St. Petersburg councilman wants to ban assault rifles in city (city/state/country)

When running for re-election and almost assured a slam-dunk, there's nothing that makes headlines better than making a fool of yourself.




St. Petersburg councilman wants to ban assault rifles in city, urges state and US to follow

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_south_pinellas/st_petersburg/st.-petersburg-councilman-wants-to-ban-assault-rifles-in-city,-urges-state-and-us-to-follow


ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - There is no room for assault rifles in St. Petersburg, city council member Steve Kornell said. He wants the semi-automatic and automatic weapons banned.

Kornell will ask fellow city council members at a meeting this week to ban assault weapons in the city. Kornell also wants a resolution asking the state and federal government to follow suit. "I think it's an issue whose time has come," said Kornell. "I think most people get why you can't have military assault weapons."



The proposal comes after three St. Petersburg police officers have been shot dead this year, none with an assault weapon.



"I believe in the Constitution and this is not about taking away anybody's rights," said Kornell. "But people do not have a right to own a personal military assault weapon."







wow!

Finally a politician who almost understands the issue!!! NO ONE has a RIGHT to own any gun , except in the context of a well regulated militia. ALL assault rifles and all hand guns should be banned. It should be next to impossible for the average citizen to buy ammunition.

"NO ONE has a RIGHT to own any gun , except in the context of a well regulated militia."

The bill of rights, and more specifically amendment 2, does not authorize ANYTHIMNG at all. it does not set context, particularly when the context is and has been set within the bill of rights itself.

It RESTRICTS government.


The right of the people to keep and bearms shall not be infringed (by government), because a well regulated (meaning equipped in the vernacular of the time of its writing) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.


Heres a quote of the preamble to the bill of rights, which clearly plainly and unequivocally backs up what I just said - that context thing:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Now that its been provided for you, perhaps you wont be making that mistake in interpretation anymore.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Very refreshing...

If you ban possession of a firearm, go door to door and pick them, and the munitions for them, up and destroy them.

How are you planning to pay for over 300 MILLION firearms, at fair market value?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

'Cause he ain't gettin' mine

I'm sure one of those windmills will eventually fall.

In the meantime, 80% of your fellow americans will point and laugh.

And take them? You? Doubtful...you will probably send some poor bastard in uniform, and expect him, or her to risk their life for you.

First, few legal scholars and there has never been a SCOTUS decision that agrees with you. Well regulated at the time of the writing meant equipped or well functioning. Even the dissent in the Heller case said it was a ninth Amendment right.
In our system, the government does not grant rights, the Constitution puts limits on government.

You are the perfect example of why the 2nd Amendment is a vital protection.

:eyes:

The price has just gone way up over the last few years, and I want to snag one while they're still cheaper than a WASR. My thought process is that a good sks beats out a cheap WASR. And I just like the looks of the SKS better anyway. :P

As to the OP and the first poster, what a patently ignorant position to hold given all the evidence available not to mention the legal realities and precedents long set.

The typical SKS will shoot much more accurately than the typical AK. Even with non-descript milsurp ammo the SKS will shoot 2.5 MOA or better. An AK that can shoot better than 6 MOA with the best of ammunition is exceptional.

I submit to you that it's because the SKS was designed as a semi-auto from the get-go. The AK was designed as a full auto that can also shoot semi. The primary focus was reliable feed, not accuracy. That's what makes the "assault weapon" panic so laughable: what you have in the civilian AK clone is a relatively inaccurate medium-powered semi-auto rifle. But they look s-o-o-o-o-o-o scary...

Not to knock the AK: they are very reliable, which is partly due to that full-auto heritage. And I'm sorry to say so, but I think the SKS is ugly. The stocks look as if they were carved with a chisel.

Some of our Canadian critics may be surprised that SKSs are popular deer rifles up there too.

about as accurate as an old iron-sighted 16" .30-30, with decent ammo. Say 4" at 100 yards, sometimes a little better. Not an AR by any means, but not a shotgun either.

The biggest accuracy issue with the AK is the short sight radius (and that is the biggest difference between the AK and SKS). The AK is not forgiving at all of sight misalignment, making it an easy rifle to shoot badly, although a 1x optic helps quite a bit. Also, AK's don't like being benchrested rigidly on the forend (barrel harmonics are not your friend), and if you have a slant brake, one of the best things you can do for accuracy is to replace it with a muzzle nut or symmetrical flash suppressor (because nutation is not your friend).

