I have a bad feeling about the Assault Weapons Ban...

Is it going to be expires sometime this month?

If Bush and those bastard neocons have their way... we could have our streets flooded with AK-47s, AR-15, Tec-9s and armor-piercing bullets in the hands of criminals before the next election.

Is it the 2nd amendment great? (/sarcasm)

What do you think?

I GueSSS I CAN"T ROB THE BANK TONIGHT!!!!

</sarcasm>

Seriously, if a criminal wants one, the criminal will get one whether it is against the law or not.

The key is in preventing the violece in the first place -- giving children good education, keeping families out of poverty, and teaching tolerance in schools.

Thin air?

just gotta know where to look

And that's accepting your totally unsupported statement at face value.

and my lever action 30-30, the .308, the 12 ga. auto, etc. The AWB is mainly targeted at 'scary' looking firearms.

BTW, the 2nd is great.

Edited to elaborate:

Just thinkin', if they really want to make a ban of substance, why not actually do it instead of the PC scary gun ban. Ban all firearms except single shot firearms, which is what was available when the 2nd was written.

If you're going to do something, do it well or not at all. Just ban 'em or lay off.

"which is what was available when the 2nd was written."

SO I guess you don't mind Internet, modern printing presses, Radio and television were heavily censored by the Republicans.

After all those items didnt exist in 1776 and are not protected by 1st.

part of my post when I said the 2nd is great. I was just thinkin' aloud that the gun banners should put their chips on the table instead of whining over a cosmetic ban, not that I want it. I think they're silly since I think an armed public is a polite public.

I see where you are coming from.

I haven't been clear headed all day. My writing is worse. :crazy:

Manners really came about when men carried swords. Everyone had to be pretty sure of how to behave.

It makes sense to me, they way things are going he can't have the populace too well armed they might start a revolution or something. I'm not a gun owner because I have 3 kids in the house but I respect others rights to own guns. I do think limits should be imposed however. I don't see any need for automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public. One dork with an AK47 isn't worth half of an experienced marksman with a .308.

and still no reply.

Bush has said "if congress sends it to me, I'll sign it."

RIIIIIGHT...

If you want an ak-47, go down to your gun store and buy them. Assault weapons have never been banned.

In fact, more "assault weapons" were sold in the 10 years after the "ban", than the 10 years before then ban. Why? Because it doesnt really ban anything.

And yes. The 2nd ammendment is great. In fact, the whole constitution is.

(But then, I suspect your whole post is sarcasm, or a freeper disruption anyway)

I just became a gun control advocate. I used to be an NRA member when I was a kid and thought the best way to fight crime to owning a gun, then Bill Clinton opened my eyes and made me do a 180. I now believe in more police on the streets.

I just saw the liberal light, that's all.

BTW, I am not against the second amendment. Anybody have the right to defend their homes. But sometimes they are non-violent alternatives for home security (too many accidental gun discharges these days.)

Btw, Bill Clinton opened my eyes to.

I thought guns were "bad" until he began crusading against them. Ironically he got me interested in the issue and I found that controlling guns had nothing to do with controlling crime.

I became a gun owner thanks in no small part to President Clinton getting me interested in my 2nd ammendment rights.

I bought a perfectly legal then and now Chinese AK-47 (semi-automatic) called a MAK-90 because of the "ban" - only thing that has changed under the "ban" is that same weapon goes for about $200 more.(putting more money in gun sellers hands)

If I had more money, I'd buy more guns, they are a solid investment.

I'm voting for Kerry

Are some of your best friends gay, by any chance?

nt

Without that implication, the statement doesn't mean anything at all, O Pooh-Bah of Common Sense.

It is utterly impossible that the human being most quoted by the press on the planet could utter words that would spark somone's interest in a topic. Who ever heard of such a thing?

Stop looking for monsters under the bed.

edited t add: The sitting president of the U.S., regardless of whom he or she (hopefully soon a she, but not HC) is arguably the most quoted by the press.

He said that he turned against gun control when he found out Clinton was for it. Now when you say that if X is for it, I'm against it, you're not saying anything particularly nice about X.

Why is this hard to understand? Possibly because some of us don't want to understand it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He said that he changed his mind when he found out that his views were the same as Clinton's. That's what "I thought guns were "bad" until he began crusading against them" means. Whatever else he said in the post, that sentence is a clear slam against President Clinton.

