Assault Weapons Ban thread

[NJDevil]

I thought there ought to at least be a poll regarding whether people here are for/against the ban.

I personally think the ban was a good thing, and needed to be expanded to cover newer assault rifles that came out after 94' (the ban only affected current weapons). For those of you who don't know, one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

I am really not looking forward to the first time some kid shoots up a school w/ one of these, maybe then politicians will get their heads out of their ass and realize that no one needs a weapon like this.

As Robin Williams said, "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

 

[K1052]

From an OT thread:

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: sward666

This event, though highly publicized, is not related nor could have been prevented by the AWB.

It should also be noted that it happened in 1997. Under the ban.

Furthermore, if the CA ban had been in place at that time, the police officers who ran to local gun shops to up-arm would have been stuck with pump-action AKs.

Also note that they were using fully automatic weapons (primary) in addition to semi-automatic (secondary weapons) - it's not like the AWB had anything to do with that.

The BOA shootout had exactly ZERO to do with the AWB.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Hate to do it to you, but REPOST.

one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

You know not what you are talking about. That took place in 1997, under the ban. Fat lot of good it did.

And the only people that died in that shootout were the criminals (amazingly enough).

EDIT: Damn! - beaten by my own post.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: sward666
Hate to do it to you, but REPOST.

one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

You know not what you are talking about. That took place in 1997, under the ban. Fat lot of good it did.

And the only people that died in that shootout were the criminals (amazingly enough).

EDIT: Damn! - beaten by my own post.

 

[Czar]

For the US I would maybe support the extension. For the most part gun registration is what needs to be fixed, make it easy to get them but also make it known to the government who owns guns and what guns they own. No more second hand gun sellers who dont record anything.

And here I used to be totaly opposed guns for other than hunting and for sports when I first joined the forum

 

[FoBoT]

a machine gun in every pot, that should be our motto

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
a machine gun in every pot, that should be our motto

This is why this stupid bill gets so much support. Ignorant people bleating crap like this.

Machine guns have been banned since the 1930s. The AWB had NOTHING to do with "machine guns" or any other automatic weapons.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FoBoT
a machine gun in every pot, that should be our motto

This is why this stupid bill gets so much support. Ignorant people bleating crap like this.

Machine guns have been banned since the 1930s. The AWB had NOTHING to do with "machine guns" or any other automatic weapons.

Well, they are not banned completely yet (though ownership is becoming harder due to the paperwork and rising costs of a finite pool of weapons).

It would be better to say that they have been heavily regulated since the 30's.

Many states do prohibit public ownership and Illinois is one of them.

 

[no0b]

For those of you who don't know, one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

:roll:

Ironic, someone uninformed trying to inform the uninformed.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

All the major news orgs are saying that AK-47's and Uzis will be now legal, and under the AWB they were not. Is this true or not? Also, did the framers of the Constitution have weapons like AK-47's and Uzis in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights?

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
I personally think the ban was a good thing, and needed to be expanded to cover newer assault rifles that came out after 94' (the ban only affected current weapons). For those of you who don't know, one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

Originally posted by: K1052
From an OT thread:

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: sward666

This event, though highly publicized, is not related nor could have been prevented by the AWB.

It should also be noted that it happened in 1997. Under the ban.

Furthermore, if the CA ban had been in place at that time, the police officers who ran to local gun shops to up-arm would have been stuck with pump-action AKs.

Also note that they were using fully automatic weapons (primary) in addition to semi-automatic (secondary weapons) - it's not like the AWB had anything to do with that.

The BOA shootout had exactly ZERO to do with the AWB.

Holy sh|t! How does it feel to be so owned in your own thread! Classic!

Link to CNN story
Some quotes:
"A blaze of automatic gunfire ripped through a crowded neighborhood after several heavily-armed gunmen dressed like commandos botched a bank robbery."
Notice: automatic gunfire - Automatic weapons are not banned by the AWB.

"Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen."
Notice: Only the suspects were killed. 12 policemen were not killed.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
All the major news orgs are saying that AK-47's and Uzis will be now legal, and under the AWB they were not. Is this true or not? Also, did the framers of the Constitution have weapons like AK-47's and Uzis in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights?

The ban only outlawed the weapons by name and some appearance factors.

