Posted on 07/21/2004 10:33:12 AM PDT by neverdem
SUMMARY: Doomsayers are firing wild bursts of worrisome predictions about the expiration of the ban on assault weapons.
A cry of alarm is sounding around the country. In mid-September, the decade-old federal law banning a number of military-style "assault weapons" expires. To hear some of our colleagues in the news media talk, all hell is going to break loose starting Sept. 14.
"Anyone seeking weapons of mass destruction inside the United States may find it considerably easier after Sept. 13" when the ban expires, warns the Washington Post.
In "two months Š the federal assault weapons ban dissolves like a wisp of gun smoke," opines the Los Angeles Times; political leaders who fail to renew the ban "risk making American cities and towns far more dangerous" undercutting the high-profile campaign to curb terrorism.
"Expect the market to become flooded" with AK-47s and Uzis, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, author of the 1994 law banning 19 specific weapons, recently told the San Francisco Chronicle.
This blast of rhetoric comes from people who switch to fully automatic every time the subject of guns comes up. In fact, the situation is nothing so dire as portrayed.
First, let's remember that Congress passed the assault weapon ban in 1994 after a series of high-profile shootings involving semiautomatic rifles. It came amid growing concern about rising crime rates in America, big-city street gangs, the crack cocaine epidemic and an emerging right-wing "militia" movement. The law attempted to identify a class of military and military-style guns seemingly designed for combat, rather than target shooting or hunting. Voting for the ban took Montana's Democratic Sen. Max Baucus as close as he's ever come to losing an election, but a poll we commissioned in 1995 showed a solid majority of Montanans favored banning assault weapons. More recent polls suggest very strong support nationally. Legislation renewing the ban died earlier this year after it was combined with a controversial bill granting gun makers liability protection.
There is one major flaw with the ban. It's one that the critics bring up at some peril to law-abiding gun owners. It's this: In mechanics and function, some of the banned weapons are not appreciably different than an array of rifles and shotguns that remain perfectly legal to manufacture. Generally speaking, the banned weapons look different than sporting arms. But functionally, they're the same.
That's one reason why Sept. 14 will not dawn with the staccato sounds of automatic fire. The assault weapon ban ended the manufacture and retail sale of certain weapons, but hardly dented the firepower at Americans' disposal.
And, for that matter, the 1994 law banned the manufacture and retail sale of those weapons. It didn't restrict ownership and resale of the weapons already in circulation - millions of them. In fact, many people ran out and bought assault weapons just before the law took effect, some because they wanted them, others seeking profit, hopeful that the ban would drive up the value of "grandfathered" guns. "Banned" assault weapons have always been readily available on the secondary market. Anyone who wants an assault rifle can buy one, and always could. The fact that you don't have to lay down covering fire to make your way from the parking lot to your office each morning is testament to the fact that the vast majority of guns in this country - including semi-automatic weapons and military-style weapons - are owned by responsible, law-abiding citizens. With or without a ban on the manufacture of assault weapons, these people have no desire to murder anyone.
The ban's major flaw is that it doesn't rationally differentiate banned weapons from legal ones. That's a strong argument in theory. Unfortunately, it's one that can be turned on its ear - that is, it may well serve as an argument to ban far more makes and models of guns. We'd hate to see that. The political climate in America today is more respectful of gun ownership than in decades past. But that can always change.
We'll bet the assault weapon ban will expire in September, no mayhem will immediately ensue, but the easing of restrictions will be short-lived. Sooner or later, Congress will reinstitute a ban. Clearly, the government may restrict to some degree the weaponry readily available to the public. On balance, that's a good thing. Who would like to see rocket-propelled grenades and stinger missiles available at the local pawn shop? The question is, where do we draw the line? As we've watched a supposedly conservative administration pare back other civil liberties in overreaction to Sept. 11, the thought occurs to us that it might not take much to draw the line right through your gun rack.
Then again, if people become hysterical enough about the current ban expiring Sept. 13, perhaps they'll be more than satisfied to have the line drawn at or near the current 19 assault weapons, thus preserving the status-quo. We could live with that.