Let's just say that I have "corresponding" evidence to the contrary.

wink wink, nudge nudge WAIT! REVERSE THAT!

I'm still so happy we agree about Ignore that I'll give in on this one. You probably know Fescue better than I do. If you really think that he hasn't got any animus against Clinton, I'll take your word for it.

Try again sparky.

For a librarian, you sure do have trouble with the English language.

Stop reading tea leaves, or smoking them as the case may be.

The point which you are blind to, is that Clinton began a national dialogue on gun rights.

This dialogue got me interested and surprising me, I found myself in disagreement with the president position.

That position btw, lost the House and Senate in 1994 btw, and we STILL HAVE NOT recovered from it.

Anyway, Clinton was a fantastic president, but he was quite conservative on gun rights and in this area I disagree.

"Are some of your best friends gay, by any chance?"

Whos bashing gays?

You must able to read better than I since I cant find evidence of any of what you are talking about.

lunatic neighbor can get his hands on a AK-47. He sees "terrorists" everywhere.

or Yesterday, or at anytime in the past.

They were never banned.

AK's were never banned.

but in the past decade, especially the past 4 years, I've completely changed my mind. I see no harm in registering firearms, but bans... I'm not so keen on anymore. The government should not have a monopoly on killing power. Just my opinion, I'm not Charlton Heston, and I certainly respect views to the contrary. Heck, just look at the most famous aphorism of my username, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I agree with an earlier poster. Guns aren't the problem. Poverty, intolerance, our education system and a culture of violence are the problem.

this is one we can talk and talk and talk about and label him as a flip flopper.

"WHY did the president FLIP FLOP on the assault weapon ban? First he said he was FOR the ban and then he FLOPPED and is now against it? WHY???"

We can say assault weapons are the terrorists' weapons of choice and now they'll be able to get them easily, right in our country.

Plus, Ashcroft keeps telling us THE TERRORISTS ARE HERE - in the country - be very afraid!!!

Well, now bush and co are going to arm terrorists with assault weapons, right here in the 'homeland.'

I don't want to live in a country where kids and adults are walking around the streets with AK-47's and such.

Besides, what the HELL do we need assault weapons for???? Do any of you plan on taking over a police station or military base? YOU DON'T NEED THOSE TYPES OF GUNS!

Im an American.

;)

;)

You have to draw the line somewhere.

Someone starts a thread about the AWB and someone else comes in whining about nukes and missiles. Why don't you quote us the federal firearms law that bans private ownership of nuclear weapons? Why don't you tell us which law bans the private ownership of shoulder fired rockets?

that specifically prohibited my owning a SFM and couldn't find it.

So, where do YOU believe the line should be drawn. What is the limit of firepower you feel the next Koresh should be able to acquire before he/she flips?

"I actually googled in an effort to find a law that specifically prohibited my owning a SFM and couldn't find it."

There's a reason for that.


"So, where do YOU believe the line should be drawn."

I don't think there should be a line.


"What is the limit of firepower you feel the next Koresh should be able to acquire before he/she flips?"

Wouldn't the first Koresh have had to flip for there to be a next one to flip?

John Goodman is in the closet.

and is quite legal, depending on what it is.

Want a RPG-7? I know a licensed dealer in destructive devices that has them for sale.

needs to learn the difference between ARMS, and ORDINANCE.

Most of these folks can't even be bothered to find out what an assault weapon is.

& ORDINANCE... BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Typical of most gun nuts. Undereducated and over compensating.

Webster's Definition: \Or"di*nance\, n. ordonnance. See {Ordain}, and cf. {Ordnance}, {Ordonnance}.]
1. Orderly arrangement; preparation; provision.
--Spenser.

They had made their ordinance Of victual, and of
other purveyance. --Chaucer.

2. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of
action; a statute, law, regulation, rescript, or accepted
usage; an edict or decree; esp., a local law enacted by a
municipal government; as, a municipal ordinance.

Thou wilt die by God's just ordinance. --Shak.

By custom and the ordinance of times. --Shak.

Walking in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless. --Luke i. 6.