The manufacturers renamed the weapons and made them ban-compliant. I own a SAR-1 which is really just another AK47 and it was ban legal.

Really, the ban was very ineffective at doing anything except driving up the prices on some mags and pre-ban rifles with folding/telescoping stocks.

The framers had small arms in mind, at the time basically rifles and pistols. Heavier weapons are not included as they are considered ordinance

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
All the major news orgs are saying that AK-47's and Uzis will be now legal, and under the AWB they were not. Is this true or not? Also, did the framers of the Constitution have weapons like AK-47's and Uzis in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights?

As long as they are semi-automatic and not fully-automatic (machine gun), they should be legal. Just because a gun looks like a machine gun (especially the ones glorified on TV), doesn't mean that it is one or will be used in the manner that Television leads us to believe.

The framers believed that an armed population is a free population. The framers wanted to make sure that the US government could never become tyrannical. They learned during the Revolutionary War that if the population is armed, they can defeat tyrannical governments (Great Britain at the time).

 

[Genx87]

Ban was basically worthless. Once people realize a criminal doesnt care how many bans or laws are passed then we can get over the ridiculous idea of changing the constitution and banning guns.

 

[judasmachine]

that and there were 1001 ways around it. #1 Sporter Stock, #2 Pre Ban clips, #3 Muzzle Break, etc. etc.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
I thought there ought to at least be a poll regarding whether people here are for/against the ban.

I personally think the ban was a good thing, and needed to be expanded to cover newer assault rifles that came out after 94' (the ban only affected current weapons). For those of you who don't know, one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

I am really not looking forward to the first time some kid shoots up a school w/ one of these, maybe then politicians will get their heads out of their ass and realize that no one needs a weapon like this.

As Robin Williams said, "How many deer wear a bullet proof vest?"

so how exactly did the gun ban keep guns out of the hands of criminals? the weapons they used were already illlegal so those gun laws already in place regarding fully automatic weapons did not seem to stop much.(big surprise, a criminal not obeying the law....) in fact the incident you mention, the police went to a pawn shop and comandeered some aR-15's and used them to take the perps down. it sure is a good thing those weapons were not under some type of ban, otherwise they would not have been there on sale for the police to use!

so you really think a gun ban will stop crazy people from going on rampages? how many did the current ban stop in the past ten years? if you said "none" you would be right.!

in response to robin williams: the answer is "none that i shot, and they sure were tasty too!"

 

[conjur]

Interesting related news:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...y.monday.ap/index.html

Gun control advocate Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, was expected to join Kerry as he received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of more than 2,000 police unions and associations.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting related news:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...y.monday.ap/index.html

Gun control advocate Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, was expected to join Kerry as he received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of more than 2,000 police unions and associations.

For some reason, none of the stories I'm finding are quoting Kerry's "machine gun" comments. He basically said that because of the expiration of the ban, police officers would now have no guarantee that they would not be facing machine guns, which is an outright falsehood.

Senator Kerry knows what this law covered; Senator Kerry knows the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle.

Senator Kerry just lost my vote. He should have kept his mouth shut.

 

[schmedy]

NAPO is a Union, even says it in your quote, and Unions always support the Democrats, has nothing to do with what the members feel. My dumb union at work supports Kerry even though most members do not. AWB didn't ban anything if you had it and it was made before 1994 it could be bought and sold, just dtrove up the prices of things. All this did was stop importation of these 19 weapons to the US or mfg of them here, as well as what classified as an "assault weapon" as well as stop mfg and import of mags over 10 rounds. NJDevil don't worry this doesn't change one thing, you are still safe with all the "extra" state laws in NJ to protect you, no crime in North Jersey at all. And yes I lived there for 18 years as well as my family lives there so I am not some uninformed Vermonter. Note the low crime here and NO State gun laws at all, as well as no CCW laws. I feel so unsafe.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Czar
For the US I would maybe support the extension. For the most part gun registration is what needs to be fixed, make it easy to get them but also make it known to the government who owns guns and what guns they own. No more second hand gun sellers who dont record anything.

