Should gun owners worry? The case for a new AWB is murky, but possible, IMHO

[X_Digger]

Here's my take on why gun enthusiasts still have something to worry about. First a little history for context.

In 1994 President Clinton signed into law the 'Assault Weapons Ban' as part of a larger crime bill. This 'ban' identified a number of weapons by name as 'assault weapons', banned magazines over 10 rounds, and set a test for other weapons that consisted mostly of cosmetic features (detachable magazine + 2 of these: barrel shroud, pistol grip, removable flash hider, telescoping / folding stock, bayonet mount, grenade launcher).

The response from gun owners was to snap up all existing 'assault weapons', which caused increased production from manufacturers ahead of the effective date of the ban- in trying to legislate these guns based on appearance, the net result was that they made them _more_ popular. Many gun owners who would not have otherwise shown interest in these weapons purchased them on the premise that they _might_ want one someday.

During the 'ban' years, manufacturers produced 'ban compliant' versions of many of the named weapons, circumventing the intent of the ban- and demand kept pace. Guns in a 'pre-ban' configuration were grandfathered, as were magazines ('clips' in media-speak) of a size prohibited by the ban. There was a premium price on some of these firearms and magazines, and others were downright hard to come by at all.

In the 1996 and 2000 elections, the 'gun' issue was used to severely beat Dems about the head and shoulders- President Clinton acknowledged this in the '95 state of the union address and his memoirs. Had Gore been able to carry West Virginia and his home state in the 2000 election, we would be in a very different place. Had the '94 ban not happened, would Gore have won? I don't know, but I do know a lot of democrats in TN were pissed about it.

Per a commissioned DoJ study on the effectiveness of the AWB, crime utilizing 'assault weapons' didn't go down appreciably (it was never high to begin with) and when the ban was set to be renewed, it failed to pass in the senate by a 90-8 vote. Since then, there hasn't been an increase in 'assault weapon' crimes. In general, the violent crime rate has been going down since it's peak in the late 80's (if I recall the peak correctly.)

In the intervening years, ownership of these guns previously listed by name or characteristics have increased. A new generation of gun enthusiasts have grown up with these guns being de rigeur for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. Members here more familiar with the ownership numbers claim they are the most popular center fire rifle sold in the US today.

Cue Senator Obama / Candidate Obama. Illinois is famous for its gun control measures. They have some of the strictest regulations on registration, storage, permits, and even bans. To be a politician in Illinois (especially Chicago Metro) is to have a stake in the gun control game. Obama supported some of the popular gun control measures passed there, which by Chicago standards are tame, but by the rest of the nation (other than New York and California) are seen as pretty draconian.

In San Francisco, Candidate / Senator Obama made the offhand and probably not well thought out remark about clinging to guns and religion. If I recall, it was around the time of the PA primary, and caused quite a kerfuffle. In June, 2008, after the Heller decision, Candidate / Senator Obama came out saying the following:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

While a welcome statement from a politician steeped in Chicago gun control rhetoric, it did leave the door open for further regulation without being specific. It included one bit of rhetoric that was a red flag for many in the pro-gun community. The 'gun show loophole' has been used by so many of the most polarizing anti-gun groups and politicians that it's taken on the status of a Molotov cocktail (incendiary). (The so-called 'loophole' exists because the federal government can't regulate intra-state sales via the constitution's commerce clause. It's up to states themselves to decide if a property sale between two state residents should be subject to restrictions- 32 states do not.)

After the election, gun sales boomed (no pun intended) in the wake of President-Elect Obama's statement on www.change.gov that he wanted to reinstate the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. Further, he wanted to make it permanent.

In January after the inauguration, the statement about renewing the Assault Weapons Ban and making it permanent was copied from change.gov to whitehouse.gov- further fueling folks' worry that a ban would eventually be on the president's agenda.

Things were generally quiet until February when AG Holder, SoS Clinton, DHS Sec Napolitano, and certain congressmen started making noise about the new and improved AWB (with a new tack- it's for Mexico!). Even though the leaders of the house, senate, and white house quickly squashed the idea, they seemed to do so very reluctantly- the take-away for many gun owners was / is "Not now. Yah, we still support it, just shut up about it, already!"

In the wake of the recent spate of violence, the perennial gun control advocates- Sen Feinstein (D-CA) and Rep Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) started saber rattling for a new, improved, and permanent Assault Weapons Ban. Having recognized their mistake in creating the '94 ban based on characteristics, gun enthusiasts are worried that any new ban will have more 'teeth'- H.R. 1022 is one such proposed law that thankfully died in committee last year. Not six days into the new session, H.R. 45 was introduced, which is a licensing / registration scheme at its core, introduced by an IL Representative who is ironically enough, barred from owning a weapon. For now, it seems to be stuck in committee as well.

So with pending legislation, contradictory statements from administration officials, and weak distaste for a ban right now- gun enthusiasts feel worried. From all available evidence I wouldn't say it's a lie that President Obama wants to ban some guns, just that he probably has higher priorities, doesn't have the political capital, or doesn't want to spend the political capital in a move that could hand seats back to the repugnicans.

[villager]

1. I don't get these one-issue Dems: "The economy? The environment? The future? *Nothing*

...is more important than my right to have an assault rifle! Nothing, I tell ya!"

Bit of misplaced priorities, what?

[safeinOhio]

6. So, let them argue with Scalia

"The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."

To me it appears that Obama is a Federalist on the issue, state and local. There is nothing to be concerned about until after the mid-term elections. Even then, I think it has been reduced to a side issue, no major changes and few minor ones. That could all change if with some major national event that pisses off the public.

[benEzra]

7. The one-issue Dems are those who insist on new bans

even though "assault weapon" bans do absolutely nothing to address violent crime (rifle regardless of stock shape account for only 3% of murders), and even though such a ban would likely derail the rest of the agenda that you claim to believe is more important.

If new bans on lawful gun ownership are so unimportant, then DROP THEM and let's work together on the things we do agree on, shall we?

[villager]

10. BenEzra, the very fact you think such a thing would "derail" everything else

...proves the one-issue point...

[X_Digger]

26. Depends, I suppose, on how much credence..

..you give to the reasons behind the Reps taking back the house in 1996.

Additionally, if the guns in question were a fringe then, and sales have boomed since.. wouldn't that lead one to believe that there would be more folks opposed to a ban now?

[villager]

28. Or that the paranoia since the age of Rush/Fox/Bush/Cheney has been amped up

...to degrees unimaginable even in the Gingrich era?

[X_Digger]

34. ..or gun owners..

are more connected, more informed, and therefore less gullible since 1994? Heck, it could be as simple as "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

I know it's nice to have a big bad boogeyman to flail at, makes it easy to bypass serious examination of an issue.