Note: Acts of Parliament are sometimes called ordinances;
also, certain colonial laws and certain acts of
Congress under Confederation; as, the ordinance of 1787
for the government of the territory of the United
States northwest of the Ohio River; the colonial
ordinance of 1641, or 1647. This word is often used in
Scripture in the sense of a law or statute of sovereign
power. --Ex. xv. 25. --Num. x. 8. --Ezra iii. 10. Its
most frequent application now in the United States is
to laws and regulations of municipal corporations.
--Wharton (Law Dict.).

3. (Eccl.) An established rite or ceremony.

With few, nearly inconsequential, differences in pans and barrels virtually all firearms in existence at the time of the writing of the second amendment fired at the same rate: one shot per load -loaded via the muzzle - unless one loaded as a primitive fuisaladier by putting several balls and/or charges into a rifle or pistol.

Since the 2nd logically applied to all arms available at the time and did not specify that future improvements to firearms be re-examined, the RkBA most deinitely applies to all man-portable firearms today.

Plese don't use the old argument about the impossibility to forsee future inventions. While the exact nature of future improvements were impossible to see, given the brilliance of the group assembled, including the historic inventors, Jefferson and Franklin, these things must have been considered. The ideas were around, it just took years to get them working in some form. If you don't think so, consider the spread between Franklin's 'discovery' of electricity and Edison's (and others) work to put electricity to practical use.

The all-purpose, use-it-in-any-situation, no-response-needed excuse.

Sid

Pity you disagree.

Obvious cheap shot withheld because I refuse to stoop to personal attacks.

I wasnt talking to you, let alone attacking you

Skippy was defending you just a little ways up the thread, for example. Also, it's hard to get new people, particularly actual progressives, to post in the Gungeon, due to the reception they get. Accusations of hating freedom, gee, which party does that remind me of?

However then it is too late. Good Game, hope you enjoy your screw up.

I own a mini 14 ( not a very accurate semi automatic ) and there are no problems finding them. I don't use it for anything but target shooting, and I don't carry it around the streets.

Now I just like the idea that I have it. I also have a Makarov automic , ( That is a Russian copy of a PPK ).

I agree I don't need them, but it is nice to exercise my option to own one.

AW's are not now, nor have they ever been banned. Read and understand the AWB before making erroneous statements about it or referring to things it does or not do.

It's only a paper change. There are MANY much more important issues to be concerned with. The repubs are going to use this and abortion to distract the sheeple from issues that REALLY REALLY matter.

Besides, if the republicans steal another election, I may want an assault rifle.

By the way, most Democrats refer to themselves as "Democrats". Seeing the "liberal light" just doesn't ring true. You've created SO many interesting threads, I wouldn't want anyonw to call you a disruptor.

A worthless law will be history
Tom

none of those things are banned, the AWB wont change much.

With their actually progressive opinions and their utter ignorance of gun arcana and gun porn. Never fear, our RKBAers will drive them away soon enough.

of all those guns going back on the street is fightning. My partner and I are horrified of what might happen.

*save a life_Hug a tree*

Anyone who argues otherwise just needs to look around. We have laws against drunk driving, so drunks must be off the streets. We have laws against drugs, so drugs are obviously off the streets.

Without the laws against drunk driving, drunk drivers would flood kill hundreds every year. Without the laws against drugs, crack, heroine, and LSD would be easy for high school kids to buy--and cheap too! Without the laws against assault weapons they will certainly flood the streets. Hell, even my neighbor's kids are saving up their pennies to buy them! :eyes:

<edit>
Enjoy your time here, I_Hug_Trees, I'm sure it won't be long.

They always were. Just features like folding stocks, bayonet lugs, stuff like thas is banned. You are no less safe than you were before.

I've bought at least 15 different folding stock, telescoping stocks, pistol grips for shotguns, etc. - and so-called hi-cap mags by the dozen since 1994. They never went away, and never should have.

Those types of guns have NO business being legal and on the streets!

Anyone who says otherwise is insane!

are not really streetable. These are rifles. The vast majority of murders are comitted with handguns, because they are easily concealable.

The AWB does not cover the vast majority of semi-auto "assault" weapons. They are widley available, just not used.

It is a political bill with no teeth.

We will need those assault weapons one day to battle the Freeper hordes let loose by the Hounds of Hell - Bush and Company.

