I would consider it a war on the Constitution.
Posted on 04/12/2003 7:50:38 AM PDT by Mini-14
The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah, but anti-war protestors use the first amendment to hide their hate speech. I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon? I mean, if the second amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms, then why don't we all have cannons in our front yards? Simply saying 'because the law says I can' doesn't really cut it for me. But that's just me. 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- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.
Let's say you're living on a decent-sized piece of property and you spot some dudes you know intend to do you and your family harm coming onto that property. An assault rifle allows you (if you know what you're doing) to get off many shots - some come with 20 to 30 round magazines - within a short period of time with a high degree of accuracy at long range. No other type of firearm has that capability.
Worked in '92 and '96
Yep, they learn that lesson every time - they just forget it. Do you know what you call a person that tries the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome each time?
"I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon?"
Okay, number 1: These firearms were banned because several isolated lunatics used them to kill people in a few mass-killing incidents. This terrified the more moderate soccer moms out there and made the idea of a ban palatable to politicians who previously would have rejected such a thing. Also, the anti-gun Left was WAITING for an excuse to get even a SMALL victory in their mad rush to ban anything with which a citizen could plausibly defend himself.
Number 2.: These weapons, being based on military firearms, are perfect for the defense of one's home, the taking of small game, or the defense of one's basic liberties against tyranny. In essence, they are simply perfect as all-around, general purpose rifles. They are, for the most part, the most reliable, easy-to-shoot, inexpensive(pre-ban), and robust firearms out there. Plus, their ammunition is and remains cheap. Oh, and they're great good fun to shoot, too.
Let's be clear...the 1994 ban covered not the weapons themselves, but certain features thereof...like flash supressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs. Their magazine capacity was limited to ten rounds, versus the 20-30 of preban models. What most folks, myself included, object to is the "camel's nose" that this represents. That, and the overall idiocy of it. Seriously, banning a gun because of a bayonet lug?!? Not even the psychopaths responsible for the bans ever used bayonets in their madness! So desperate were the gunbanners for a "win" that they abandoned any rationality.
I hope that this helps. Need to know any more?
Perhaps you can educate us on the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Needs.
Imagine you are a grocery store owner in some mythical place that, for the sake of this argument, we'll call "Los Angeles". Some social group gets enraged over some issue, say, for example, the results of some trial. Imagine that they start rioting, and large numbers of them come to destroy your property. Imagine that they are pulling people out of vehicles and beating them; and show a clear willingness to kill them. Now, it might be a stretch, but imagine that the police and fire departments are refusing to go into the area and stop the violence and put out the fires.
The only thing standing between your death and the destruction of your life's property is a rifle with a large capacity magazine. Not only that, but with an "assault" rifle, you can even be generous and fire "warning shots" to keep them away from your property, actually saving the lives of the people trying to kill you and destroy your property.
Now, I'm sure you'll say that this could "never happen" in America, but for the sake of the argument can't you imagine that it just might?
I would consider it a war on the Constitution.
SMALL ARMS
That is just what they are and the assault name is a media invention. Have you heard the soldiers talk about "small arms fire"? Have you heard the soldiers say anything about assault weapons fire? I haven't.
SOMEONE has to look at this dispassionately. Believe me, it's not easy...I'm a strong progunner and Constitutionalist myself. Balancing that with my loyalty to my Commander isn't always easy, so in instances where he and I disagree, I keep my E-6 yap shut.
I lurked at FR for over a year while Slick was President, because there's NO WAY I could say anything at all about the bastard without breaking my oaths.
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.