Author Topic: The assault rifle ban... (Read 1160 times)

ra · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2004, 07:12:44 PM »

I don't think the US military has a classifcation of "assault weapon" or "assault rifle". The US Congress however, is much more creative.

Blooz · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2004, 07:39:06 PM »

All the military style rifles are all classified assault weapons.

Even mean looking shotguns that are labeled assault shotguns are assault weapons.

The assault rifles are the ones that are selective fire. That's the difference. Not cartridge power.

Under your definition my M1 carbine would be an assault rifle.

It's an assault weapon but not an assault rifle.

blkmgc · « **Reply #32 on:** September 13, 2004, 07:42:42 PM »

Hmm, thats funny. evreyone I know hunts with a bolt action. Dont see many auto's in the field (pretty useless actually).

blkmgc

Blooz · « **Reply #33 on:** September 13, 2004, 07:43:41 PM »

Remington makes nice auto loading rifles

blkmgc · « **Reply #34 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:00:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
Remington makes nice auto loading rifles

Very true. But I dont relish the idea of spending 500-700 bucks for a rifle(+ scope) to be banging around the scabbard of my 4 wheel ATV...only to need 1 shot to do the job.I use a Savage 110 bolt in 30-06 for just about all of my hunting. 6 deer so far...6 shots.

So I guess if they want to bundle semi hunting rifles w/ assault rifles ( as stupid as it obviously is) then so be it.

Blooz · « **Reply #35 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:12:30 PM »

To the media the Remington guns are sporting rifles. They don't have the right "look" to fit their definition.

The media likes to label the military style rifles as "assault weapons" just based on the look of them.

As stated before, it's just cosmetics.

Nilsen · « **Reply #36 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:12:31 AM »

Many different opinions here i see. There really should be (an prolly is) a US offical website that lists the accurate answer. When the issue is covered by some kind of law the details should be stated clearly so everyone could look it up. I have a feeling that atleast the gunstore owners must know the details.

Anyways Blooz, the AG3 was not mine but belonged to the Navy. I dont have it at home anymore either cause the goverment decided that these weapons should no longer be stored at peoples homes. I returned it and my Glock a few years ago, and thats ok. Didnt really need them.

TPIguy · « **Reply #37 on:** September 14, 2004, 07:35:37 AM »

Quote

Not that i care, but i bet i can see the diff between a deer rifle and an AK47.

Who says you can't hunt deer with an ak-47? Lots of people do every year.

For those of you who are mis-informed or confused about the ban, here is a little article I wrote for another webpage.

Quote

Ok, now we all know there are quite a few gun enthusists here. We talk about guns alot. However, there are probibly just as many if not more people who either don't like or simply don't care about guns. I'm sure those people are as tired of gun threads as some are of political threads. I'll try to keep this as short, factual and educational for those people.

Most of us gun nuts already know what the end of the 94 awb means, but I'll try to educate those of you who have never read the laws as to what it really means. So, even if you don't like guns, please take a few minutes to read along, you will probibly learn something. If you want more info look here http://www.atf.gov/whatsnew.htm

First off, you may have heard about the end of the ban on the news or in the paper. Most likly you've heard how criminals and terrorists will all be running around will full auto ak47's mowing down cops and innocents. This is simply put, a lie.

The ban regulated certain features available on SEMI auto rifles and to a lesser extent shotguns. FULL auto's are regulated by the 1934 national firearms act and 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act. They are still LEGALLY available but in very small numbers for very high prices. The 94 ban IN NO WAY AFFECTS the ownership of machine guns legal or not.

The features regulated in the 94 ban are almost purly cosmetic. With the excpection of a bayonette they IN NO WAY affect the lethality of the banned weapons. And how often is a bayonette used in a crime anyway?

Also keep in mind "pre-ban" (guns made before sept 94) were NOT subject to the ban. And still available, although at a higher price than "post ban" (after sept 94) guns. So, guns with all the "evil features" have been legally available all along, you just had to pay a few bucks more for an older gun.

