Assault Weapons Ban

[A18]

I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to own armies with tanks and nukes, lol.

But I think automatics are okay as long as they're kept securely at home. Semiautomatics should also be legal, of course.

In regards to explosives...how big of explosives? I mean, some of the older fireworks would fall under that category.

[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.

[Lunar]

I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to own armies with tanks and nukes, lol.

But I think automatics are okay as long as they're kept securely at home. Semiautomatics should also be legal, of course.

In regards to explosives...how big of explosives? I mean, some of the older fireworks would fall under that category.

Heh, a lot of those old fireworks ARE illegal.

Yes, I agree automatics should be legal. Basically, what I mean by explosives is anything that could really kill a person.  It seems an easy line to draw.  You can't have grenade launchers, missiles, dynamite, etc. in your possession.  I'm just curious where everyone thinks this line should exist, not quite sure myself.

[Giant Saguaro]

Let it expire. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This weapons ban list, as you indicate, is just a list of guns some bureuacrat has decided he/she doesn't like. It's borderline nonsense and a lot of these guns are actually low caliber weapons, according to what I've read.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do tell me of your knowledge of both firearms.

Please feel free to wax eloquent on the distinctions between the two firearms.

Don't leave out details of your extensive experience with both firearms.

I'd love to see you give us all the details.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let it expire. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This weapons ban list, as you indicate, is just a list of guns some bureuacrat has decided he/she doesn't like. It's borderline nonsense and a lot of these guns are actually low caliber weapons, according to what I've read.

Considering that 5.56mm military ammo is low caliber, one shouldn't judge rounds just by the size of the bullet.  There is an upper limit on the amount of gun recoil that a person can handle.  A large bullet at a low muzzle velocity probides the same recoil as a small bullet at a higher velocity.  For a given anount of initial force, a smaller bullet will fly truer and farther as it suffers less from air resistance.  It will also do a better job of penetrating body armor.  Note tho, that some of these caracteristics are useful for sport uses of firearms.

That's one reason why the assault weapons ban focuses primarily on the psychological factors that make a gun attractive to nut cases.  The problem is that psychology is extremely subjective.  I'd say that cultural changes did more to effect a reduction in the types of gun violence that the ban was supposed to address than anything the ban did.  They just don't make many urban vigilante films these days.  Most of our movie violence today  is safely channeled into sci-fi and  fantasy genres.  What remains of realistic violence is usually portrayed with somebody who is held accountable for their actcions as the good guy  instead of coming from the Golan-Globus model of filmmaking.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually Ernest, the subject of ballistics is a little more complex than you suggested.

First, due to its bullet weight, the 5.56mm (.223 cal.) with the twist used in the orginal M-16A1 wouldn't penetrate Soviet body armor at combat ranges.  This is one of the reasons for the M-16A2 (there were several other reasons as well).

Second, lighter bullets are more susceptible to the affects of wind than heavier bullets.

As to recoil, this is NOT simply a factor of the muzzle energy of the cartridge.

First, the weight of the firearm has a substantial impact on the relative recoil.

Second, the area of the buttstock in contact with the shooter has a major impact on the relative recoil.  Compare the Enfield Mk III and the Mauser K98.  Both had remarkable similiar muzzle energy, but the K98 is much easier to shoot because of the better buttstock area in contact with the shoulder.

With the exception noted above, you are generally correct that the act was primarily aimed at irrelevant stylistic characteristics.  

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

People kept muskets in their homes in the 18th Century. In that time and day a musket was considered an "assault" weapon due to the fact that it was a weapon used by the military.