"Oh noes, the NRA!"
"Oh noes, lobbying by the gun industry!"
"Oh noes, right-wing hate radio making rednecks paranoid!"

Is it inconceivable that folks like to use these rifles that are functionally no different than their father's deer gun to pursue legal activities in greater numbers? That they're wary of the last go-around where politicians ginned up a 1 vote passage of a bill that actually didn't address crime but made their hobby more expensive and harder to pursue? It was a lose-lose situation, and some of them aren't likely to endorse the second verse, worse than the first.

[villager]

40. Less gullible? After being traduced to "Stock up on ammo!" by the NRA

...after Obama's election?

[yay]

49. Source?

Got a link to back up that claim?

[villager]

52. You're actually claiming there hasn't been a huge uptick in ammo sales since Obama's election

You're actually, with a straight face, trying to claim that?

got a link to back up that claim?

[rl6214]

57. There absolutely has

I think he was asking for a link to back up this claim...

"Stock up on ammo!" by the NRA"

[villager]

60. And the NRA, and other gun proliferation groups, haven't been stoking those fears?

Where do you think the fear and paranoia fueling those sales comes from?

It's brilliant psy-ops/lobbying, and it's definitely "moving product..."

[rl6214]

64. In my case what is stocking the fear

is the lack of stock on the shelves. If I can't find it, when I do I am gonna buy more but you still haven't responded to the initial request for proof to back up that claim. I think that is the standard here, that if you make a claim you need to provide proof as to where and when it was said.

[villager]

73. "At Gun Show, Conservatives Panic About Obama:"

http://washingtonindependent.com/37511/at-gun-show-conservatives-panic-about-obama

One of hundreds such articles.

But then, you knew that.

[rl6214]

78. You are not being honest

Sleight of hand? You said this "Stock up on ammo!" by the NRA" and then posted a story giving examples of ordinary people.

Again, where is the proof that the NRA said "Stock up on ammo"?

[villager]

99. Split hairs much? Fine, the NRA is not in the slightest involved with the ratcheting

up of gun proliferator fear/rhetoric.

They have nothing -- nothing, I tell you! -- to do with driving gun and ammo sales in the current climate.

And say, how about this nice bridge I have for sale!

[rl6214]

Where's it at?

I would like a nice, quiet area, tree lined and it needs to have a gentle flowing river under it, well stocked with trout.


Oh, and I'm not splitting hairs at all. You are the one that specifically said the NRA, you were just called on it.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. So the best you can do is anti-obama nuts NEAR the NRA's booth?

That's pretty sad, dude.

Edit: I don't really give a rip one way or another about the NRA, but you look pretty sad when you spew claims like this, and can't back them up. Quit trying to drum up sympathy for the NRA.

[Pullo]

101. I know Peak Oilers, 911truthers and economic doomers......

.....who have been stocking up on food, medicine, and firearms for years. Now many on the right have joined the party, and since that consists of many gun enthusiest, well.....


Lots of fear mongers everywhere.

[Hoopla Phil]

102. Yes BUT, a Federal agency does recommend all households keep on hand

provisions for up to 3 weeks. I don't know about you but stocking up 3 works of canned goods along with water (two gallons per person per day) is a LOT of provisions for me.

Oh, that Federal agency is FEMA.

[paulsby]

124. i have several months worth of canned/dried goods

as well as a few weeks of water.

that's just prudent imo. and it's called taking responsibility for one's self.

[Hoopla Phil]

137. I agree 100%

[NewMoonTherian]

143. One would argue...

that stockpiling ammunition is a prudent choice too. Three weeks after a disaster, if groceries and municipal water still aren't available, a reasonably knowledgeable person should be able to hunt, grow, and distill what they need(not in urban areas, but if you were concerned about surviving a disaster, you wouldn't be living there anyhow :tinfoilhat: ).

Unless you're WAY into it, though, you can't produce your own ammo from scratch. That, and it wouldn't take an attack or natural disaster to cut off the supply.

I'm not stockpiling(don't have the money or guns at the moment) but I can see the wisdom in having, say, 2000 cartridges per caliber, plus reloading supplies for a few more thousand.

[paulsby]

152. i agree. i have plenty

of ammo. i get 2 boxes a month free. yah! union!

[Hoopla Phil]

153. Damn unions! (JOKING)

[Hoopla Phil]

154. Agreed!

I keep about 2K in ammo and 6 mags for each rifle. The exception to that is .22 ammo. I have LOTS of that but part of that reason is I shoot it a lot (cheaper) and its cheaper to mail order by the case. I also do reloading but found that supplies for it are cheaper to buy at gun shows as the haz mat fees for mail deliver or pretty stiff.

Unfortunately I live on the Gulf Coast so disaster prep is just a way of life. I rotate my canned goods always keeping plenty on hand. I've also found that a single 55 gallon drum in the back closet takes care of most of my water needs. I also have 50 gallons of stabilized gasoline in the back storage shed that I rotate every year. I've also taken the very odd precaution of gas masks for the family simply for the fact that there are many chemical plants just a few miles away from home.

My wife calls me a boyscout thinking it's a derogatory term:)

[yay]

156. ZOMG U PARANOID LUNNY!

Wish I could claim I was that prepared... course we don't have much in the way of natural disasters that happen where I live(1 in a million chance of a tornado or earth quake).

[Hoopla Phil]

163. True story: About two Christmases ago my wife and I

were at a party on the island. We got a bad thunderstorm come in just before we came home and it was pretty bad. Lots of lightning, spotty heavy rain, and lots of strong wind while we were driving home. Going over the causeway the lights on the causeway were doing strange things. They were going out and coming back on in some kind of semi random order. It was so erie that it was like being in some kind of sci-fi movie.

Well, we got home and the power was out. I have a Mag-light in the car with me we used to walk up to the house. Once inside I grabbed up another Mag-light that's just inside the doorway for my wife as she went straight for the bathroom to "de-water". When she came out I already had the oil lamps light and was breaking out the little battery powered stereo. She came up snuggling up to me and called me her "little boy scout". She was a happy camper:)


But can you believe that the next day she gave me shit when I was re-filling the oil lamp?! I just can't win LOL

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

145. This camp thought Bush was behind some Masonic/Jewish/NWO

I really would pay them no mind.

[gorfle]

112. For Pete's sake!

And the NRA, and other gun proliferation groups, haven't been stoking those fears?

Where do you think the fear and paranoia fueling those sales comes from?

Oh for Pete's sake!!!!!

You don't think this fear could be generated by something like, oh, say, THE FUCKING PUBLISHED STATEMENT OF INTENT ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WEB SITE?!?!?!?

You don't think it could be that the last time we had a Democratic president we had A BAN ON FIREARMS?!?!?!

Nah, it's all the NRA's fault.