Absolutely, that's why it's called Avtomat Kalashnikova, "Kalashnikov's Automatic," whereas the SKS is Samozaryadnyj Karabin Simonova, "Simonov's Self-loading Carbine."

By 1945, the Soviet Army's primary frontline individual weapon wasn't the Mosin-Nagant rifle, it was the PPSh-41 sub-machine gun, and the latter is what the AK was designed to replace. Doctrinally, the AK isn't so much a rifle that can fire on automatic, as it is an overgrown SMG. Depriving it of its autofire capability largely removes the point of the design.

And I hate to say, but I also think the SKS is a pretty ugly weapon, even though I am awfully fond of my Yugoslav M59/66.

....but in a sort of cool way if that makes any sense. :P

I'm very much looking forward to picking one up sometime this year!

The Soviet Army issued submachineguns more widely than any of the other combatants during World War 2. The PPSh-41 and the later PPS-43 were inexpensive, reliable and widely distributed. Chambered for the same 7.62x25 cartridge as the Tokarev pistol it fired a .30 caliber bullet at nearly 1700 fps from the submachine guns. To put that in perspective, it was not very much far behind the M1 carbine in energy.

Very early on in the urban fights typical of Leningrad and especially Stalingrad the Soviets embraced high volume fires and achieving fire superiority. When the German MP-43 and StG-44 started showing up the Russians were quick to seize on a good idea. Note that the 7.62x39 cartridge used in the AK and SKS is the M1943 in Soviet nomenclature.

Russian infantry tactics have emphasized the "bullet hose" over precision fire for almost 80 years. They have also emphasized rugged, reliable equipment, capable of being operated and maintained by the most illiterate of peasants.

Case in point, most Eastern Bloc uniforms have button a fly. Almost any moron can replace a button with a cheap sewing kit. Fixing a zipper is a BIG problem in the field. Their ammo pouches use toggle and loop closures, easily fixed, but most of all QUIET. Someone should string up whatever idiot put Velcro all over the ACU pockets and pouches. There is nothing in nature that sounds like Velcro opening; that sound can be heard forever. It draws only slightly less attention to your position than a 98 piece marching band!

Ditto

IIRC, "military assault weapons" are specifically constitutionally protected.

Providing your state permits it, you pass the FBI background check, have the patience to wait for 6 months or so for the tax stamp and ... can actually find somebody willing to sell one.

The Heller decision may have stopped just short of overturning the 86 ban, but the M-16 reference by name would appear to be an invitation by SCOTUS to challenge it. If so then the M-16 will once again be priced at about $100.00 above that of an AR-15 - as it was prior to the 86 ban.

yup

And we have been winning lots of victories in getting the laws we want. Not all of them, but lots of them.

This guy has only announced a position. Lets see if he wins now that he has staked out that position.

Kind of falls in the same category of people that truly hope for a fantasy world so much and so desperately they actually think everyone else can see it too.

Chiang obviously never returned to mainland China and gun control will never make a comeback on any kind of broad basis. Too many people have seen that they were lied to about the pending disasters of concealed carry or open carry and won't pay attention when they "Cry Wolf" every time. Besides, for all the bluff and bluster, none of these people are willing to actually pull out the checkbook and put their money where their gun control mouth is.

When liberal gun laws pass with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, it isn't a GOP/NRA conspiracy, unless there a lot of "Ds" in on it too. It's the will of the electorate.

The gun control side has reached the low point of referring to our President as wrong about the 2nd amendment (individual right), and embracing and celebrating as a hero some dim bulb running for city council and calling for an unconstitutional ban on so called Assault Weapons.

OTOH, we have weekly articles about gun laws becoming much more liberal and crime continuing to drop.

under the mistaken premises that (1) most gun owners are hunters, and (2) most gun owners don't own or care about nonhunting guns. Which turned out, of course, to be a disastrous miscalculation by those on your side of the argument; the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters, and the Feinstein law directly affected tens of millions of gun owners.

That backlash made modern-looking rifles the most popular rifles in the United States, and gave us 48-state CCW with 35+ being shall-issue.

Today---now that many times more people own AR's and other modern-looking rifles than in 1994, and now that AR's and whatnot dominate civilian target shooting (both competitive and recreational)---fighting to ban them is even more counterproductive for your side. And nonsensical, since you're talking about some of the most popular and least misused civilian guns in the United States.

AAaaaaahahahahahaha

You think the warped viewpoint of a city councilman is going to make a bit of difference?