What better way to "take down" the enemies of Democracy than with the weapons they enabled.

Et tu, Brute

But that is not surprising. Most Americans are misonformed about this issue. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" DOES NOT ban fully-automatic weapons (the National Firearms Act of 1934 did that). What it does is ban things like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips on rifles and carbines. Now, these are mostly cosmetic fatures. A flash hider, for instance, does NOT eliminate muzzle flash...you need a well-fitted supressor to do that, and those are ALSO banned under the 1934 NFA. It reduces the amount of muzzle flash the marksman is exposed to, thus enabling more accurate aim over a longer time in low-light conditions. As to bayonet lugs...when have bayonetings been a problem?

The "Assault Weapons Ban" is, I'm afraid, mostly bullshit designed to mollify paranoid, ignorant people.

You'd think that if the AWB were "mostly bullshit," the NRA wouldn't give a hoot. But they're saying today, "This battle has been won."

And if the gun lobby is defining this issue as a battle, I'd prefer that they remain on the losing end.

http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=886
FINALLY, THE END OF A SAD ERA -- CLINTON GUN BAN STRICKEN FROM BOOKS!
Today, the Clinton gun ban expired. The ban's enactment in 1994 was political chest-thumping and deceit at its worst. Now that the ban is over, as was the case for decades prior to and during the life of the ban, criminals still will not legally be able to possess these firearms. Law-abiding citizens, however, will once again be free to purchase semi-automatic firearms, regardless of their cosmetic features, for target shooting, shooting competitions, hunting, collecting, and most importantly, self-defense.
<snip>
Make no mistake, our fight to protect and preserve the Second Amendment is far from over. At every opportunity, the Schumers, Clintons, Feinsteins, and Kerrys of the world will diligently work, this year and beyond, to pass another, more restrictive gun ban. We can also promise you that dozens of state legislatures will pick up the gun ban mantle and try and pass state level gun bans as well. We must remain vigilant on this front. This battle has been won, but it is only a temporary victory. The war will rage on!

is key to any field. Computers, medicine, and firearms all have them.

A machine gun is a weapon that fires continuously while the trigger is depressed. An example of this is the M-60 .30 cal gun or the M2 .50 cal machine gun. You can see these on TV mounted on military vehicles.

A select fire rifle like the M-16 or Ak-47 are called assault weapons because of a German word for the first rifle to use a shorter case. This allowed the soldier to carry more ammo trading distance shots for quantity However the premise is the rifle has a 30 round magazine and can fire 1 round per pull of the trigger or many. The military teaches 3 shot bursts.

A sub machine gun like the HK mp5 fire pistol rounds, high rate of fire, short range, usually used by law enforcement who are concerned about firing rifles in urban areas. Many are switching to the M4 a short rifle, it fires .223 like the m-16. They have figured out that a 9mm round passes through walls and people more often than the smaller faster rifle round. Weird, but true..

Mac-10's and Uzi's fall into this group to but are no longer used by law enforcement in the US.

All of these weapons are covered by a congressional ban in the '30's. All are expensive, hard to conceal, and rarely used in crimes.

The assault weapons ban has no real impact on these firearms.

The Brady law has had real impact on criminal use of handguns.
Handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals.

Other than yourself of course?

Please tell me that was a joke. If not, please read up on shooting sports.

there are a quarter of a million machineguns in civilian hands legally. There have been TWO used in crimes in the past SEVENTY years. That works out to what, 1 crime every 35 years, and what, 1 crime for every eight million, seven hundred and fifty THOUSAND gun years.

Was that a part of the assault weapon ban? I thought they were banned in 1986.

This is on most state books. "Cop killer" bullets are pistol rounds coated with teflon. The purpose being to defeat kevlar vests. Vest technology has progressed to where these bullets no longer pose a threat. There is no reason to make them legal.

Vests now use ceramic plates that will stop some rifle rounds. Shotgun pellets and all pistol rounds.

No vest will stop a full powered rifle round.

The Teflon was to reduce barrel wear. It has no effect on penetration.

Copper jacket slugs can be fired tens of thousands of times through a barrel before wear shows up. This applies to pistols. They usually fire low velocity rounds and wear very slowly.

Teflon and similar compounds reduce the coefficient of friction when a bullet strikes a vest. Layers of kevlar can not "catch" the bullet so it passes through.