[paulsby]

123. the NRA is not a "gun proliferation group"

any more than NARAL is a "abortion proliferation group"

the NRA advocates for our RIGHT to carry. they do not want people forced to carry. similarly, NARAL advocates for the RIGHT to choose an abortion. they do not advocate for more abortions.

the NRA simply advocates that people who aren't felons, etc. have their right to carry recognized.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

146. This is really one of the most sensible things I have heard here

[paulsby]

158. thanks

i try to look at it that way - simple but effective.

i may not agree with every position the NRA advocates, but that's true of NARAL and the ACLU too.

but in general, they are simply fighting for civil rights (the ACLU broadly... NARAL and NRA more narrowly).

but i notice many anti-gunners always try to play the "gun industry" angle because you know corporations are like all evil n stuff.

[Hoopla Phil]

165. Wow, I like the way you put that. May I borrow that as needed?

[yay]

68. Nope

I know all to well about the ammo shortage(I can't find any ammo <$8 a box for my AK) but I also have seen no "BUY YOUR AMMO NAOW!!!!" by the NRA.

As far as I can tell it's all been internet and gun store rumor.

[X_Digger]

55. See OP as to another reason why folks are stocking up..

I guess I wasn't clear.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

144. Yes the NRA and Reps have been spreading fear of a ban

A ban I see neither the white House or most Dems behind. Its a fear induced marketing tool. But still hopefully it sends the message to Dems to lay off the AWB.

[rl6214]

50. You are saying that

90% of the nation listen to Rush/Fox/Bush/Cheney. It's not a small segment of the US population that are causing the boom in sales we are currently experiencing. It is a HUGE segment of the population.

[benEzra]

31. Obama has dropped the ban issue because HE thinks it would derail things.

And the original Feinstein non-ban certainly derailed the supposedly more important aspects of Clinton's agenda post-1994, and losing TN and WV alone over the gun issue in 2000 certainly derailed Gore's presidency.

You are singing the same song that the singleminded gun-ban DLC'ers sung in 1993-1994, 2000, and 2004. Fortunately, the Obama administration is savvier than that.

[rl6214]

46. It will definately derail everything

If the power in the house and senate are shifted in the 2010 elections because of anger over a new ban.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

142. I agree

I have no problem with assault weapons. They really are not what is used in crime. Most criminals do not go into a gas station with an AK-47 with a drum clip, they go in with a semi-automatic pistol. Its hard to conceal an assault weapon, not so with a pistol. This is just the type of crap that democratic leader let themselves get bogged down in. It is really unimportant but important to vast amounts of gun owners in this country. If you want to decrease crime enact funding for more cops (which helped him and the country), as Clinton did, but with out the AWB (which hurt him and did relatively nothing for the country).

[X_Digger]

23. I'm not a one issue voter, but I know a few..

I wouldn't call them single issue voters, it's usually a cloud of issues, and gun control is used as an indicator of their stance on others.

Many do give more credence to gun control as an important issue, giving it more weight than others. Most of the rural dems I know are pro-gun, pro-union, anti-globalism, anti-free trade, pro social programs, and pro protecting the economy- jobs in particular.

[rl6214]

44. Are "the economy, the environment, the future"

Part of the constitution? I would imagine if it were our 1st amendment right being restricted I would think there would be more Dems being just as vocal if not much more vocal about this and becoming "one-issue Dems".

[yay]

47. If the other issues are so important...

Why not focus on them instead of our firearms?

[gorfle]

109. It's simple.

I don't get these one-issue Dems: "The economy? The environment? The future? *Nothing*...is more important than my right to have an assault rifle! Nothing, I tell ya!"

Bit of misplaced priorities, what?

Not if personal liberty is one of your priorities.

I used to use a politician's stance on firearm ownership as a litmus test for his stance on personal liberty. As the saying goes, how can I trust a politician who doesn't trust me with firearms?

I came to realize that firearms, like religion and abortion, were being used as a pacifier to placate voters with one hand while the other hand pandered to corporations, warmongerers and profiteerers, and the erosion of civil liberties.

There are still a lot of people, though, who don't look that deeply, and for them, firearms remain their litmus test.

[Wickerman]

2. Wow, I had no idea there was a concern of a new AWB

aside from the 50 other fucking threads on the topic in this forum.

:eyes:

[rl6214]

56. So why waste your time

Clicking on this thread?

[Wickerman]

69. Just pointing out the obvious

and here I go again, once again responding to the ever so obvious.

[yodoobo]

3. The gun age and gun culture will eventually draw to a close

And we will join the rest of the civilized world.

But it will not happen without leadership.

Obama is spending his political capital on other things right now and I think that is appropriate.

When this financial mess is over, and probably after the mid term elections, Obama will provide the leadership we desperately need to put this issue finally to rest.

Let the gun nuts fritter around. They are just background noise to doing what is common sense and ultimately the right thing to do.

[jmg257]

16. When is this evolution going to happen? Those frittering gun owners are certainly making themselves

heard now. As their numbers apparently increase all the more.

Do you think they will lose interest in a few years?

[yodoobo]

20. It doesn't matter if they lose interest

The gun lovers will not be the ones providing the leadership.

Let'm fritter. who cares?

Despite all their bluster and lies, Obama was elected in a landslide.

[jmg257]

25. Are you talking about the NRA? Another thread says they "have a strangle hold on Congress".

Yet you think they will be ignored eventually. Certainly possible.

But once he provides the leadership on gun control, wouldn't Obama be making their lies the truth?

[yodoobo]

36. The NRA is large factor

But I'm not talking about them specifically.

I'm really talking about gun culture of which the NRA plays a significant aspect.

I'll have to go back to the "stranglehold on congress" thread. I skimmed it. I agree though there is alot of rhetoric out there.

Nonthless, gun control is part of Obama's platform and one of his promises. He talked about it in his nomination speech and its on his website.

I know that some in congress and some supporters run from this truth. That's a mistake imo.

The American people want relief from the gun violence and gun culture. We're just waiting for the leadership on this.

[yay]

53. So I guess that would explain..

The American people want relief from the gun violence and gun culture. We're just waiting for the leadership on this.


Why there are record number a NEW gun owners? I'd say guns are here to stay.

[yodoobo]

116. Is it really new gun owners?

Significant numbers that is?

Or is just current gun owners buying their 2nd, 3rd 5th, 20th weapons?

[benEzra]

147. A mixture of both, from what I've seen on gun forums.

The common denominator is concerns over future availability. The MSM has tried to play up the "preparing for future crises" angle, and that may be a factor to some degree (particularly for self-defense ammunition), but the primary driver behind the current run is the talk of a new ban on modern-looking rifles, draconian magazine capacity limits, and measures that would sharply curtail ammunition availability at affordable prices (from import restrictions on Eastern European ammunition to legislating production bottlenecks here at home).

