Assault Weapons Ban

[A18]

You can already buy semiautomatics, but this bans those that look 'scarier' than others. No difference in function.

Should the Assault Weapons Ban be renewed?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This is outrageous....how can George Bush claim to be the candidate who will make this country safer if he's not willing to fully support this ban?  I am much more afraid of being murdered by a gun than by terrorism.

I guarantee that if this ban expires, more people will die from assault weapons in the next term than from terrorism.

[MODU]

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)

[A18]

SEMIautomatic ban. Not automatics.

And yes. How can Bush say he'll defend us against the likes of Osama bin Laden if he won't even defend us from our fellow citizens, who are clearly evil and twisted...

[Wakie]

As I see it there are 3 schools of thought in the firearms debate.

1) Ban All Weapons -- A silly school of thought.  Some people in very rural areas DO still use them for protection.  Additionally you will never remove them all from circulation.

2) Allow Any Weapon -- Another silly school of thought.  I don't think anyone would be comfortable with a rich oil baron buying a suitcase nuke and having it protected by the 2nd Amendment.

3) Draw a line somewhere on weapons -- The rational school of thought and where 99% of us are.  But the question is how we draw this line.  My argument would be the following:

(A) Projectile explosives are unnecessary and should be banned.

(B) Certain weapons, such as assault weapons, should be classified "for military and police use only".  This should be defined by how many rounds can be fired in a given time period.

[John Dibble]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

[Lunar]

Let it expire.

If I want to have an AK47 in my house or shoot it at a gun range, then I should be allowed to.  If I start shooting at my neighbors, I shouldn't.

[The Dowager Mod]

This law needs to be left to die.

[??????????]

Option 4.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

[??????????]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

And were stolen from the rightful owner. Of course most Democrats would love to ban guns because it would prevent the peoples right of revolution.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Terrorists with assault weapons. Thanks, Bush.

[??????????]

Terrorists with assault weapons. Thanks, Bush.

Get real, ok?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

And were stolen from the rightful owner. Of course most Democrats would love to ban guns because it would prevent the peoples right of revolution.

If those guns had never had a legal owner, they wouldn't be in the hands of criminals right now.  They would never have even been manufactured.

[??????????]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

And were stolen from the rightful owner. Of course most Democrats would love to ban guns because it would prevent the peoples right of revolution.

If those guns had never had a legal owner, they wouldn't be in the hands of criminals right now.  They would never have even been manufactured.

\

Um, yes they would be and would have.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

And were stolen from the rightful owner. Of course most Democrats would love to ban guns because it would prevent the peoples right of revolution.

If those guns had never had a legal owner, they wouldn't be in the hands of criminals right now.  They would never have even been manufactured.

\

Um, yes they would be and would have.

Why would they have been manufactured?  Who would they have been sold to?  How many automatic weapons are manufactured today that aren't specifically commissioned by the military or law enforcement?

[??????????]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

And were stolen from the rightful owner. Of course most Democrats would love to ban guns because it would prevent the peoples right of revolution.

If those guns had never had a legal owner, they wouldn't be in the hands of criminals right now.  They would never have even been manufactured.

\

Um, yes they would be and would have.

Why would they have been manufactured?  Who would they have been sold to?  How many automatic weapons are manufactured today that aren't specifically commissioned by the military or law enforcement?

They would have come across the mexican border. I know weapons are smuggled over the border from experience.

[John Dibble]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

Consider this - most criminals weren't using them before. As I said, your average criminal doesn't carry large weapons - they carry concealable handguns, knives, and sometimes nothing at all(using only large size to intimidate smaller, weaker people). Walking around with an assault weapon makes you look suspicious, so people avoid you, the police follow you, you don't get to commit crimes. In reality, the assault weapons ban didn't really make a dent in crime.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

Consider this - most criminals weren't using them before. As I said, your average criminal doesn't carry large weapons - they carry concealable handguns, knives, and sometimes nothing at all(using only large size to intimidate smaller, weaker people). Walking around with an assault weapon makes you look suspicious, so people avoid you, the police follow you, you don't get to commit crimes. In reality, the assault weapons ban didn't really make a dent in crime.

These assault weapons would probably not be used by "average" criminals...more likely people who were planning some sort of larger-scale crime where they would have to be able to threaten a lot of people at once, or who anticipated getting in a stand-off or shoot-out with police.

[John Dibble]

Well, the question is really does it do any good? I say it doesn't. Criminals who want such weapons will attain them - criminals don't care about the law, so don't expect them to follow it.

Now, one can argue that ordinary people shouldn't have automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but I think people should. The question I ask is should they be allowed to carry them around? With fully automatic weapons, I believe things like that should be kept in the house, not being carried around. Such weapons exceed general everyday needs for self-defense(your common street thug wants a weapon that can be concealed, not something that says 'HEY I'M CRAZY, YOU BETTER AVOID ME'), but in the unlikely, yet possible, events of a foreign invasion or tyrannical government, such weapons become necessary to defend life, liberty, and property.

Funny, since we banned fully automatic weapons, I don't see a lot of criminals out there committing crimes with them.  Almost all the gun crime in the country is committed with weapons that are legal for a person to own.

Consider this - most criminals weren't using them before. As I said, your average criminal doesn't carry large weapons - they carry concealable handguns, knives, and sometimes nothing at all(using only large size to intimidate smaller, weaker people). Walking around with an assault weapon makes you look suspicious, so people avoid you, the police follow you, you don't get to commit crimes. In reality, the assault weapons ban didn't really make a dent in crime.

These assault weapons would probably not be used by "average" criminals...more likely people who were planning some sort of larger-scale crime where they would have to be able to threaten a lot of people at once, or who anticipated getting in a stand-off or shoot-out with police.

In which case they would likely do whatever it takes to attain such weapons, legal or not. The black market holds no regard for the law, by definition.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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.

I realize you don't know much about the subject, so I'll try to be brief.

Its nice to be able to shoot, disassemble and reassemble as well as clean various firearms.  

The AK-47 was for many reasons a much better firearm the the M-16 (either the A1 or the A2).  

Get a semi-auto version of both firearms and do the steps I outlined above.

Also, look at the ballistic data for both firearms (particularly the terminal ballistics).

Also, by looking at the design characteristics (and underlying concepts behind the two firearms) you can gain a better perspective on the war fighting concepts behind them.

[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.

[Brambila]

Criminals are always going to find ways to get these weapons. I said Let it expire, though I think I accidentally pressed "Renew it". However, we should have restrictions on who can buy these guns.

[Lunar]

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?