It may reduce barrel wear but most shooters who shoot for extreme accuracy replace barrels regularly.

A recreational shooter will never shoot the barrel out of a handgun during normal use.


There is no reason to legalize any round used to defeat body armor.

The original KTW bullet that start the whole cop killer hysteria was built around a case-hardened steel core. This was later changed to a tungsten alloy and still later to brass. The teflon was used to protect the barrel from the effects of these much harder projectiles.

This round and other so called armor piercing rounds are banned and will remain so. The AWB has nothing to do with ammo.

Additionally there are many currently legal rounds (mostly rifle ammo) that will "defeat" most kinds of body armor.

there are both rifle rounds that defeat vests and ways to modify some pistol ammo to defeat the vest.

Vests work on friction principles, a fmj 9mm with a steel core will not penetrate a vest by its self. Distributing the energy from the point of impace is done by friction and resistance from fibers in the vest and the sruface of the round. Mass and velocity have effect as well. Most rifle rounds penetrate old vests, newer vests are designed to defeat 223 nato and 7.62 rounds used by us and the russians.

Higher powered rounds or tungsten penetrator rounds can defeat ceramics. These should remain illegal, IMHO.

I posted earlier that this isn't covered under the ban.

I will not discuss how to defeat body armor on a public forum but a search will give you more information, doing it is illegal.

defeating a vest is a matter of velocity and mass. If you took a wad of marshmallow and got it going fast enough, it'll punch through a tank, just as a drinking straw will go through an oak door if propelled fast enough.

The 1994 "Ban" only made having a flash hider, a bayonette, folding stock, or a few other features illegal. Manufacturers just removed those features and kept selling them. And though mags over 10 rounds were made illegal to manufacture new in the US, there are plenty available from foreign importers for sale here.

The ban expiring is alot of hype- there will be no more or less likely "Bloodbath" in the streets, since these guns have been available non-stop.

Most crimes are commited with cheap handguns anyways.

"With us or against us," as Bush* would say?

Assault weapon was drawn from, it is all about drama..

The same weapons are sill available. They may not have a folding stock or a flash suppressor but you can still buy an ar-15, and get a 30 rd mag. We are talking about a weapon that fires one round with each trigger pull, they use low caliber high velocity rifle rounds. While getting hit with this round is much more destructive than a handgun round their use is very limited. An offensive weapon. Like the dc sniper shootings. He could have done the same thing with a Remington 700 rifle with a scope, just as deadly, more so actually. But that is the most popular hunting rifle in the US.

The most destructive weapon available to the general public is the 12ga shotgun with a short barrel and an 8 round magazine. A shotgun blast is almost always fatal and requires less aiming expertise. A remington 870 pump shotgun, the most popular sporting shotgun, can be converted from a good skeet gun to hold 8 rounds of 00 buckshot (16 .30cal pellets) and use a short barrel, becoming the most deadly short to medium range weapon you can use.

Using a rifle to kill at distance requires skill. Using a shotgun requires much less.

The weapons used in the LA robbers used select fire rifles. Fully automatic, illegal unless you have a class 3 license. Converting any semi auto pistol, sub machine gun, or rifle to fire more than one round will land you a 10 year mandatory sentence.

The majority of homicides are committed with handguns and long guns are difficult to conceal.

But you can also buy diesel fuel and fertilizer, nitric acid and sulphuric acid and toluene. ANFO and TNT are easy to make and use.

Intent is key to any crime.
Edit:add sentence.

They are going to amend it to cut to flow of sales in half.
It will be signed just before the recount and you will have to be a registered repulbican to buy one.

As for the rest, well, that's just funny. Excellent parody.

did nothing for our safety or to reduce crime. it deserves to die quietly, and those who wrote it need to stfu about it.

Defending one's home is best accomplished with a shotgun. For hunting there are ordinary rifles the AWB doesn't molest. Unless you plan to bayonet a deer to death, the weapons restricted under the AWB would be bought for pure recreation, collecting, or for killing humans. In any case, if not banned, they should be highly regulated.

is what the second amendment is about

If the purpose of owning a gun is to be able to kill somebody or resist a modern army, we should all be able to own Stingers and LAWs as well as assault rifles. If you draw the line somewhere, I think it has to be drawn at military weapons.

