Lots -- usually motorcycle riders.  And I don't see how one can argue that we NEED motorcycles.  What do you suppose the cost to our society is for people severely injured in motorcycle accidents?

This is supposed to be a free country.  I shouldn't have to demonstrate a need which is validated by a third party to enjoy my freedom.

I would like to see statistics on the impact of the assault weapons ban on crimes.  If the ban reduced crime, let's see the statistics which capture this.  I think precious few crimes are committed by assault weapons.  First, as I read in an old American Rifleman, only about 20% of crimes involve firearms.  Rapes, for example, typically do not involve a firearm.  Burglaries typically do not involve a firearm.  Secondly, what weapon would you expect to be the weapon of choice in crimes involving a firearm?  My guess is an easily concealed handgun not a relatively bulky assault rifle.

By the way, I do not have an assault weapon or any interest in having one.  By the same token, I don't own a Dodge Viper or Chevrolet Corvette but I don't think others's rights to own these vehicles ought to be restricted if they have done nothing to deserve it (like rack up a string of high speed tickets or drunk driving arrests).

I guess my general impression about gun control laws is that there are more than enough and we don't need any more.  Any new gun law is directed not to making our lives significantly safer but rather to the long term project of eroding, one by one, our firearms rights until we have no firearms.  The only people who obey and take notice of gun laws are law abiding, non-criminals.  Think about it, if you want to stick a gun in another human's face and threaten to fire upon them, are you going to be detered by a little bitty gun law?  I mean, the law against threatening people with a gun is pretty powerful as it is, but that isn't a deterent.

[magooch]

Alsatian, there you go trying to apply common sense and logic.  You've simply got to keep in mind who it is that comes up with things such as the AWB.

[JPSaxMan]

Yep, right on "alsatian" and "magooch". I have to agree with alsace over there, about the whole car and motorcycle thing. I tried to explain to someone today; "The AWB is like this; if you give a mouse a cookie...he'll ask for a glass of milk...." then there ain't not guns not even flintlocks :shock: .

[1GLOCK]

But as responsible sportsmen, we should also look at the other side of the issue. I've known a few people who have had family members killed or seriously injuired b/c of assault weapons.

Fishman029,
You lied right from the start!! You even admited that you lied about knowing someone killed with an assault weapon a few posts down. Any oppinion or statement you may make on this forum from this point on will hold no significance with me an is not worthy of argument. If you are willing to lie to further your agenda what else are you willing to do??
Just my oppinion, I could be wrong.

[jgalar]

About the only thing the AWB effects me is the ability to purchase "normal capacity" magazines for my pistols. I personally don't have a need for 20, 30 or more round magazines. However, some feel that they have the need or want for higher capacity magazines to protect their family or business. Thats fine with me and they should be allowed.
The rest of the AWB is cosmetic. The law should be called the Ugly Weapons Ban, because the banned guns/items are mainly cosmetic. Having a bayonet lug or pistol grip doesn't make a gun any deadlier than one without.  I personally don't care for an assault rifle style gun, but if you like them and want one with a folding stock - Hey, thats cool with me. As long as when I see you at the range you let me try a few shots. I will let you have a few shots with a lever gun or muzzleloader. We may even use a (gasp) speedloader to reload the smoke pole.
The biggest problem we shooters have is not sticking together. Just because I would rather send big slow moving hunks of lead downrange over a modern round doesn't mean I should not support your right of choice for caliber and style of firearm. If my choice of firearm is a shotgun I should still support your choice of rifle or handgun. One of these days they will try to eliminate lead bullets and casting (my personal preference) even if you aren't into that sort of thing I expect you to support me.

[1GLOCK]

Thats the problem with the gun debate, we are our own worst enemy. We need to stick together. My problem is that I see no middle ground. Your either with us or you are the enemy. All you have to do is look around the world and youll see that one small insignificant ban sets precedence for more to come in the future. In this country we think our gov is for us and some of them are but lets look at another point of view. If our gov has the only "real" weapons and our gov goes bad then what??? We as a people have no way to oppose them. That my friends is dangerous. Look around the world and back through history youll see what i mean. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It never ceases to amaze me, 2000+ years of documented history and yet we have learned nothing!!
The second ammendment was not only designed to keep out invaders but to keep our own govt in check. Look at the type of people that push for certain weapons bans, they are the ones we as a people should be most concerned with, they have destroyed what our ancestors died to preserve.
People of NY, CA, DC and Massholechusets I feel your pain, YOU ARE SECOND CLASS CITICENS AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!  As a goup I think its about time the rest of us turn our attention to those states, they are our countrymen and deserve the same rights to gun ownersip and self protection as the rest of us enjoy.
Sorry, i kind of went off on a rant there.

[JPSaxMan]

FELLAS FELLAS FELLAS....some great news came across the news tonite. For those who didn't hear the great words across the media...THE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN HAS EXPIRED!!!!  :-D    :-D    :-D   . Hee-haw! That's like a ton weight off all of our shoulders, now isn't it?