How has the "Assault Weapons" ban affected you?

vanity-self | 4/19/03 | self

[StriperSniper]

How has the "Assault Weapons" ban affected you?

because they FEEL it's offensive

I have been, and continue to be phycologically assualted by the traitors in government wantonly violating their oaths of office and eviscerating the Constitution.

Send me a big check for my trauma!!!

(Public hangings of the traitors is an acceptable substitute ;-)

[Double Tap]

Ever heard the name Garand? How about Browning? How about Stoner?

What do these names have in common?

They were all civilians that developed machine guns and small arms technology and then sold the designs to the military.

With the present laws in place, that will never happen again, ever.

[Double Tap]

More than likely goldylight has not bought anything even resembling an AK or any gun ever.

[Jhoffa_]

I wonder when faux Conservatives will stop looking to FEDGOV as the universal answer to all our woes.

Now we've got one wanting Uncle Fedgov to "save" him from John Hinkley, of all things.

Insane..

If you are going to put john Hinkley on the street as a free man and you want to be sure he can't shoot people from a rooftop someplace, then you had better gouge out his eyes.

[Teacher317]

I've never had any desire to buy any surplus Soviet Bloc junk and have no need for a bayonet mount.

I've never had any desire to organize a news agency or to become an indentured servant... but I'm rather glad that there are Constitutional Rights and prohibitions that protect me in both cases.

Besides, the AWB isn't about YOU. It is about your great-grandchildren. Look at the differences in the guns laws 100 years ago (virtually none) and today (22,000). Do you seriously think this trend will change if we don't stand up when we have the House, Senate, and the White House?
Do you seriously think that another 22,000 laws won't seriously impact their ability to defend themselves or their nation if/when it becomes necessary?

Have you not noticed that, since 1776, even advanced nations (and most of the others) have had a bloody history thanks to a driven individual taking power? Human nature has not changed since the Second Amendment was written. When one dynamic personality takes more power than has been traditionally given to the head of state of that nation, and that nation's populace lacks the capability to stand against the military and police power of that state, it invariably leads to widespread bloodshed. This is what the Founders wanted to protect future generations of America from. This is why they wanted the common citizen to have the absolute and uninfringed right to carry the same basic serviceweapon as the common footsoldier. What the people lack in training and organization, they make up for with numbers and parity in firepower. (Vietnam has also taugh us that a force that is rarely centralized and can use "guerilla tactics" is very hard to defeat.) It has nothing to do with convenience, sporting uses, public health, or economics. It has everything to do with human nature and rights to self-defense.

Heck, even Equal Protection Rights are in play here... Why can't a citizen be trusted to carry the same basic arms (note: VX nerve gas and smart bombs are not "basic arms") at home that they did (or still do carry) in the service/as a police officer/as a federal officer? And if they can have that service-weapon at home, then why can't I as a fellow citizen? I know of several officers whose training and range-time are far behind mine, and yet they are trusted with weapons that I'm not allowed to even breathe on!

Finally, yet another reason this is a horrible bill is, as always, bureaucracy. Once this law is made permanent, it will only take the slight alteration of the definition of "assault weapon" to make more and more problems for gun owners... and those changes will be made by unelected officials in Bureaus and Administrations, not by accountable elected officials. I don't want to buy a $5,000 gun and have it declared useless and worthless the next day by some desk-jockey. And, when these changes are aggregated over time, you get some real and substantive effects that will fundamentally change a Constitutional Right. Why does this not scare you? Even uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz said that reversing the Second through any means is a horrible idea, because it shows government how to circumvent the others as well.

[Wild Game]

Hijacked!? LOL!!

The domestic violence/restraining order aspect of the AWB doesn't apply to the thread? Which is why the question of where to draw the line on who should be allowed o own a firearm.

Did you want me to really see a hijacking and surpress free speech? Censorship issue comments would take over.

[coloradan]

No, those people who have proved themselves to be dangers to others shoud be kept in jail or executed. They should not be allowed to live among us: 1. Look at how much crime is recidivist and how much the present crime rates would go down if those people were kept in jail. 2. Don't force me and everyone else to undergo privacy-invading "background checks" at every turn because you want to release dangerous people back into society even while admitting they are dangerous.

[TLBSHOW]

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01632.html

FEINSTEIN AND SCHUMER WELCOME PRESIDENT BUSH’S SUPPORT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN REAUTHORIZATION

In a letter to President Bush, the Senators wrote: "As the original authors of the Assault Weapons Ban in the Senate and the House, we strongly believe that military-style assault weapons have no place on America's streets and should be banned. In 1994, we fought hard to win passage of the original ban, and shortly after Congress returns from the spring recess we plan to introduce legislation that would reauthorize it.

This is why we were pleased to see that your spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated your support for the ban and its reauthorization this weekend when he said, 'The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.'

We welcome your support and look forward to working with you to gain swift passage of this legislation. The current ban is due to expire in September 2004 and in order to continue to keep these weapons off the streets, it is imperative that the reauthorization bill becomes law.

As part of the reauthorization, we also plan to include language to close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions. A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but got bottled up in a larger conference due to an unrelated provision. You indicated your support for closing this loophole during the 2000 presidential campaign, and now, with your help, we can prevent the manufacture and importation of all high-capacity clips and drums.

Once again, thank you for your leadership on this matter. With your assistance, we will be able to pass legislation to continue the ban and help make America's streets safer."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896337/posts?page=

[Tailback]

Luckily the AW bill passed before I could fulfill my evil urge to commit a drive-by bayonetting attack. (sarcasm/) Then when I got into high power rifle competetive shooting I had to pay an outrageous price for the 20rd USGI mags which most people use. Most 10 rounders aren't reliable enough to depend on for leg points.

