"Assault Weapons Ban" About to Expire

Hardsheller:

I didn't ask why you think you WANT an assault weapon; I asked why you NEED one.

 

KenH asks;

I have no place to park a tank or jet, but would be interested in legally owning a bazooka. It is legal in my state to own a grenade launcher that I could mount to my legally obtained semi-automatic AK-47 that I purchased after the assault weapons ban was enacted. These can be purchased from advertizers in shotgun news.

Most folks wouldn't have the capital to buy tanks and jets, that would probably limit their ownership. What about fully automatic rifles? Why shouldn't we be able to own them or carry handguns hidden on our persons without permits? Criminals (murderers, rapists, robbers, etc)do on a daily basis without fear of these gun laws.

I have worked on many jobs (I do glass service work) in the inner cities. Although I have never witnessed a drive by shooting I have heard the shots ringing out from not to far away. Machine gun fire is very easily recognized!

At the time I wondered what would happen if everyone in that part of the city could legally own "machine guns". Personally I think the drive by's would drop off quickly. The drive byers wouldn't know how many weapons were pointed at them and be afraid to start shooting. I know I would be. I would definately think twice or three times about breaking in someones house also.

Why do we have nuclear weapons? To deter people from firing theirs at us?

I own several of the so called "assault weapons" (legally purchased and owned) they really didn't ban the ownership, mostly just the importation. They are brought to this country now by importing the parts or "kits" then the importers build them here and make them legal to sell and own by adding a number of American made parts (sec. 922r). You can get an idea of this by reading in the shotgun news link here. I have loads of fun at the range and yes I do have one of them set up to hunt with. We have a huge woodchuck (ground hog) varmint population here. I enjoy shooting them, tinkering on them, loading ammo for them and for security. I pray I never have to use one against another human being. But, today you never know. I would rather not be forced to defend my life or a family members life against an attacker armed with a gun with only my wits,or my legs I just can't run as fast as I could 30 some years ago.

My personal chioce for home defense is my twelve ga shotgun. My daughter has a .410 ga shotgun. She has been trained on the safe and proper use of firearms since the age of four years old and has no unreasonable fear of them. They are only tools, inert objects with no thoughts of their own. They are only dangerous in the wrong (untrained, unrespectful, or criminal) hands.

 

I'll try to answer your question Priscilla Ann. Criminals pay no mind to laws...hence their criminality. They carry such weapons, as do those who may want to terrorize the people, as do those who may wish to tyrannize the people.

We need to be as well armed or better than those who may wish to perpetrate crimes against those who wish to remain peaceful and lawful. Only a balance of power will do this.

Which brings me to a question. Why do these anti-gun people want to limit the rights of the law abiding people by passing laws that do not seem to limit crime?

 

The problem which the nanny state advocates are addressing, is the "Rambo wannabees."

The answer isn't to ban semiautomatic weapons with a hokey "GI Joe" appearance.

I would be in favor of letting them be made and sold, but require that they be hot pink, with yellow daisies on them.

Problem solved. No more morons living out fantasies with live ammo.

The guns made for hunting or sports, would be unaffected.

 

I'll take a red humvee, please, with leather seats.

 

We have all been learning (I hope) that our elected public servants, have more interest in building a global (empire) government than protecting America and Americans. They do not serve us anymore. Both the demopublicans and republicrats have sold us out and are seeking ways in which to disarm us.

They follow the UN mandates and not US law.

Come And Take It

 

Multiple, Quick Kills.

 

General Patton described the M1 Garand as the "best piece of weaponary ever produced"----it stayed in the Army from Normandy to Germany---yet I don't believe it was ever considered an "assault" rifle----like the BAR was---or the Thompson or the German "burp" gun!!

I'd love to get my hands on an authentic M1(.30-06 caliber) or a "Tommy" gun(.45 caliber)---but have no desire to have a Browning Automatic Rifle---those were some "nasty" pieces of weaponary equipment!!

I fired a AR-15 before---ain't no big deal---no desire to own one, though! I told myself when I was firin' it(over 20 years ago---back when Clinton was still wearin' diapers(still is!!)and thought to myself---"This weapon in the hands of a nutt can lead to stupidity!!"

Hardsheller??? Is there anybody on God's green earth that YOU really, really need to "mulitple, quick kill???"

 

Blackbird,

Yep, we have a farm in Southcentral Georgia on a backcountry road that has been a magnet for mostly townfolks wanting to dump unwanted dogs.

The results are a population of wild dog packs that have been known to attack livestock and even threaten humans.

The M-16 I used in Viet Nam would be perfect. But sense I can't legally own a fully automatic weapon without paying a huge federal license fee, I'll have to be content with my surplus military rifle or do it the slow way with my deer rifle - one at a time.

Otherwise NO, because if it ever comes down to Need, I'll have enough firepower to get me an assault rifle from the opposing forces.

 

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, huh??

"You take the ones on the left and I'll take the ones on the right! Ready . . .?"

Me, too, Brother Hardsheller!

 

I have no problem with extending the ban on assault weapons, yet I understand the slippery slope argument too. But still, ban them. I am a conservative and a gun owner, yet I'm not bothered in the least by gunshow background checks, licensing to own a gun, or banning assault weapons.

 

The question of need is not a question addressed in the 2nd amendment...it does not say, "for those who can prove a need....shall not be infringed" There is a reason for that. Need is not a quesiton a govt has a right to ask. If they can ask that question, they could make an argument for asking why you "need" more than one child or why you "need" the income you make...the point is, its none of their business.

 

Do you "need" a sports car? Do you "need" a SUV?

As I have shown in my posts previously in this thread, the phrase "assault weapons" was made up in order to play on people's fears. These "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than many of the other guns that are not affected by the ban. The ban is wrong, and the current administration will be wrong when President Bush renews the ban.

 

An assault weapon (and much is in the semantics here) can be much more dangerous than a simple revolver or a rifle, depending on the amount of rounds capable of being fired, etc.

 

"High capacity" is arbitrarily defined as more than 10 rounds, when referring to "high capacity" magazines in this ban.

The intent of having a smaller magazine capacity is that a criminal could not fire as many shots as rapidly, therefore reducing the ability to kill of wound more people. However, the statistical evidence reported in the previously mentioned National Institute of Justice report shows:

"The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims."

Because "assault weapons" are rarely used in gun crimes, a significant change in numbers of victims would not be expected.

Beyond appearance, there are no significant differences between those weapons that are affected by the 1994 AWB and those that are not. The banned weapons are no more lethal than any of the weapons that are not banned. The 1994 AWB was an emotional legislative response to the perception of a major public safety and law enforcement problem.

If one looks objectively at the facts and statistical evidence regarding the uses of these banned weapons and crime, the conclusion is obvious. The AWB is not effective and should be allowed to expire.

http://www.awbansunset.com/

 

I agree that it's not the panacea that the liberals said it would be. Still, it's a common sense law that, despite its "slippery=slope" tendency which makes me rather nervous as a conservative, still should be in place.

 

Here's what I don't get though...lets say that it actually made "bad" weapons illegal - who would care? Only people who care to abide by the law anyhow. Here is the falacy of restrictive gun laws - it ensures that those who have no regard for the law are better armed than those who do.

 

Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's.

SOURCE

 

Contrast that with the very low crime rates in Switzerland where there is an "assault weapons mandate" law called the militia and very few restrictions on gun purchase. It really should be conclusive evidence that guns do not commit crimes .

 

Ah, understated elegance. Nice choice.