"Assault Weapons Ban" About to Expire

Please, someone tell me, what does the average Joe need with an assault weapon?

 

Exactly. I've wondered the same thing myself.

 

I am a second amendment supporter, but assault weapons?!?!

 

The short and simple definition of "assault weapon" is basically a semi-automatic firearm with a military appearance. Semi-automatic means the trigger must be pulled for each shot, after which the firearm extracts the spent shell casing chambers a fresh round, readying the gun for the next shot. This is vastly different from the military assault rifles and machine pistols, which some "assault weapons" are designed to look like.

An assault rifle has a mechanism that allows for fully automatic firing, so that as long as the trigger is squeezed, cartridges will continue to be fired in rapid succession until the supply of ammunition is exhausted. These types of firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and are not addressed at all in the legislation banning "assault weapons." This is a very important point, as the average person (and many gun owners too) would have a difficult time distinguishing between side by side photos of a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic look-alike.

More information available here: http://www.awbansunset.com/

The 1994 "assault weapons" ban was bad legislation and they should let it expire, but President Bush said that he would support the Clinton gun ban.

Add the 2nd Amendment to the long list of conservative principles that the current administration is against.

 

The argument for need is a misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment's purpose. It was not to provide for the ability to protect your home or for hunting. It was about protecting against tyranny. Switzerland was a model - every citizen is a member of the militia. Like the bumper sticker says, it isn't about hunting, its about freedom.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/wallstreet.html

 

I agree that Bush should let it expire.

Joseph Botwinick

 

How far do you take the "right to keep and bear arms?"

Does that only apply to sidearms, rifles, shotguns?

Does it apply to assult weapons?

How about anti-tank weapons? Shoulder launched anti-aircraft weapons?

 

C4K - all good questions and something I have pondered as well. My reasoning about freedom (which I do believe very strongly) might imply that anything goes. I think, taking the Swiss model, and the meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment into account, I think every citizen who has arms should undergo some kind of small arms training. I think weapons safety and background checks are common sense measures if one is building a militia - this is one area where a lot of the gun folks lose me. If it really is about freedom and the idea of a militia, then it should imply training and screening. With that in mind, someone screened and trained should be able to obtain any weapon they are trained and screened to use. That's the theory - however, I think the current political situation in our country would prohibit true liberty in this regard anyhow so its rather a moot point.

One major problem with this law in particular is the definition of assault weapon is so broad as to be meaningless. All sorts of crazy ideas from people who know little or nothing about weapons are in the provisions. Like anything that is over-legislated, the law is so complex that it leaves loopholes so great as to be meaningless. Never mind that nothing in such laws will ever prevent people who do not respect the law from doing what they want to do. Someone who is likely to use an "assault rifle" in a crime is not going to care if that rifle is technically legal to obtain in the first place. Laws do not prevent crime.

 

By the way, just think of what your question implies if asked about other rights. "How far do you take free speech?" or "How far do you take free expression of religion?" I think you are heading down a dangerous path anytime you choose that line of reasoning in your debate. There are better cases to be made than to imply restrictions on things that "congress shall make no law prohibiting."

 

Point well made Strat!

However, I do not think that freedoms of speech and religion are absolute. Freedom of speech does not allow me to yell "fire" in a theatre and I cannot use freedom of religion if my religion requires human sacrifice.

 

Any time a nation can justify the marriage of men to men and women to women that nation can justify the confiscation of all firearms.

Think Canada.

I know, I know, we have the Bill of Rights but in the hands of ambitious politicians we can lose them very easily unless we are on guard.

Join the NRA!

 

What part of " shall not be infringed" is so tough to understand?

 

That is precisely why I am so adamant that the Patriot Act is such horrible legislation. Why do you not agree with me on that topic yet we agree here?

 

I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation for why any average person would need an assault weapon.

Extend the ban.

 

The main intent of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was to make "military looking" firearms illegal. The supporters of the AWB believe that civilian versions of military weapons are more lethal than other firearms that operate in the same fashion, but do not look like military weapons.

Most of us that have reasonable knowledge and experience with firearms recognized from the start that the AWB definitions were primarily about the cosmetic features of the weapons and not their actual functionality or lethality.

This fact is supported by a quick comparison of a rifle that was banned (Colt AR-15) and one that was not. (Ruger Mini-14) Both of these weapons fire the same exact cartridge and bullet, the .223 Remington. Both are semi-automatic. Both can accept detachable magazines. Functionally, these are very similar weapons. So what is the main difference? The AR-15 has a black synthetic stock and looks like a military weapon. The Ruger Mini-14 has a wooden stock, and looks more "conventional."

The supporters of the AWB believe that certain features on a firearm make it more "lethal." By banning those features, the firearm would become less "lethal", thereby making our world a much safer place. Of course, this line of thought ignores the only component which determines the lethality of any firearm: The intent of the person who pulls the trigger.

Those of us that oppose the AWB recognize the subjective nature of the features identified with the ban and argue that these features were chosen because of an emotional reaction to a few tragic, but nonetheless, anomalous incidents where military style weapons were used.

When we examine the banned weapons and compare them to weapons that were not banned, it is tough to find significant differences beyond the cosmetics.

http://www.awbansunset.com/

 

That is precisely why I am so adamant that the Patriot Act is such horrible legislation. Why do you not agree with me on that topic yet we agree here? </font>[/QUOTE]I just love to argue!

 

Because if I can be trusted to carry one in battle for my country in a foreign land I should be trusted by my country to own one for the defense and protection of my property and our homeland.