BANG
OK, guys. Should I get an Uzi or an AK-47?
NEWS FLASH:
Based on the now standard Washington Post definition assault weapons are now WMDs. Therefore I anxiously await a new tally of the hundreds of thousands of WMDs that the coalition forces have found. (All those caches of AK's now qualify)
You'll just have to do without the banned BS stuff like a bayonet lug, folding stock, etc.
Well first let's get serious. An AK-47 is capable of fully automatic fire and was not "banned by the AWB legislation." What was banned from importation and manufacture were MAK's and semi-automatic rifles that fired on a closed bolt that physically "looked" like an AK-47. A true AK-47 has been and will continue to be (after the AWB sunsets) a class 3 firearm, which may or may not be allowed to be owned (depending upon state laws) and local & state background checks and payment of a federal class 3 transfer tax.
A similar statement can be made about the Uzi.
Having said that, if I were going to take advantage of the AWB sunsetting, I would purchase a .308 AR-10 clone, a FAL clone, or mabye some other larger caliber "evil looking" semi-automatic rifle. If I wanted to go "cheap" then it would be an MAK or AK-47 semi-auto-clone.
What are the pros & cons of AK vs Uzi?
Thanks
Well, who wants a crummy old AK if the repeal of this law is gonna make rocket-propelled grenades and stinger missiles legal?
That is, unless that sort of red herring argument is as silly as Diane Feinswine's claim (about semi-automatics) that "one pull on the trigger could wipe out everybody in this room (the Senate)".
Note; I do own a 9mm "Assault Rifle" but I still want an AK or SKS when funds become available.
The proliferation of citizens with CCW permits is lowering the violent crime rate, and the Dems need some federal gun control law that is contemporaneous with the drop so they can credit their idiotic laws. If the rate continues to go down (as it will) with expiration of the AWB, the Dems will have another deluge of pertinent facts they'll have to keep ignoring/distorting.
What's the difference? They're both the same to me. They're "military style" weapons, therefore, the pros and cons of either is negligible because they all they do is "spray bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger and therefore they should be outlawed...(at least, that's what my publik skool taught me)</ sarcasm>
I guess the new type of wating period they want for guns is one in which you have to wait 5 seconds after you pull the trigger for the slug to travel out of the barrel...
Only if she were wearing one of those jihadist suits, the ones comprised of web gear festooned with explosives surrounded with nails, glass, concrete bits and such, wired to a trigger, which she could then pull.
The att general of CA (van de camp) made the same statement in 1989 in the CA assembly chamber. We sent him a letter detailing the number of magazines, and bullets, and the respective weight, to kill 600 people (his purported death toll due to the cyclic rate of fire of the weapon he was brandishing)
Seriously, the .308 FAL's, & AR-10's are interesting things to consider if the prices drop enough. If the prices don't drop significantly, than a MAK or AK-semi-auto clone is the way to go.
That dolt could tell the difference between the two weapons.
Furthermore, I'd like to see the look on her face if her husband wielded a baseball bat aimed at her ugly mouth. Then she'd ban baseball as an assault weapons sport. These assbreaths don't know the difference between a bullet and a cartridge, casing, powder, primer, JHP, FMJ. They never heard of Remington, Speer, Hornady, Ten-X, Winchester; Colt, Ruger, Sig, Glock, Walther, S&W, Marlin, Stoeger, Uberti, Berretta, FN, Browning, Daly, Scott, Parker, Henry, Savage, Navy Arms...
Finally, she ought to go to Isreal and propose an "assault weapons ban."
/rant (now I feel better).
If you have to ask, then you probably shouldn't be in the market to buy either one.
Yup. She invented the AR-15 and sold the production rights to Colt... dontcha know. As a child, she worked for John M. Browning in Morgan, Utah.
I'm still looking for a pre-ban Mini 14.
Uh, the ban didn't affect the Mini 14, just the capacity of the new magazines sold with it. 20 & 30 round after market magazines are fairly readily available.
Good article overall, but the editorial team is delusional if they believe the gun banners will be happy to stop banning guns if the “assault weapons” ban is renewed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.