Of those in your "current gun owner" category, many of the people who are buying modern-looking rifles are people who are buying such guns for the first time. I'm sure there are those buying a second or third "black rifle" to pass on to their children someday or to have a spare, or to buy a particular model just in case it becomes unavailable at some point, but there are also plenty of first-timers.

Honestly, if I had the disposable income, there are three or four firearms I'd purchase if I thought a new ban had much of a chance of passing. A Kel-Tec RFB in .308 Winchester, a .223 AK of some sort, a Springfield XDM, and possibly some flavor of AR.

[jmg257]

71. I see what you are saying...he wasn't hiding his pro-gun control stance.

and he did get elected, so...

I think the drastic reaction to 'his stance' sort of tempered the willingness for him/them to try things just now. Like you said, maybe in the future. Or maybe if there are a couple more incidents.

[yay]

77. I doubt it.

People are tired of the "BAN GUNS FOR THE CHILDREN" rhetoric. People are starting to see that more gun control isn't helping the problem. They want REAL solutions to the problem, not ones that make them feel good but ultimately do nothing.

It's also clear from other area's that people want their rights. Not just the RKBA but the whole damn thing. I'd say that's not an unreasonable request.

[benEzra]

119. Yes, he was. In part because a lot of gun owners decided he was smart enough NOT to pursue an AWB.

Ray Schoenke of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, and pro-gun Dems such as Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, et al campaigned heavily for Obama in pro-gun states, and one of the key messages was just that: Obama has other priorities, new gun bans are not one of them, and implicitly there will NOT be another AWB. Looks like they were right.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

149. You hit the nail on the head!

I'm pro-Obama and pro Gun. Now guns are really not my biggest issue. If a candidate was anti-gun but still shared my values more than Obama I would have voted for him. McCain didn't, Obama did and he really isn't anti-gun. If he starts in on a AWB I would gladly sign up with a Repub protest as long as it was for this single issue. Of course Obama won't, so it is a mute point!

[Caliman73]

115. The rest of the civilized world?

You mean the civilized world that despite banning guns has violent crime rates comparable to the United States? I suppose violent crime is fine as long as it isn't gun crime?

Good leadership tends to see the larger picture. Gun control does not reduce crime. If you want to reduce crime then we need leaders that will take the motivation for crime away. Take away the poverty, the desperation, the feelings of anger and hopelessness. We need leaders who will acknowledge that the education system needs to be funded fully. We need jobs that will be around and provide workers with the money they need to live. We need a country where riches are not flaunted, where people aren't held down because of their race or socio-economic status. That will reduce crime more effectively than any new "common sense" law that would restrict guns.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

150. Gun Nuts??? WTF???

I don't even own a gun but I think it is telling the way you describe assault weapon owners as nuts. This is the same thing they called us over the fight to stop Homeland Security (can you get any Orwellian than that). To me a gun nut is a person who fetishes his weapons and thinks a bunch of guns make him a man. You know the same people who think Ann Coulter is a sexy intelligent women. Citizens who have respect for there weapons are not nuts but exercising their rights under the Bill of Rights written by James Madison one of the most Liberal Founding Fathers.

[Howzit]

159. Guns will go away when everyone has been inoculated against violence

In the case of the above anti-hero, it was psychological conditioning, but how easy would it be to just implant a chip in everybody that makes them sick when they break the rules or disagree with the ruling party?

Be careful what you wish for.

[Howzit]

160. "Obama is spending his political capital on other things right now"

Perhaps he could lead by example and get rid of his armed body guards? If this seems like a silly idea, why should the average person in this county not have access to personal protection? If I can hire armed body guards, what is the moral difference between that and bearing arms in my own defense?

[lazer47]

People with guns don't have to worry,,, It is the ones without who have to worry

[Tempest]

12. When you take into consideration

The number of people who are shot with their own guns, your statement is bogus.

[jmg257]

17. Why? How many is that? How many people are shot with their own gun? nt

[lazer47]

18. The very ability of you and I to even make this statement out in the open

was guaranteed by someone you would probably call a GUN NUT..

[rl6214]

61. Got something to back this statement up?

Or did you find that on the brady webpage?

[benEzra]

148. Unless you're speaking of suicides, the annual number is very, very low.

When you take into consideration the number of people who are shot with their own guns, your statement is bogus.

Unless you're speaking of suicides, the annual number is very, very low. Happens all the time on TV, but not so often in real life.

[Howzit]

164. What do you care if gun nuts shoot themselves or are shot with their own guns?

Isn't fewer gun nuts better?

Either that, or you are echoing someone else's talking points,

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

151. A little of Topic

But thanks for your services in Vietnam. I was not even born when the war was talking place, but I probably would not have supported it. I think it is important though that just because a person does not support a war does not mean that they should take it out on the soldiers as I know did happen. Anyway, thanks for what you did for this country!

[lazer47]

4. ''''

[sandnsea]

5. They might take your machine guns and rocket launchers too

Are you worried about that?

[benEzra]

8. That issue was settled 75 years ago

and they are as as tightly controlled as howitzers and tanks, as you well know.

The gun issue in 2008 is about whether or not to outlaw the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in the nation or to legislate 1860's-era magazine capacities, as you also well know.

[tridim]

11. "non-automatic civilian rifles" AKA semi-automatic assault rifles

How very Bushian you.

[slackmaster]

15. "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive

Educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

[tridim]

21. NRA propaganda notwithstanding..

The assault rifles in question are semi-automatic. They are not exclusively "civilian rifles" and they are not "non-automatic" as propaganda boy just claimed.

[X_Digger]

30. Ermm..

Militaries don't typically use semi-automatic guns.

Guns like the AR-15 were created as a semi-automatic version of the military M-16 specifically for the civilian market.

M-16s and other fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934, so a new Assault Weapons Ban wouldn't affect them one way or the other.

[virginia mountainman]

32. With that one post, you proved just how little you know....

Now, if you will, let us fellow Democrats show you the TRUTH, so that you will not make an ...EMBARRASSING statement like the one you just made, again

[tridim]

37. I'm not embarrassed.

It's true that I'm not a gun nut, so I don't have encyclopedic knowledge like you do.

I do know that no civilian needs to carry a semi-automatic assault weapon. Period, end of story, my opinion. The NRA and the gun nuts will never change my mind. Keep your shotguns and bolt actions for hunting and your hand guns for "protection" and be happy. If you want to fire military weapons to get your rocks off, join the military.

[Statistical]

41. Handguns are semi-automatic.

Rifle semi-auto = ban
Handgun semi-auto = not ban

Just want to make sure I got this right?

Even though handguns account for 85% of all homicides.

So ban the guns NOT used in crime? Is that right?