And here I used to be totaly opposed guns for other than hunting and for sports when I first joined the forum

The problem with the registration idea is that it makes it that much easier for the government to find the gun owners when they eventaully do decide to commandeer all of them. It's happened not only in other countries, but in states in the US. Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: NJDevil
I personally think the ban was a good thing, and needed to be expanded to cover newer assault rifles that came out after 94' (the ban only affected current weapons). For those of you who don't know, one of the catalysts for the ban was a situation in California (i think) where about 12 police officers were killed by two men with assault rifles and body armor while the officers were equiped with only pistols.

Originally posted by: K1052
From an OT thread:

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: sward666

This event, though highly publicized, is not related nor could have been prevented by the AWB.

It should also be noted that it happened in 1997. Under the ban.

Furthermore, if the CA ban had been in place at that time, the police officers who ran to local gun shops to up-arm would have been stuck with pump-action AKs.

Also note that they were using fully automatic weapons (primary) in addition to semi-automatic (secondary weapons) - it's not like the AWB had anything to do with that.

The BOA shootout had exactly ZERO to do with the AWB.

Holy sh|t! How does it feel to be so owned in your own thread! Classic!

Link to CNN story
Some quotes:
"A blaze of automatic gunfire ripped through a crowded neighborhood after several heavily-armed gunmen dressed like commandos botched a bank robbery."
Notice: automatic gunfire - Automatic weapons are not banned by the AWB.

"Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen."
Notice: Only the suspects were killed. 12 policemen were not killed.

101 California Shootout was the impetus

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: conjur
Interesting related news:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...y.monday.ap/index.html

Gun control advocate Sarah Brady, wife of former President Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, was expected to join Kerry as he received the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of more than 2,000 police unions and associations.

For some reason, none of the stories I'm finding are quoting Kerry's "machine gun" comments. He basically said that because of the expiration of the ban, police officers would now have no guarantee that they would not be facing machine guns, which is an outright falsehood.

Senator Kerry knows what this law covered; Senator Kerry knows the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle.

Senator Kerry just lost my vote. He should have kept his mouth shut.

Sorry no linky, but this is part of a transcript from a Kerry speech in Washington DC posted by the Federal Document Clearing House (from Nexis):

Police officers -- police officers -- begging the president all across our country: Keep this ban in place so we don't have to walk into a drug bust staring the down the barrel of a military machine gun, of an Uzi or an AK-47.

 

[Bulk Beef]

That's the one.

I have to say, if Feinstein, Kerry and Schumer et al. really gave a sh*t about keeping the ban in place, the time to act was months ago. They made one half-assed attempt to tack it on to the manufacturer's liability bill, and that was it. Most of you probably weren't even aware of the impending doom of this law until the last couple of weeks, if not this weekend, when the date of expiration was known exactly ten years ago. Why is that? Why did its supporters in Congress not rally the troops? Why wait until it's already expired before getting vocal about it?

Could it be that they would rather let it sunset, just so they could use it as more ammunition (sorry) against the Bush administration, especially by attacking his "War President" status by claiming that this will allow terrorists free and legal access to so-called "assault weapons"?

Could it be that John Kerry is, at his core, a slimy politician, just like the rest of the scumbags on the Hill?






Nah. Couldn't be.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: sward666
That's the one.

I have to say, if Feinstein, Kerry and Schumer et al. really gave a sh*t about keeping the ban in place, the time to act was months ago. They made one half-assed attempt to tack it on to the manufacturer's liability bill, and that was it. Most of you probably weren't even aware of the impending doom of this law until the last couple of weeks, if not this weekend, when the date of expiration was known exactly ten years ago. Why is that? Why did its supporters in Congress not rally the troops? Why wait until it's already expired before getting vocal about it?

Could it be that they would rather let it sunset, just so they could use it as more ammunition (sorry) against the Bush administration, especially by attacking his "War President" status by claiming that this will allow terrorists free and legal access to so-called "assault weapons"?

Could it be that John Kerry is, at his core, a slimy politician, just like the rest of the scumbags on the Hill?






Nah. Couldn't be.

The Senate was ready to pass the assault weapons ban reauthorization. they had the votes. It was the house and members like Delay and the Republican leadership that refused to hold a vote. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White house. They are to blame.

 

[Uhtrinity]

I have been for the assault weapons ban, I mean who in their right mind would want m-16's (automatics), AK47's, Mac 10's, ect on the street. But then a friend at work informed me that the assault weapon ban only addressed the cosmetic appearance of a weapon and the size of a clip. Is this correct?