He is going to get laughed out of office.

Rumor has it that you and Shares own a huge gun store. Do you do special orders? There is this rifle that is available in Canada but not here. Can your store help import one this place in Canada? http://www.canadaammo.com/product.php?productid=12&cat=0&page=1

but instead of speaker Newt, say hi to president Palin and both chambers turned into kindergartens. The bright side? None but nice theater and feeding smugness.

"The proposal comes after three St. Petersburg police officers have been shot dead this year, none with an assault weapon."

I really don't understand the hype for Assault Weapons bans. The UCR has continually reported that "Assault Weapons" are the least favored weapons of crime. Usually they account for less than 5% of weapons crimes.

As a gun owning democrat who happens to own several evil "assault rifles" I can tell you that the 30 Round magazine and the pistol grip are not conspiring right now to go commit a crime. Its usually the Bayonets fault. Thats why I keep them seperated now.

when they talk about the semi-auto versions that American's can buy for a reasonable price at their local gun store.

Take a few minutes and watch this video which features an interview with ATF agent Andrew Traver who is being considered to run the ATF.

Andrew Traver Anti-Assault Rifle TV Interview
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/11/robert-farago/missing-andrew-traver-tv-interview-surface/

Imagine the emotional impact on a viewer who knew little or nothing about firearms and believed that the weapons in the video were the same weapons used on the street in Chicago and could be readily purchased anywhere in the United States at every local gun store.

Now take a few minutes to watch this factual video also made by a law enforcement officer which explains the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and an semi-auto assault weapon.

The Truth about "Assault Weapons"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

Those who oppose RKBA and wish to impose draconian gun laws, bans and even confiscation of firearms are willing to lie and exaggerate in order to gain support. Such people realize that it is impossible to ban firearms at this point and therefore small incremental steps have to be taken to accomplish their ultimate goal. They can distort and confuse the facts with the help of the main stream media to convince voters that these small steps, like another assault weapons ban, will reduce the violent crime rate. Unfortunately for them, many people are becoming aware that their message is based on dishonestly and exaggeration. The forty million gun owners in our nation are more than willing to educate their friends and co-workers on the simple facts and truth about firearms. It's not rocket science.

Our nation faces far more serious problems than attempting to greatly restrict firearm ownership for honest people. Economic problems, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our unemployment rate and the possible coming economic depression are extremely complicated issues. I find it difficult to believe anything the main stream media says when they are appear incapable of distinguishing the difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-auto weapon. I suspect they have an agenda and are willing to lie in order to accomplish a mission. That's just as irresponsible as my failing to follow the basic gun safety rules and pointing a firearm at a person without reason.

Both the First and Second Amendments are very important and both require tremendous responsibly. In order to destroy the Second Amendment, I fear our media has decided to ignored their responsibility to publish only the truth. There is a reason for the First Amendment being the first. It is undoubtedly the most important. When the third estate chooses to ignore its responsibility, our nation is in serious danger.

edited to add: Welcome to DU

let's take a look at both types of weapons:

Automatic weapons (1 trigger press = multiple rounds fired)

Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and in some areas effectively banned. To purchase one requires a federal background check (significantly deeper than a "normal" one) and the approval of the chief law enforcement officer for the purchasers area + a $200 transfer stamp. There are also laws regarding when it had to be manufactured (not sure of the details). The penalties for unlawful possession of an automatic weapon are still quite stiff (up to 10 years in federal prison + tax evasion charges. Source)

Semi-automatic "assault" weapons (1 trigger press = 1 round fired)

Some firearms that are deemed "assault weapons" are cosmetic shells wrapped around standard sport actions. for example, this weapon:

has the exact same action as


other than one looking scarier than the other, there is no real difference between the 2. same round, same rate of fire. Why is one "legal" and the other "illegal"? (and don't say that they both should be as you are just showing ignorance).

Now as to the firearms/militia argument. The recent Heller decision stated that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" (Source). While you may disagree with the ruling it is, now, the law of the land.

If it helps, you can take heart that the ruling was only 5 - 4 so there is the possibility, if another similar case reaches the USSC and the court make up changes, that this ruling may be reinterpreted and a new ruling issued more in line with an anti-gun ideology. Personally I hope not as I come down on the rights of the individual vs the rights of the collective.

And note that even in the dissenting opinion on Heller the judges stated that the 2nd Amendment did in fact guarantee an individual right and that they were not disputing that point.