[virginia mountainman]

45. These are not military weaons..

They only LOOK like them...You should not refer to Sara Brady for your information regarding guns... You should ask your fellow Democrats,

Their is a TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE between Semi automatics, and assault weapons, they are two different things, NOT ONE, as you think.

Please watch this movie, it will explain, and demonstrate the difference...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0


I am not trying to "win you over to my side", All I am trying to do, is show you that YOU, are wrong in your characterizations.

[tridim]

51. Why do you want your semi-autos to look like full-autos?

There must be a good reason.

[X_Digger]

58. Good question!

The characteristics that make them more useful in any case are usually: weight, less recoil, less apt to get dinged up, cheaper (at least for some, not all), more ergonomic, more configurable (mounting options for lights, optics, slings, etc.)

It's not about looking like an automatic, it's having features that make them more useful (new technology trumps older technology).

[Pullo]

63. Because people like you tried to ban them....

....and since this "assault weapon" gun ban scheme has been perpetuated by the anti-gun lobby, rifles like the AR-15 have been improved substantially to feed the exponential demand, and now shoot as well or better than what would used to be considered an average hunting rifle.

So for many hunters and competitive shooters today, rifles like the AR-15 are the rifles of choice.....they're not to shabby for home defense, either.

They've gone mainstream.

[tridim]

I didn't try to ban anything.

It's just my opinion that we don't need them on the street.

And your reasoning that it's payback for my opinion is fucking insane.

[virginia mountainman]

81. You may not have...

But they meteoric rise in the popularity of the AR15 and similar rifles, did not take off, UNTIL they where banned in 1994. The AR15 had been on the civilian market since the early 1960's and its sales where "stagnate" but the AW Ban caused them to sale like hotcakes...

All the manufactures needed to do to comply with the ban, and STILL SELL THE SAME RIFLES, was to remove the bayonet lugs, and use non-folding stocks, so the sales continued NON STOP during the ban years.

I recall the cries about "loopholes" when in reality, manufactures where simply "complying with the law"

[Pullo]

89. Not just payback....

in the early 90's , collectors snapped up many of the "pre-ban" rifles as an investment. Like I said, 'post-ban- AR's were improved and as more people used them, they discovered they are fun to shoot, light in recoil, very accurate, and a no-brainer for hunting game.

Its not 'insane,' but human nature. The best way to sell an item is attempt to ban it. The gov couldn't make an AWB without giant loopholes, unless it banned all semi-autos, and that was and is a non-starter. The AWB ended up pouring gasoline on the AW "problem."

[virginia mountainman]

66. Looks, not so muck..

But I DO, like the ergonomic features, the lightweight, and "handiness" of the rifles, the toughness, you can get them wet, and not worry about rust, or needing to clean them right away due to the use of plastics and aluminum.

With the adjustable stock, I, my wife, and my children can all shoot the same rifle, they are COMPLETELY CUSTOMIZABLE, I can use the same rifle, to plink cans with, during the day, and I can in a matter of minutes attach a night scope and use it to take coyotes that are taking my father-in-laws cattle in the middle of the night.

They are simple enough, that I can work on them, and replace all the parts in it, with a vise and simple hand tools. In a matter of minutes, I can change the "upper" on an AR15 to another caliber, and hunt large game with it, or use another upper, that fires the lowly .22 and plink all day long..

They can just about do ANYTHING you need to do, and do it better than traditional style guns.

It is hard to take a nice Weatherby hunting rifle out in the rain, to hunt with, due to its fancy WOOD stock that can be easily damaged., and BLUED parts that rust... With an AR15, the rain is completely NO ISSUE, and since the stocks are fiberglass, they do not scratch up!

[X_Digger]

82. Good point about maintainability..

Many of the traditional hunting rifles of the past can be compared to early cars- 'motorized coaches'. Each part was custom fit by a 'coach builder'. Many older guns are the same way. There's a reason gunsmiths still are in businesses. Today's guns (especially ones like the AR-15) are mass produced with little if any 'custom fitting' involved. Just like anyone can change their oil on a modern car, maintenance on a modern gun is relatively simple compared to the past.

[virginia mountainman]

70. By the way...that question..

Shows the beginning of understanding!! THANK YOU!!..

:toast:

[TheWraith]

95. There's several reasons why the look is popular.

The simplest reason is that military rifles are designed to be cheap, simple, and rugged, and most knockoffs keep the same design. For instance: while personally I much prefer the old-fashioned wood stocks to the newer fiberglass ones, the fiberglass is immune to rotting, to moisture warping, and other things that plague guns which use wood. Another example: the blacked or parkerized steel is much more resistant to corrosion than the painted or bare metal used in older guns.

Lastly, there's economies of scale involved. A lot of parts like barrels, rails, handles, etcetera can be manufactured universally for something like the AR-15 as well as for the M-16. That makes it cheaper for the company to produce both civilian and military weapons instead of having to operate two completely different production lines. Instead, they only have to seperately manufacture the receivers and firing mechanisms.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. There are excellent reasons.

A collapsable stock allows my wife and I to comfortably and safely fire the same rifle, even though our arms are significantly different in length.
A flash hider protects my vision in low-light situations, a critical safety feature.
A barrel shroud protects my hand, and material around me when I lay the rifle down on the bench or in it's case after a round of extended shooting.
A pistol grip is more ergonomically comfortable, and allows better control of the weapon, which makes it a safety feature.
A bayonet lug allows easy attachment of a flashlight, which is a safety feature of a home defense weapon.

Etc. Most of them are safety features, but they've been demonized to the point you probably wouldn't recognize them as such.

[spin]

155. Yes there is a damn good reason, in fact several...

Technically speaking, it makes all the sense in the world that proven military rifle designs should be inherently appropriate for hunting use. All successful military rifles are specifically designed for rugged, reliable function and durability under extreme conditions, which translates automatically into use under even the most extreme field-hunting use. They're also designed for reasonable weight, portability and ease of fast handling by people who may be carrying other heavy gear and wearing bulky clothing. They have an inherent capability for follow-up shots, and they must be deadly accurate against targets of the same basic dimensions and at the same distances typically encountered by hunters.

The AR in particular is a superb hunting design, due primarily to its lightweight synthetic and corrosion-resistant alloy construction. And, it's surprisingly accurate, due primarily to the fact it's an "assembled" gun rather than a "fitted" gun. Its major components essentially snap together. Unlike a traditional bolt-action rifle, which generally requires close-tolerance, hand-work receiver/barrel mating and precise bedding into the stock for maximum accuracy and consistency, a hunting-grade (or even competition-grade) AR can readily be assembled from modular components literally on a kitchen table, by anybody with a modicum of ability to use relatively simple hand tools. Likewise, a service-grade "standard" AR15 can readily be brought up to minute-of-angle performance by selective replacement of key modular elements with match-grade parts. And, once tuned, an AR stays that way, due to the fact that its entirely nonorganic components (nonwood) are not susceptible to environmental distortion (warpage or swelling). All an AR really needs is a quality barrel to shoot as well as the best hunting rifle you can buy.
http://www.huntingmag.com/guns_loads/phsar_022707/

[jmg257]

65. I fired 'military weapons' with a company from the 101st. Quite a difference

between their M4s, M16s, M249s and my semi-autos. Theirs certainly were a blast to shoot.


