Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[Henrietta]

"Wait a second. An assault rifle is banned, but a rapid fire 'spray' automatic weapon isn't? What the fark is up with that?"

No, "assault rifles" are not banned; you just can't make any more of them here in the US, nor can you buy any which were made overseas, (someone help me out here if I've missed somehting) which means that after the post-1986 guns are used up, they are gone forever.

And keep in mind that you have to go thru a very rigorous criminal background check and pay a big tax to even buy a machine gun. A machine gun is one that fires as long as you have your finger pressing the trigger.

The "assault weapons" they are trying to ban are just one shot per trigger rifles. They just call these rifles "assault weapons" to make nice people like you (no offense intended here, I just mean people who don't know much about guns, which is just about everyone) think that there ought be a reason why they should be banned, since they must be used for "assaulting" others.

[Tancredo Fan]

You all are so transparent. You and your master Trancredo, just like Hillary, depend on emotion for keeping an issue alive.

How did Hitlery get into this?

I never said Tancredo was perfect, but he's got my vote over your boy any time. I hoped to see an EO mandating over-the-board enforcement of all immigration laws by all LEO's after 9/11, but noooooooo...... But I digress..... what about the gun thing?

[dinodino]

Well put, Henrietta. Actually, I legally purchased a semi-auto AKM manufactured around 1993--I think the cut-off for some weapons was after 1986. I don't remember the specifics.

Wasn't one of the decisions from the 1933 Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court that weapons with military applications in fact were protected? That decision would certainly sync with the Founding Fathers' original intent.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I do not care to discuss this issue. I do not own weapons, although I support your right to own them. I do not think that assault weapons are the sole purpose of the Second Amendment."

Miss Marple, I admire you for confessing your technical ignorance (being a non-owner) on the subject, and appreciate your support for our rights. However, you must realize that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to SECURE FREEDOM. (The RKBA is necessary for a militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.) The best weapons to secure freedom are those that work well against those who would threaten it. Whether invading armies from other nations or savage tribes, or oppression by our own government, you can ask any security force, army, or guerrilla band what is preferred for those tasks.

The picture they paint for you will look exactly like the weapons that are banned:
1. Semi-auto firing to allow fast follow-up shots.
2. Pistol grip to facility easy handling.
3. Large capacity magazine to allow plenty of shooting before reloading.
4. A flash hider to prevent thoe shooter from being blinded in low light or dark conditions, and to reduce the distance at which an enemy artillery or counter sniper can notice the flash.
5. A bayonet lug for those rare instances when out of ammo or in close quarters battle, when a spear is helpful.
6. A folding or telescoping stock so that the rifle can be carried compactly.
7. The ability to select full-auto firing for when multiple assailants are close at hand (this was essentially banned in 1986, after being heavily taxed and regulated in 1934.)

In fact, if there is any one weapon that is "needed" and whose posession is the most strictly protected even by a narrow reading of the second amendment, it is the modern "assult rifles" that happen to look cool/scary, and which do not have much popular support, even among many hunters, conservatives, and folks like Charlton Heston.

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm a Tancredo fan too, and I agree with him 100% on the borders issue. Out of curiosity, I just looked his rating on Gun Owners of America's website, and it appears he's got his head mostly on straight about this issue as well -- He received a "B"

[Miss Marple]

Because your comment about me was rather insulting. Those things I usually do not let stand.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"FYI: It is LEGAL to import such magazines, as long as they were made ofter the ban"

"True. It's why I'm currently considering the purchase of a Spanish CETME...the mags are a GREAT price."

Try www.cheaperthandirt.com. They have them for $2.95. (Steel are $4.95, but at the low price, you can buy 50 of the cheaper aluminum ones and have enough to dent, meanwhile enjoying the light weight should you actually need to carry a full load.)

"However, there ARE benefits to banning the import of such mags...like the business and jobs created domestically for their manufacture in the U.S."

Unfortunately, since the manufacture of such magazines for civilians is banned, no jobs are gained.

I should caution you severly not to buy a CETME you haven't shot (and even then, they are to be avoided. The worst problem is that the sights usually don't align. They have untold other problems. Read this thread http://sf1000.registeredsite.com/~user880686/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003791#000000, and pay attention to what "Gunplumber" says. He is well respected, and knows what he is talking about. (You will probably enjoy the forum as well.) Freepmail me for more advice.

Also, before you buy a rifle, you MUST buy "Boston's Gun Bible" from your bookstore or from www.javelinpress.com. It tells you everything you must know before buying a battle rifle, in great detail, like a Consumer Reports for all the options.

[Henrietta]

Your reply has been duly noted, thank you. In the future, I'll try to refrain from pointing out when you seem to be taking positions contrary to the interests of your own freedoms, as you seem to find that "insulting."

[dinodino]

Perhaps you should get as fired up about preservation of liberty as you did about Henrietta's post.

[handk]

Why is it that a 20-year old American soldier can "posses" and "carry" (openly) an M-16 full-auto rifle, with an "evil" 30-round magazine in Iraq, and be honored, respected and treasured as a national asset, but take that same guy, place him on American soil, with a full-auto anything, and he's looking at 20-25 years in prison?

[Mr. Mojo]

I just received the new edition of Boston's "bible" for Christmas. ....Fantastic reference material, and his rants are legendary.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc. I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon"

1. See my post above.

2. An assault weapon IS a rifle! It's just one particularly well suited for combat, which is what the second amendment is all about.

[dinodino]

The soldier can own the (pre-'86) full-auto gun here legally, provided he pays the taxes and fills out all the paperwork.

Having said that, you're absolutely correct that the gentleman *should* be able to own the same gun here.

[lainie]

LOL. Yeah. Tell those guys they have to turn in their 30-rounders for 10-rounders, and see how far that gets ya.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"To put Bush in his place you'll vote for a party that opposed the War in Afghanistan, oppsed the War in Iraq and wants open borders? Could you explain that logic to me?"

I can! (Borders aside, since most libertarians don't support that under current circumstances where there is a welfare state).

The reason is that our liberty at home is more more important that whether people are oppressed in other backward nations, or even whether they try to kill some of us. I'll take my chances with the suicide bombers, hijackers, and the like. What really worries me are the government thugs.

[Miss Marple]

Well, I will leave you two to discuss my lack of interest in carrying assault weapons.

I generously give you the last word. Talk amongst yourselves.

[handk]

Pre-86? Please elaborate.

[lainie]

Is this one illegal?

Or is this one illegal?

[dinodino]

Just because you don't care to own one doesn't mean you should automatically support the ban. Even if you don't care to own a gun, you should recognize that the Founding Fathers enumerated the natural right to self-defense for a REASON: they didn't want government infringing upon it. It's as simple as that. Note that I said, "natural right." Do you know what that means?

[dinodino]

Sure thing. Full-auto arms and destructive devices (other goodies) are legal and may be purchased provided the buyer pays the Federal taxes and jumps through all the paperwork hoops. For machine guns, the guns may not have been manufactured after 1986; thus, I could go out and purchase a full-auto AK-47, provided it was manufactured earlier. In addition to the onerous Federal taxes, there are rules regarding weapons transfer, storage (depends on local police), and backgrounds checks to be completed.

Note that because of the 1986 cut-off, transferable Class III weapons are scarce and are accordingly priced. I would guess that the AK-47 I mentioned would cost in the $5000 ballpark, excluding taxes.