The ban also names a few guns which were no longer legal to sell. The "ak-47" is one of them. However, ak-47's (semi- auto versions) have been available since the ban because companies changed the names of them. WASR-10, SAR-1, MAK-90, VEPR, etc.. are all ak-47's. So, no the streets WILL NOT BE "FLOODED" with ak-47's now that the ban has expired. As they were still LEGALLY available all along.

The ban also limited the production of "high capacity feeding devices." In short, magazines of over 10 round capacity. These were still produced for "law enforcement only" throughout the ban. Also, it has been legal to sell them just not to produce them. All throughout the ban standard capacity mags (10+ rounds) have been legally available, just at higher costs. The only difference now is we don't have to pay the premium for 10+ round mags.

In short, all the AWB did was make it a hassle for LAW ABIDING citizens to own what they wanted. Everything banned was still available, it just cost us regular folks more to buy.

As for crime, the federal government's own studies showed that the ban did NOTHING to prevent crime. Thats becaise CRIMINALS don't obey laws like the rest of us. They will get whatever weapons they want on the black market, because thats what CRIMINALS do.

I hope this may have shed some light on the subject for some of you. Or alteast let you know where us gun lovin folks are coming from.

Nilsen · « **Reply #38 on:** September 14, 2004, 07:47:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TPIguy
Who says you can't hunt deer with an ak-47? Lots of people do every year.

For those of you who are mis-informed or confused about the ban, here is a little article I wrote for another webpage.

Nobody says you can't hunt deer with an AK-47.

straffo · « **Reply #39 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:01:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody says you can't hunt deer with an AK-47.

A RPG-7 is better , with a RPG-7 there is almost no near miss

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:03:33 AM »

I listened to ol habus howard stern yesterday... he is on his hate Bush streak because the censors are making him play by the rules so...

he is vitriholic about the evil Bush allowing the ban to expire.. he was covering kerrie and friends meeting to do something to keep the worthless ban in place... the whole segment was done to a soundtrac of machine gun (full auto) fire inm the background...

He played a soundbite from sarah brady... a person who knows less about guns than beele and is the chief anti gun nut spokeswoman in the country... her and howard both agreed that letting the ban expire was just mean.... criminals and even law abiding citizens would be shooting everyone up with machine guns..

he then playued a clip by that toady for the NRA, Wayne LaPeirere, who, unfairly, sited 5 or six studies including the governments own that showed that the ban had zero effect in recucing crime.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:08:51 AM »

even better... that egotistical tool howard stern claimed that he sure wished he could get LaPierre on the show to debate him on the whole assault riffle issue...

howrds crew of butt smoochers all cheered him on hoping to protect their paycheck yet another week..

can you imagine? stern, knowing nothing about fiorearms and especially about so called assault weapons or the law... was going to debate the the man who probly knows more than anyone in the country about it.

Habu.... sorry bud... your stern is an egotistical, deluded and whiny tool...

lazs

VOR · « **Reply #42 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:09:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
he then playued a clip by that toady for the NRA, Wayne LaPeirere, who, unfairly, sited 5 or six studies including the governments own that showed that the ban had zero effect in recucing crime.
lazs

It was never about reducing crime...so of course it didn't work. If we wanted to actually reduce crime, we'd have to call it what it is and risk hurting people's feelings. Politically taboo, of course..but the assault weapons ban seemed to rub some placebo salve on the wound in lieu of actually having the stones to address why in the last 30 years people (especially young people) have been wigging out and killing each other.

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:20:59 AM »

no... I still believe it is about incrementalism... They know better than to try to ban all guns at once but make no mistake... that is the sworn agenda of the brady bunch.

incrementalism is taking rights away a little at a time... it works... proof is that most people here think that machine guns are illegal. they are so hard to get and keep that they may as well be.

lazs

bozon · « **Reply #44 on:** September 14, 2004, 08:39:05 AM »

less guns in civilian hands is a safer country.

Even hunting rifles should be regulated very carfully. Anyway, why would you need an AK47 to hunt a deer?! you need hi power ammo because it is steel plated? and you need the 30 bullets clip for the M16 to shoot the entire herd?

If you are talking about the right to defend yourself in your home, you need a small handgun. You will not charge theives down the staircase with meter long M16, that has the muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s and can shoot through the walls and kill people out in the street.

Bozon