Just the same, thanks for the offer, but I am happier being able to keep & enjoy my semis, then doing without.

[Pullo]

35. "assault rilfle" = full-auto machine gun, "assault weapon" = semi-auto with 'militarty style'

No, that's not NRA propaganda. In fact, it's Josh Sugarmann of the VPC's signature anti-gun propaganda campaign. It relies on deception and ignorance in order to do two things: Ban lots of guns and demonize gun owners.

Looks like its been very effective on you.

[slackmaster]

85. Calling a semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle" is gun-grabber propaganda

Pot, meet kettle.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle.

If you hand a soldier an AR-15 and tell him it's an assault rifle, he or she will laugh at you.

[quiller4]

120. By definition an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire

so if you are talking about a semi-auto it is by definition not an assault rifle. That isn't NRA propaganda. It is the definition of the US military as well as the industry.

[Statistical]

19. There are no semi-automatic assault rifles.

It would be like a mobile non moveable object.

The def of an assault rifle is:

"An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 and the Steyr AUG."

Assault Rifles have long since been regulated as Class III items.

Assault Weapon is a made up word to support ban of semi-auto rifles which is the most common form of rifles sold today.
Just as bolt action replaced the lever action and lever action replaced the muzzle loader.

Within 20 years virtually all rifles will be semi-auto just as all virtually all handguns today are. Yes revolvers still exist but pistols outsell them 5:1.

[tridim]

24. Semantics are fun.

They're still rifles built for the sole purpose of killing lots of people fast because they fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.

I don't give a fuck how the NRA defines "assault" for propaganda purposes.

[benEzra]

29. MOST civilian guns "fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger."

Squirrel rifles, ALL ordinary pistols, ALL revolvers, Olympic target pistols, gas-operated hunting shotguns, and the most popular target rifles.

You seem to fail to understand what distinguishes a military automatic weapon from a non-automatic, exclusively civilian gun like a Ruger 10/22 or an AR-15.

[virginia mountainman]

33. Let me ask you this...

If they are built with the sole purpose of killing lots of people fast...

Why do the Police have them by the boatload???

[Statistical]

38. Not really.

Might make sense to at make a token effort to learn about what you want to ban.

85% of all handguns sold in 2005 (latest year I have numbers) were semi-auto. They shoot as fast as you pull the trigger. There is no mechanism to slow them down.

Majority of rifles sold today are semi-auto.

Some look scary:


Some look nice:


They both work the same way. Pull trigger gun goes bang, gas operates the mechanism and gun is ready to fire again.

Both "fire rounds as fast as you can pull trigger".

THE MAJORITY OF FALL FIREARMS sold today operate on the "fire as fast as you pull the trigger".
Handguns, carbines, small caliber rifles, large caliber rifles, even shotguns are "auto loaders".

Nobody is talking about banning ALL semi-autos though because there would be no political or voter will to do so.
What people like you are doing is willing to pretend that banning "scary looking guns" which are no more or less dangerous than "non scary guns" just so you can ban "some guns".

So which is it? Do you want to ban all semi-automatic weapons (which includes majority of rifles and virtually all handguns) or do you just want to ban "scary looking guns" knowing they are no more dangerous than "non scary looking guns"?

BTW: ALL RIFLES (even bolt action, lever action, slide action, pump action) account for <3% of homicides in United States.

[tridim]

48. If I had my way, which I know I never will, I'd ban all guns that aren't used for hunting.

Shotguns, small caliber handguns and rifles are perfectly appropriate for any hunter.

[X_Digger]

62. And if more hunters start using these guns for hunting?

[Statistical]

80. Well at least you are honest.

Now second question would you do it by repealing the 2nd ammendment or by pretending it doesn't exist?

[tridim]

84. No, I don't want to repeal the 2nd ammendment

I have NEVER said that.

[Statistical]

96. Well what then. I honestly want to know.

Heller ruled that a ban on a class of weapons that
1) has legitimate purpose
2) is in common usage
3) is used lawfully

violates the 2nd.

In Heller the example weapon was handgun.
Semi-automatic handguns are the most common form of handguns.

85% of handguns sold today are semi auto so I bring you back to the original question:

semi-auto handguns w/ external magazine (used in 80%+ of homicides) = ok
semi-auto rifles w/ external magazine = banned

that doesn't make much sense does it?

Why the fixation of semi-auto rifles and not semi-auto handguns.

If you believe you can ban all semi-autos I think you are wrong.
It would be in violation of the 2nd amendment as confirmed by Heller decision.

So IF (for the sake of debate lets say it is) banning all semi-auto is violation of 2nd amendment would you repeal the 2nd in order to ban them? Or would you accept the citizens have a constitutional right to own semi-automatic rifles, handguns & shotguns

[Hoopla Phil]

106. Then how would you go about banning guns that in your opinion are not

used for hunting?

[jmg257]

94. Actually, LARGE caliber handguns are more appropriate for hunting.

Rifle caliber depends on what one is hunting. My M1A & AR-10 (.308) are fine for deer, my AR-15 (5.56) for woodchucks, coyotes etc. Bigger cartridges would be needed for bigger game.

Since they have been used for hunting (ARs generally, not me), I guess I can keep mine.

If you meant the actual guns needed to be used, then I would take up hunting again.

[sandnsea]

128. And coincidentally, also for self defense n/t

[benEzra]

135. Are you aware that only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts? (n/t)

[rl6214]

74. It's nice that you "don't give a fuck" about facts and truth

Makes your contribution to the topic carry that much more weight.

[tridim]

76. Better go buy more guns to teach me a lesson.

:eyes:

[rl6214]

86. Really there's not a whole lot out there

That I don't have that I really want but I could use some more ammo though. I am running low on .40 S&W, .45 and 9mm.

It's getting tough to find though.

[Hoopla Phil]

104. Why let truth or facts get in the way with what a person wants to be?!

[Hoopla Phil]

105. Yeah, fact really screw with things sometimes. It helps to just ignore them. LOL

[AtheistCrusader]

114. It's not the NRA, you tool.

You're mixing military nomenclature with gun-grabber rhetoric. You. Are. Wrong.