[dinodino]

Since the AW ban was put into effect, several thousand deaths due to bayonet attacks have been averted, thanks to the intestinal fortitude of our honest and upright Congresscritters who worked their expensive suited-tails off to pass this and all the other WONDERFUL and PRACTICAL gun bans. Bastards.

[dinodino]

Wild Game, since you seem to think the ban has had no effect on you, why don't you tell us what you've done with all those nice high-cap magazines you've purchased since the ban went into effect? With which guns have you fired them? I'd like to hear it. If you have not actually used the mags, I'd also like you to tell the class why you haven't.

[RepRivFarm]

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.

You're in a serious RRRRRRRut there, pal. May I suggest acquiring some weapoms that start with a different letter of the alpabet?

I do share your position, though. The AW ban did the same thing to me...I'm just more "diversified."

[Wild Game]

Spare you the sanctimony??????

I can't do that, because its PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION! Why is murder wrong?? Our laws are based on Judiac/Christian beliefs and morals. Like it or not, our freedom is because of such sactimonious beliefs.

I've worked the streets for a long time (Detroit EMS), and if finding a "hot handgun" in Detroit ain't all that easy, I would venture to say finding a street gun in lesser rat infested dumps would be evern harder.

Now about this bull about "all they need to do is read a newspaper to find out who has guns."

Well, ALL THE DRUG DEALERS NEED TO DO is buy and use a SIMPLE POLICE SCANNER AND THEY"LL KNOW when the raids are coming! I listen to them all the time! The only problem is, criminals ARE LAZY AND STUPID. A police scanner could save them 10-20 years, but they don't use scanners now they?

If you were to take the other side, you'd sound like the fools that think the criminals are going to start using 50 BMG's for drive by's! Oh, maybe if they read the newspaper!!!!

Sheeesh....

[cashion]

I'd like to be able to buy 15rnd drop-free magazines for my Glock .40cal at $15 instead of $90. So-called law enforcement can do it, why can't I?

[HamiltonJay]

Again, your argument holds no water, any law abiding citizen can get fully automatic military weapons today.

If your concern is that you wish to have equal firepower as the military, and that an "assault" weapon as defined by this law is going to give it to you, you are truly foolish. All those cheap AK's didn't give the Iraqis a fighting chance against the US military, your semi auto, mean looking mac 10 or TEC 9 isn't either.

The assault weapons ban is a joke, everyone who actually looks at it knows its a joke. They banned certain types of weapons, all of which have been reconfigured and are being sold. Its a cosmetic feel good piece of legislation that has had no impact on the ability for citizens to purchase or bear arms with all the functional features of the banned weapons. And the few features you cannot get (ie can't attach a bayonet) can easily be achieved by after market products.

The ban is an ineffective impotent feel good piece of legislation, it does nothing at all to improve or lessen the safety of the populace, or restrict the ability of the populace to buy and own weapons. Because of this, there is no politician who is going to open the hornets nest to get rid of it, because it would simply give the anti gun crowds ammo... its a fight that doesn't need to be fought, and even if it was lifted would not change anything of significance. Why give your oponents the ability to attack and besmerch you over something that really won't change anything even if you win? Its political no mans land.

[FOMTY]

It legitimized the banning of certan firearms if they were not PC to the sucker moms and a lot of hunters and it energized hardcore VPC-type gun-grabbers. Its continued existence makes gun-grabbing politicians more brazen. As a result of this the city of Toledo, Ohio passed their own bans on "certain semi-automatic firearms" (more strict than the federal AWB), normal capacity magazines (illegal to posess), and they also passed a "junk gun ban". I moved out of the county, one of the few blue zone areas in Ohio, where I could have voted for conservatives.

[dinodino]

How about answering my question, Wild Game? Seeing as how you are the one who spouted off about all the wonderful mags you've bought since the ban and how you think the ban hasn't affected you...

[HamiltonJay]

Not true in the least, you think private companies today aren't working on designs for military application? Please. You are proving my point. Innovation is driven by military need, not generally by civilian need, because face it, the military is the single largest purchaser of weapons. 1 order to the military can make or break a company, and you are proving my point.

If you think today there are not private individuals or companies doing R&D on new weapons specifically with the intent to try to get military acceptance I think you are very very wrong.

[SW6906]

"Never mind the fact that my kids will never see some of the freedoms I enjoyed. Such as bringing my .22 to a Long Island New York school in 1978 for participation in the gun club. I used to walk down the street with a 12 gauge to go to a squirrel hunting spot I enjoyed. It's absurd to even contemplate either now, I'd be a felon for such innocent activities.

This just goes to show how their insidious incrementalism is working. I expect it from the left, but it's unforgivable when the cowards who are supposed to be on our side aid them.

Deserves repeating. When the guns and the parts for them wear out, our children will not have the ability to arm themselves like we do today. THAT'S the idea behind this law.

Incrementalism.

[Teacher317]

Now about this bull about "all they need to do is read a newspaper to find out who has guns."

They don't even need to do that, thanks to the Lefties out there who relish every opportunity to make gun-owners' lives more difficult. This thread I posted a while back details how one newspaper in Indiana bought the list of registered gun owners (public info!), and published it in a database online with an incredibly good search engine. I entered in my street name only, and it spat out the name every person on my block who is or was licensed. The paper quickly took the site down when we started screaming.