That bans private ownership of Stingers and LAWs?

Unless its been passed in the last few hours. It doenst exist.

They are regulated as destructive devices by the NFA of 1934. Regulating an item as a destructive device essentially limits the item to the military and law enforcement with some exceptions. You, for example, will never privately own these weapons, though no ban exists.

Nothing prevents a private citizen from owning a destructive device. Lots of people do.

The only chance to own one would be to get a certified transfer from military personnel, and that would never happen either. It's an effective ban, as I said previously. No law bans ownership, but you will still never own one. It's true that some people privately own old grenade launchers and the like.

particular product won't sell them to civilians doesn't mean they are banned. There's nothing stopping a company from selling shoulder launched missiles to people beyond maybe a lack of demand. There's no law stopping someone from manufacturing their own. Although come to think of it, missiles would probably be regulated by the FAA separately from the destructive device laws. I think it depends on how much fuel they carry.

"It's true that some people privately own old grenade launchers and the like."

Some? Old?

You're forgetting all of the other things classified as destructive devices too. Mortars, artillery pieces, firearms with a bore over half an inch, Street Sweeper and Striker-12 shotguns.

You seem to have waded into this argument before you familiarized yourself with it.

Fescue4u posted:

"Could you please cite the law that bans private ownership of Stingers and LAWs?"

I said there is no official ban on these weapons, but there is an effective ban. One can't go out and simply purchase a LAW or Stinger, and owning one legally would be next to impossible. Even legally owning a machine gun is rather difficult, since the operant parts have to be manufactured before 1986, one needs a $200 tax to the BATF, fingerprints and passport photos, etc.

when you said: Regulating an item as a destructive device essentially limits the item to the military and law enforcement with some exceptions.


Even legally owning a machine gun is rather difficult"

Owning a machine gun isn't difficult, it's expensive. There's a difference.


", since the operant parts have to be manufactured before 1986, one needs a $200 tax to the BATF, fingerprints and passport photos, etc.

Only the receiver needs to be manufactured before May 19, 1986. You also need to have your local chief law enforcement officer sign your paperwork in addition to the fingerprints, photos, and $200.

Tell me, step by step, how you would come to legally acquire and own a brand new Stinger. How about a brand new MP5 submachine gun? If there is no ban on owning one, yet it is impossible to acquire or own one legally, that is an effective ban. Fescue4u said there was no legal ban and I agreed, but I said there is an effective ban. I have yet to see that disputed.

Stingers when it seemed like you were talking about all destructive devices, then I guess I misunderstood.

Tell me, step by step, how you would come to legally acquire and own a brand new Stinger.

I don't know. As I said, the company doesn't sell them to civilians.


How about a brand new MP5 submachine gun?

Brand new? You'd have to become a Special Occupational Taxpayer. You could get a used one that was made before '86 like any other NFA weapon without becoming a SOT.

They all came with, or attached to, surplus military collectibles I've bought over the years. The 2 most recent came into my possession last spring when I bought 2 Yugo SKS'a - one for a project and one to keep.

They a useless as the proverbial teats on a boar.

If you feel that's not a practical use, I'm terribly sorry for you.

with anything they weren't already flooded with.

Its about bloody time for the AWB to die a quiet death, as it was DESIGNED to.

Yes, the second amendment IS great.

The ban caused far more AWB to be sold and manufactured, than would have if the ban was never passed.

More AWBS(minus bayo mounts) were sold in the 10 years AFTER the ban, than the 10 years prior.

oops.

Did you really believe the mythology they cultivated that they were for you having guns?? That was purely a ploy to con voters into voting for them. They DON'T want the peons armed.

Never fails to amaze me that people believe that one.

How many people think Ronald Reagan was pro-gun? The Republicans love the guy for being some small government, pro-gun dynamo. Never mind that all of that never went beyond his speeches. In reality he was a gun grabber and a good one too.

Does this make 9 for those of you in the pool? I mean it was started up in GD after all.

There's a few comments from DU'ers that seldom (if ever), venture down here. There are a few 'drama queen' posts, and a few from J/PS regs; but even after glossing over the sarcastic posts and 'middle-of-the-road' gun owners, there's not a whole lot of enthusiasm or demand for seeing the AWB passed. Where's the outrage and "progressive" attitude that some here have posted about?