If you want to work on sensible gun legislation, I suggest you drop the scare mongering, because it's never going to help you, and will only be used to ridicule ANY position you try to take.

[spin]

157. "built for the sole purpose of killing lots of people fast "...

Considering the number of semi-auto weapons in this country, your statement is obviously and blatantly false.

Many are used for target shooting or hunting, some people own them for self defense. Only a very, very few are ever used for your "sole purpose".

The people who oppose the ownership of semi-auto firearms are quick to point out NRA propaganda, but blind to their own disinformation.

[DonP]

22. Wow, so much ignorance in so few words!

No, Bush lied through his teeth and press secretary.

This is an accurate statement properly describing the rifles under discussion that you don't like.

But congratulations, you managed to be snarky and wildly wrong all in one short line.

The description used in the post is accurate, a little reading and some work on the comprehension thing might help.

But since you don't seem interested in knowing much, if anything, about what you want to regulate ...

An Assault rifle has select fire capability (A machine gun). By definition a semi-automatic is not ... well automatic.

But there are so many incredibly stupid people out there that insist on talking about them as if they really were full-auto, some of us have to go out of our way to correct the intentional stupidity being spewed by some folks.

[benEzra]

27. Who's yelling "TERRAH!!" and exaggerating the threat like Bush/Gonzales? You are.

Yes, semiautomatic is NON AUTOMATIC, and is the most common CIVILIAN mode of operation.

You are throwing around the term "semiautomatic" as if it means something scary, and as if it's not the way most civilian firearms work.

Actual assault rifles, by definition, are selective-fire (e.g., automatic-capable), NOT semiautomatic only. You are thinking of the term "assault weapon," which is any non-automatic civilian rifle the Bradyites want to ban, not an actual assault rifle.


This is one of those "semiautomatic assault weapons":




So is this:




Not to mention the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States:




All of the above are non-automatic, and all of the above are exclusively civilian rifles, not used by any military on this planet. But you already know that, just as I believe you know just how few murders involve rifles.

[tridim]

42. I just don't want any more innocent people to be killed with these weapons.

If that makes me a bad person in the gun-nut world, so be it.

[X_Digger]

54. No, that makes you a GOOD person, in ANY world!

It just comes down to how to accomplish that.

I'm sure we can agree that we want criminals and the mentally deranged to not have access to guns (not just scary looking ones.)

In a free society that has a protected right to own firearms, there's not a lot we can do to take them from those prohibited persons who have them right now- not until we can catch them doing something wrong. These are folks who are not likely to obey new restrictions, so the most I can see that we can do is try to stop them from using them. If we address things like poverty, drug use, mental health, and jobs, the reason why these folks do terrible things will be reduced.

[yay]

59. So you want to effectivly ban...

The most popular rifles in america that account for well under <3% of all murders?

And they say gun owners are illogical.

[benEzra]

75. But you're OK if they're killed with shotguns, handguns, or identical rifles with straight stocks.

Or knives, which kill five or ten times as many Americans as all "assault weapons" combined. Or shoes and bare hands, which kill twice as many as all rifles put together. Or alcohol, which kills more people in a day than "assault weapons" do in a year.

Just why do you think restricting small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out or that look a certain way would prevent criminals from using functionally IDENTICAL firearms, or more lethal ones, with traditional looks?

If gun control advocates were really as concerned about the recent shootings as they say they are, they'd profess as much anguish over the recent pistol and shotgun murders as over the few that involved modern-looking civilian rifles. From where I'm standing, it seems to me that what really disturbs the gun-control lobby isn't murder, but rather the lawful and nonviolent use of guns they view as particularly evil looking, regardless of how rare such misuse is. Which is why they/you focus primarily on restricting the latter, rather than the former.

[tridim]

79. No I'm not okay if they're killed with shotguns, handguns or rifles.

I don't want anyone to be killed with any gun, but obviously that's out of my hands. Gun nuts are going to continue killing innocent people, and the more guns they have the more people they're going to kill. We have to draw the fucking line somewhere. IMO this is the line.

[yay]

88. I'd say where we are right now

is fine. Everyone is happy "right here" so it makes sense to draw the line "right here" no?

[tridim]

92. Tell that to all the dead people in the past month.

[yay]

93. You mean the ones

That weren't killed with assault rifles?

[Statistical]

100. The majority of people killed last month (just like any month) were kiled with HANDGUNS

How would banning "Scaring looking rifles" prevent people from being killed with non-banned handguns?

[benEzra]

103. The line is drawn at criminal possession/use, sawed off shotguns, automatics, and over-.50 weapons.

Non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber "assault weapons" have always been on the civilian side of that line, and they are going to stay there; more Americans own them than hunt, and we'll keep them, thanks.

You can accept the fact that modern-looking rifles are mainstream and address criminal misuse of all guns instead, or you can keep doing the Don Quixote and trying to outlaw the lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular civilian rifles in America, even though rifles are consistently among the least misused of all firearms. But the latter isn't going to a damn thing to reduce gun violence, and the former will.

[yay]

107. Nobody want's REAL soulutions to the problems.

They just want to feel good about themselves.

[Hoopla Phil]

108. Reading your post it looks like you equal all "gun-nuts" with criminals.

Is that true?

[jmg257]

13. Naa - they would have to find them 1st.

[slackmaster]

14. Educate yourself

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/about.htm

[sandnsea]

117. About what? n/t

[slackmaster]

118. The National Firearms Act

Machine guns and rocket launchers have been strictly regulated since 1934.

[sandnsea]

121. Precisely my point.

If you're so all fired up about the 2nd Amendment, why don't you fight for the right for everybody to have machine guns and rocket launchers?

[slackmaster]

122. We do have the right to own machine guns and rocket launchers

They're tightly regulated, and I don't really have a problem with that.

The line in the sand dividing military weapons from ordinary civilian ones was drawn, correctly IMO, in 1934.

[sandnsea]

125. So tightly regulate semi-auto assault rifles

These guns would have been included with the machine gun ban in the 30's if they'd been available. Regardless, it isn't "gun grabbing" to suggest we need to add some arms to the list that should be restricted to the military.

[rl6214]

126. In your opinion

"These guns would have been included with the machine gun ban in the 30's if they'd been available" Thank God your opinion isn't the only one that counts.

[sandnsea]

127. Is the 1934 Firearms Act "gun grabbing"? n/t

[rl6214]

166. Actually yes it is

Although the weapons affected was not quite as popular and widespread as the weapons you are talking about restricting/banning.

[slackmaster]

129. Semiautomatic rifles WERE available in the 1930s

You are communicating with an expert in the history of firearms. :hi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

Regardless, it isn't "gun grabbing" to suggest we need to add some arms to the list that should be restricted to the military.

No military force that I am aware of issues semiautomatic rifles as combat weapons. Handguns, yes.

