How has the "Assault Weapons" ban affected you?

vanity-self | 4/19/03 | self

[Wild Game]

Has the "Assault Weapons" ban prevented you from enjoying, purchasing, selling or trading firearms? How? How did it not change anything for you?

[CWOJackson]

I always laughed at the bayonet lug element of the ban; apparently being able to fix a bayonet to your weapon makes it an assault weapon.

I remember a few folks being upset about that though. As if many folks are going to run screaming down range to bayonet their target or make a bayonet assault on a mule deer.

[Pern]

I'm refering to the Lautenberg Ammendment that states person's convicted of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence cannot purchase guns. It first started w/ handguns, then graduated to long guns a couple of years ago.

[HamiltonJay]

(Dang it, full Auto AK's are going for $5 in Iraq and Afghanistan; and they sell 'em in flea-markets !)

Yea, and you can buy a 5 year old girl for $10... so WHAT? You are comparing the weapons market of the middle east as your price point for Guns? What's a loaf of bread cost in Afghanistan? What's the annual income of the typical household? Your comparisons are flawed.

[Wild Game]

This isn't a Bush thread, its a gun nut thread. I'm one of them. I'm against the AWB and have been for a long time, protesting and calling and e-mailing.

I'm looking for more understanding on how its hurt Americans and their rights.

This thread, therefore might do more harm to Bush than good, with stories of a failed law.

So, put away your pitchfork, Pat isn't running again, sorry.

[MissAmericanPie]

The infringment is on the Consitution, and the "what is, is" treatment of the clear meaning of the Constitution and it's author's intentions.

A well armed citizenry is free to over throw a tyranical goverment, even this one if the need should arise. As has been seen in Iraq, that is hard to do with dad's old deer rifle. That is point one and one of the main points recorded in the Declaration of Independence and in the writing of the framers of the Constitution.

Point two is that once the government inserts itself into any area of the "all other rights are retained by the people", it becomes abusive and intrusive. It is never a good idea, as history has proven time and again, for the people to be made to register their arms. The U.N. and it's gun grabbing agenda has far too much influence in the USofA and it's sovereign people.

When the snipers were on the loose in D.C. it became clear that D.C. does not destroy it's records within 24 hours as required, so already they abuse the law while holding us to laws. I hope this clears it up for you.

[error99]

"...Seems like nothing more than opinion. ..."
- -
Yup.
That's exactly right.
And, gee, I thought that is what this thread was about...
Silly me!
How dare I have an opinion!
You are a pretty fart smucker, aren't you?
And I suppose your pixels are more than just opinion?
Pardon me, while once again, I ignore your arrogance.

[AAABEST]

You seem to forget that single biggest driver of weapons technology, is unquestionably the military and warfare, not joe consumer.

No, you don't know what you're talking about, not the poster you replied to.

Most innovations made to small arms technology throughout history due to innovative private citizens who lived in a free country. If the AWB would have been in place long ago, there would never have been a John Browning, Eugene Stoner or possibly even Samual Colt. You know who those people are don't you?

Your statement above "unquestionably" get's the horsecrap statement of the day award, even though it's early.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You know, you may be right. I thought it was the guy who shot Reagan, but it's not spelled the same.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Put down the coffee, and back away from the keyboard.

[TheBlackFeather]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find any over-10 shot mags for a Para-Ord P-12. They can't be bought through the company, as a result of the ban. If anyone out there has a line on where to find these items, please let me know.

[TooBusy]

Prices for high capacity handgun mags are through the roof and for new guns they often don't exist (for the civilian).

If the ban is not endend more than likely the loopholes - evil features , US parts count , etc - will be taken into account for the rewrite. This is a bill that expires 9/04, so if a new bill is allowed to be introduced don't expect it to be less restrictive than the present law.

[TN4Liberty]

The wacko's calling Bush the next Hitler are beginning to sound not so wacko,...

No, trust me, they sound completely wacko.

[AAABEST]

Nice worn out FR cliche´. I haven't heard from you in a while, have you been on some kind of geek-retreat or something?

[Kevin Curry]

Just read all the repsonses from the one-issue whiners. The consensus answer so far: No.

Oh, they squirm and spit about phantom "injury" of various kinds, but that brass-tacks, bottom-line, striaght-up answer is "No, the assault weapons ban has not affected my ability to buy whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want."

[Thane_Banquo]

I agree. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The rights of one are interesting to the many."

(Not sure if that's the exact quote.)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Before the "assault weapons" ban I owned one shotgun and a half a box of shells.

Because of the "assault weapons" ban I became a lifetime member of the NRA and started going to gun shows at every opportunity.

I now own two shotguns, two Ruger Mini-14's, one Remington 700 30-06, one Ruger 10/22, one Russian SKS, one Ruger P-89 9mm, one Ruger P-90 .45, one Ruger G100 .357, one Ruger Mark II .22, one Russian Makarov 9mm and several thousand rounds of ammunition of various calibers, gauges and loads.

I also vote early and often and donated $300 to Dubya's Presidential campaign.

[Wild Game]

I think "MissAmericanPie" has the sole reason for shredding this UnConstitutional law to pieces.

However, I was wondering if anyone has been denied or even arrested for violating this ban.

Domestic Violence arrestees/convictees can't purchase a firearm. I saw one complaint about that.

Question is, should ANYONE be restricted from owning a firearm?

Pot smokers, rapist, wife beaters, speeders, shoplifters, killers?

What is the limit, or should there be one?

[AAABEST]

I'm laughing at your rich and enlightening #36. I don't know if you were trying to be funny and ironic, but it sure came out that way.

[onceone]

I guess I am a "one issue" kind of guy. I tend to view things balanced against the Constitution. The AWB is unconstitutional. The fact the Supreme Court has not ruled it as such is just a reflection of their growing irrelevance.

The AWB has affected me in various ways. I pay higher costs for increasingly older products. I can not purchase items that are functionally identical, yet are cosmetically different. Having unconstitutional laws hanging around for, in this case a decade, tends to instutionalize them. Children are taught they are correct, people change their activities based on them.

I live in California. If things like the AWB were stopped at the Federal level, and identified for what they are, I would not have to live under the increasingly onerous laws the nut cases in Sacramento keep dreaming up.

[Jhoffa_]

How? How did it not change anything for you?

I don't have a gun in the house right now (I own some, they are in storage at my parents. I hate to leave them here alone in case of theft) I haven't shot a gun in years and I will surely never, ever purchase an "Assault weapon" of any type.

But, yes.. It's affected me. It's one more Unconstitutional law that doesn't have a "Jhoffa_ Exemption" It affects everyone.

Your post is offensive to me. I think it's a foolish thing to ask.

To take what you wrote at face value, perhaps I should ask you why people who don't own guns should be concerned about the Second Amendment at all. I mean, since it obviously doesn't "affect them" they shouldn't worry about it, right?

Why should Gentiles oppose a law that discriminates against Jews, since it doesn't "affect them"

Why should adults oppose laws against abortion when they obviously aren't "affected"