(I forget who), why some of us pro-RKBA people in J/PS don't post our views, opinions, etc in other boards; here's a perfect example.
(this thread obviously was started in GD or elesewhere...but not here).

Edited to add: and it wasn't even started by a pro-RKBA person.

It can prevent embarrasment.

I would almost think that you are somehow going to change your daily life habits once the ban expires...but I am willing to bet the day it expires will the be the same for you as any other.

And all the following days will be lived by you the same as before.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Probably thinks Reagan was pro-gun.

originally posted in GD, i believe...now, old boy, sit back and watch your decently sensible concern be torn to pieces.

That was taken care of while it was still in GD.

If you really think the expiration of the AW ban is going to have any real impact on the kinds of firearms that are available to the general public.

We don't need it. It'll hurt Kerry and the Democrats. The most important thing now is to take back our rights and our nation.

You want gun control, I'm for it. Let's talk. But the AWB is not the way to implement it.

I think you are seriously misinformed. I will attempt to correct your misconceptions.

AK-47s, AR-15s, tec-9s, and ammo you refer to as AP were not banned by the act in 1994. what was banned was rifles, shotguns, and pistols having a certain type and number of features. these features were:

bayonet lugs
flash suppressors
collapsible or folding stocks
detachable box magazine capable of more than 10 rounds
shotguns with more than 5 rounds
pistol grips
magazine outside of the pistol grip on handguns and weighing more than 50 onces.
grenade launchers
threaded barrel that can easily accept a grenade launcher or a flash suppressor.
barrel shroud on a pistol
the current law states a rifle may have no more than 2 of the banned features if more than 2 it becomes a banned assault rifle.

so an AR-15 with a BATF approved muzzle brake, no bayonet lug, and a solid stock is legal because it still has the pistol grip and the ability to take a magazine of more than 10 rounds.

throw in one other feature its a banned rifle.

i have 2 such AR-15s as listed above. only 2 features not 3 or 4 or 5.
as long as a "tec 9" weighed less than 50 onces unloaded it wasn't banned either. so as long as a tec 9 didn't have the threaded barrel, barrel shroud, and weighed less than 50 onces its OK. the pistol that intertec made to comply with the law was called the AB-9.

now we will move onto AP ammo. to the military armor piercing ammo means it can defeat light armored vehicles like an armored Humvee (which we found in Somalia they aren't really armored) or say an old m8 scout car. what the antis call AP is ammo that can defeat body armor.

The fact is bullet proof vests aren't. they are bullet resistant. vests have different ratings from class 2 i believe 4 or 5. a class 2 vests stops calibers like 9mm and .45 auto. it doesn't stop higher velocity rounds like the .357. you need a vest of a higher rating. the highest rated vests, class 4, are like the now famous interceptor vests our boys wear. these vests with their trauma plates are capable of stopping some rifle bullets.

the vast majority of rifle bullets will pass through an average police vest like a hot knife through butter. .223 7.62x39 and .308 winchester will all pass through even a level 3 vest. these calibers are fired by the AR-15, AK-47, and the m14 and Fla "assault rifles"
however calibers like 257-3000 savage, 30-30 winchester, 300 win mag, 6.5x55 Swedish will also pass through said armor. a cop was killed a few weeks ago on the east coast of Florida by a child molester wielding an ancient assault rifle. the rifle was a winchester model 94 (i have one mines in .357 magnum) chambered in .30-30. this round and rifle have been around since 1894! its a lever action! 110 years! the bullet went through the vest through the cop, killing him, and out the back of the vest and into the cop behind him.

the only other thing really covered by the BAN were magazines made after 1994 that can hold more than 10 rounds. "hi capacity magazines got a little more expensive after the ban and for some even after the ban is gone won't be any cheaper. 2 examples are fal mags and valmet m76 .223 mags.