[sandnsea]

132. That's not the kind of gun we're talking about

You once again prove you're not interested in honest discussion. All that any of you do is prove your willingness to be complete hypocritical lunatics and follow the NRA talking points right down the line.

"The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle to be generally issued to the infantry in any nation's army."

And, who said anything about combat restrictions, and what about the M4?

Which has nothing to do with the point, and you well know it. If it were 1934 you'd be peeing your pants about them grabbing your machine gun rights too. Now you don't because people really would think you're nuts.

[slackmaster]

138. The M4 is a selective-fire weapon, legally a machinegun

"The M1 Garand was the first semi-automatic rifle to be generally issued to the infantry in any nation's army."

Go back and re-read what I wrote. The M1 Garand is an obsolete weapon, not issued to any soldiers anywhere on Earth NOW. Semiautomatic rifles with similar magazine capacity and ballistics to the M1 were available in 1934.

No military force in the world issues semiautomatic rifles.

If it were 1934 you'd be peeing your pants about them grabbing your machine gun rights too.

I'd probably be upset about the $200 transfer tax and registration, but machine guns have remained legal and available under federal law. Just expensive due to scarcity, and actually or practically banned in some states.

[X_Digger]

130. There were semi-automatics with detachable magazines in 1934

I know it's a stretch, but you might actually want to do some research to avoid looking silly.

"The Lee-Metford rifle, developed in 1888, used an eight- or ten-round detachable box magazine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Metford

[sandnsea]

131. Because that's the exact kind of gun we're talking about

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

136. Err.. semi-automatic rifles are _exactly_ what we were talking about..

So tightly regulate semi-auto assault rifles

These guns would have been included with the machine gun ban in the 30's if they'd been available. Regardless, it isn't "gun grabbing" to suggest we need to add some arms to the list that should be restricted to the military.

Exactly what other gun are you talking about? If you can't make yourself clear, don't whine when someone misinterprets you.

[slackmaster]

139. Please explain the difference between a 1930's semiautomatic rifle that takes detachable magazines

And "the kind of gun" you think we're talking about.

[jmg257]

162. Yes, PLEASE explain, SandS. I don't need another dumb ass trying to take my M1s.

I like them.

[rl6214]

67. Dosen't it get tiring, being so dishonest?

[Hoopla Phil]

91. Nope, already sold them to Mexico to pay my mortgage.

[regnaD kciN]

9. I think EVERYONE should be worried...

...about the possibility of a new Average White Band. Those guys were terrible!

What? Oh...

...never mind.

[virginia mountainman]

39. Great Post K&R and a few comments..

I think, this issue, will need to be closely watched, and we, in the civil rights community, will need to keep our guard up, and be ready to mobilize at a moments notice.

One thing we must remember, when the original ban passed, it only passed by ONE VOTE, and the NRA and other civil rights groups that specialize in this subject (because the ACLU has us on Ignore) where either too weak, and disorganized to do much about it till AFTER it passed, and electrified gun owners.

After the rout in 1994, one of the first things the new congress did, was to pass a law REPEALING the ban, but unfortunately it died in the Senate.

Fast forward to now, as correctly pointed out, the bans ONLY made the guns run-away popular, and now, gun owners are FAR more powerful in the House and Senate also, Gun owners are HIGHLY motivated, and HIGHLY organized now.

Any SERIOUS attempt to pass such legislation, would result in an immediate and total action..

Remember a few years ago, when the legislation that would stop all the lawsuits against gun manufactures went forward the first time? And that vile Fienstien snuck in the "New AW" ban?

We civil rights folks, melted down email servers, phone lines, and a few days later, caused 5 Postmen to file for Workers Comp,because of damaged backs from carrying the loaded mail sacks to the congress!!

The NRA wanted to strip the bad AW Ban out of the bill, when it came back to the House for finial passage, but the force of us, raising holy hell was too much, and it was killed almost within a matter of hours....

[Furyataurus]

43. IMO, gun owners should always be concerned

that our firearms are going to be "regulated" away.

[Hoopla Phil]

72. Yes

There ARE people that think that banning guns (all guns) is best for America. Some of those people are in congress. Some are very influential people in the media and working very hard for that goal. They use every opportunity and exploit every criminal use of firearms to push ever closer toward that goal.

In recent years pro 2A people have made major strides in educating the general people about the benefits of an armed society but that is not a reason to let up. If anything it is a reason to double our efforts. This is a struggle that will never end with battles to be fought on an ongoing basis.

[tridim]

83. Who in Congress wants to "ban all guns"?

[Hoopla Phil]

87. I'll give you a hint

" (and) if I could have got the votes I would have banned them all. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

[tridim]

90. She was talking about "all" assault weapons, not all guns as you stated.

[Hoopla Phil]

97. k, yeah sure.

[Pullo]

98. millions of guns banned, regardless.

Turned in or confiscated. Sen Feinstein and others aren't nearly as open to talk about that anymore, but I'm sure if they had their way.....


Suffice to say, she and others earned the title "gun grabber"

[benEzra]

134. Which equates to "the most popular civilian guns" instead of "all guns."

As I stated downthread, even Sarah Brady herself is OK with sniper-style bolt-actions, for now at least.

But the fact that Feinstein might succeed in her jihad against the most popular civilian rifles is a legitimate concern, although she does seem to have marginalized herself on the issue over the last several years.

[benEzra]

133. The Moral Majority didn't want to ban *all* books, either.

That is a straw-man caricature. No one is seriously proposing to ban flintlocks, for example, and even Sarah Brady is OK for now with the peons owning bolt-action rifles and nonrepeating shotguns.

Gun owners are, however, legitimately concerned that the DLC/Third Way/corporatist types may once again attempt to ban the most popular civilian rifles (aka "assault weapons"), institute sweeping magazine capacity restrictions, or reduce ammunition availability at reasonable prices by suspending importation or setting up new production bottlenecks. There are plenty of people in Congress who wish to do some or all of the above. Fortunately, they are a minority that fewer and fewer people are listening to, but they are there, and they are real.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]

140. Here Here I agree with you

I am a Liberal Democrat that sees attacks on the second amendment as well as the first amendment as a threat to our civil liberties. The AWB reeks of I will not say fascism, I'll use the more obscure Corporatism that was used by another poster on here.

[X_Digger]

141. Speaking of the first..

Did you see that Judith Krug (www.ala.org/bbooks) died recently? :(

[Howzit]

161. The simple answer is, anyone who is campaigning for "assault weapons" bans

would LIKE to ban all guns, if only they could. Actually attempting a complete ban and hankering after one are not the same thing, but why try to accomplish something that has zero benefit like another AWB?

The AWB was and is pointless except as a "foot in the door" to later expand the list of banned guns until there are none left.