Assault Weapons Ban

[David S]

There is no purpose for the population to own fully automatic weapons.  They should be banned.  In addition, the kits to convert semi's into fully automatic should also be banned.  Manufacturers should produce semi's that cannot be converted as well.

This in no way infringes on a persons right to own a weapon, so the gun fanatics just need to chill out and be happy that they have their toys to begin with.    

(Now if my best friend read this, I'm sure he'd lock me up in his gun safe and leave me there until I changed my mind.  hahaha)

The assault weapons ban is not about fully automatic weapons i.e. machine guns. It bans certain semi-automatic weapons based on cosmetic things like a pistol grip, bayonet holder, flash suppressor. These weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes, about 2% or less. The anti-gun crowd wants to ban them all and will take whatever is a convient target.
BTW I also have room for you in my gun safe.

[David S]

Maybe it is a product of living in the Northeast but I am for some gun control.  If you are looking for the thrill of shooting an AK 47-learn to surf or snowboard or something.  There is simply no need.  I am for gun rights like pistols for protection or a rifles for hunting but you should draw the line somewhere.  I don't think it helps that that much but if it can avoid situations like the bank robbery in California,where the criminals had the police severely outgunned, or prevent some whacko form mowing down his co-workers; I would be for it.

The bank robbery in California involved fully automatic weapons. Those have been illegal for many years. The assault weapon ban involves semi-autos.
Speaking of the California bank robbery, it seems to me that the bigger problem was that the crooks were wearing body armor that the police officer's weapons could not penetrate. More powerful rifles, and training in what to do in that situation might have been more helpful for the police.

[David S]

While I'm against this ban and do not want the government reuglating our right to own guns (or do hard drugs, run casinos, etc.), I'm interested in what you guys think of where the line should be drawn.  Obviously we can't let people have nuclear weapons in their houses, so there has to be an arbitrary line drawn somewhere.

Is the line drawn on explosive weapons or what?

Some of this is state law, so I can only say for my state. Fully auto machine guns have been banned for years, same for hand gernades and explosive weapons. Short barrelled rifles and shotguns are illegal too. Brass knuckles are illegal. Its illegal to carry a pistol without a permit and its illegal to carry a knife with a blade longer than 3".
None of that stopped the Oklahoma city bombing or 9/11 though.