Fal mags cost $5 a piece.

yes less than a big mac super size you can buy a 20 round fal mag. these won't get any cheaper.

a .223 valmet m76 mag is $100-125 a piece. the mags aren't even made by valmet anymore. they will NEVER be cheaper ban or not.

some mags will go down in price like 100 round drums for AR-15s. they will go from $700 a piece to $240. 30 round AR mags mite take a slid in price of $5.

the point is the ban is a FARCE. it has been for 10 years. it did NOTHING TO REDUCE CRIME BECAUSE IT DID NOTHING TO CEASE THE MANUFACTURE OF "ASSAULT" WEAPONS.
there are far more AR-15s and AK-47s now than 10 years ago. i remember back in 94 every once in awhile you'd spot someone on the range with an AK or AR. now its so common its not even a big deal. once not long ago i showed up to shoot, AR-15 in hand, and on a line of 12 stations there were 5 other AR-15s! 1/2 of the range!

the antis complain that we will be swimming in AWs.

WE ALREADY ARE!
the following people i know own an AR-15:
me
dad
co worker
former bosses brother in law
a former coworker
my friends rick and bill and ricks wife has her own

thats 8 people i can name off the top of my head. of these 8 only 3 were made before the ban. the rest were afterward and i own 2 so thats a total of 6 post ban guns vs 3 before the ban.

anyway if anyone has a questions please feel free to ask. I'm not trying to push a view point here just trying to be informative.

thank you
Steve

This is the most recent post on my new blog: http://candidatex.blogspot.com

Help me think through the issues and explore running for Congress against a republican incumbent in 2006 or 2008. -Candidate X


=====

Help me help you... Issue: Gun Control.

The Republican incumbent in my district has a 100% NRA voting record. He is definitely one of those representatives who is sitting on his hands while the assault weapon ban expires. If I run against him, what is my best rhetorical argument against him? (Remember, this is a rural area where hunting is very popular.)

My first thoughts:

I think that most card-carrying NRA members would agree with basic assault weapon legislation if it was thoughtfully explained, in a face-to-face, reasonable, and most of all TWO-WAY discussion. There is no real need for assault weapons on demand. I think we need sensible legislation that is simple and straightforward, so as to better facilitate constructive conversation with our constituents.

What do you think about allowing for assault weapons in this legislation but requiring extra background checks and additional red-tape to get one? I don't even think this is ideal, but I understand the other side's constitutional argument and am really just concerned about safety here. I do not want to unnecessarily burden civil rights.

Politically speaking, this way there might be less fear of "banning" guns. We would just be making sure that these weapons are not in the hands of amateurs or those who are going to buy one on a whim because it was cool-looking in the display case.

Thoughts?

"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."

- Tom Diaz of the VPC on NPR, March 11, 2004


And my advice to you is to drop any kind of gun-grabbing plank and stick to issues that matter. No gun control has proven to increase public safety or reduce violent crime - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm.

Additionally, especially if you are in a rural area, any kind of gun control stance you may take will pretty much guarantee your defeat. If you co-opt the right to keep and bear arms from your opponent and emphasize your support of the community through your progressivism, you will win.

Good luck.

still waiting for the blood in the streets....

The "Assault Weapon" Ban did NOT actually ban "assault weapons"
The ban only prohibited the NEW PRODUCTION of certain firearms based on cosmetic features. There were hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" legally owned, bought and sold before the ban was implemented - and there were STILL hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" legally owned, bought and sold during the past 10 years of the ban's existance.

EXISTING "UZIs, AR-15s AND AK-47s" HAVE STILL BEEN COMPLETELY LEGAL TO OWN, BUY AND SELL FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS.

The "Assault Weapon" Ban is NOT the same thing as the "Brady Law".
The "Brady Law" (named after James Brady) which began the national instant background check for all firearm sales through dealers is STILL in force and has NOTHING to do with the "Assault Weapon" ban.
THE "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN EXPIRATION HAS NO EFFECT ON THE BRADY LAW WHATSOEVER.

"we could have our streets flooded with AK-47s"

A blatant lie, the AK-47 and UZI's were ALREADY banned with the 1989 federal firearms importation law <18 USC 925(d)(3)>. The Unsoeld Amendment of 1990 <18 922(r)> banned using imported gun parts to assemble the same guns in the United States. In 1993, "assault pistols" like the Uzi Pistol were banned under the importation law. In February 1994, revolving cylinder shotguns (Street Sweeper and Striker-12) were banned under the National Firearms Act. The AK-47 and UZI were named in the 1994 legislation, but it doesn't matter since they were already banned from importation from the 1989 legislation.