federal assault weapons ban

i don't know... hmmm. i've been going through this thread reading and offering humble opinions. some of what the pro-assualt guys say is kind of working for me in terms of 2nd rights against government tyranny. not that i have changed my mind about what the outcome would be. ak47 or short barreled 12ga. versus tank with 50cal.

but, if it was truly inforced, perhaps a compromise would be, to lift the ban under the condition of full background check, complete registration and the understanding that failure to comply would result in confiscation with a fine, +/- $500. use in mayhem or commission of a crime; 25 years and $50k. assualt and/or murder; life w/o possibility of parole.

it would have to be enforced strongly, but that way the exotic gun enthusiasts get to plink away and only those who do wrong get the headaches. aside from those that they molest, anyway.

An unarmed man is a subject, and certainly not a LEO. I guess I won't be visiting ol' GB anytime soon.

These comparisons of freedom of the press and the right to bear arms are interesting, not so much as a pro-gun argument, but for what they reveal about some people's attitudes about a free press.

I get the feeling that some posters here would like to see it muzzled. Or should I say, silenced.

well, they certainly silenced a "heckler" at a bush rally this am. one of the bush supporters grabbed the guy from behind, put him in a choke hold dragging him backwards while another guy put him on the ground.

so much for freedom of speech under bush. welcome to the bad ol' days.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to disrupt a lawful assembly.

Like the time Slappy and I ran into a crowded Sunday mass, lit a smoke bomb, and yelled "Fire!".

You wanna heckle somebody, go to a comedy club.

Okay, I concede that handguns were banned in 1997, and shotgun and rifle laws were tightened as well. What the article doesn't mention is how
many people this ban actually effected. Without wishing to exagerate merely to prove a point, I estimate that the ban on hand-guns affected less than 0.5% of the population. I have no evidence for this, it is based purely on anecdotal evidence and assumption.

The vast majority of those who legally own rifles and shotguns have to keep their weapons in lockers at a licenced gun club, as the safety and security features required by law to keep them at home are prohibitively expensive.

Well, if you add the word "government", as I have above in red, would it help? I'll leave my original inane sentence as written to avoid further confusion.

I disagree with you here D'art, I feel that you are misconstruing the responses you get.

I think the point many of the 2nd Amendment supporters are saying is that it is JUST as important for the 2nd Amendment to be kept as free from government interference as it is for the 1st to be kept free and untouched.

I am as ardent a supporter of free speech as you will find. I personally think one of the most vile and disgusting practices that have ever occurred in this country is the burning of books that people find 'objectionable'.

How insane is that in the country of Jefferson, Madison, Paine or even Franklins book 'Fart Proudly' that we have allowed some misguided whackos to deny access to certain books that THEY don't like because they are 'afraid' of the content.

And yet, I find it nearly as offensive that some individuals would deny me the protection that the ownership of arms brings me because THEY find guns 'offensive' or are afraid of them.

Just trying to point that out.

I burned a vegetarian cookbook once in order to start a fire to cook dinner (meat). Does that count?

Dumb question for all the leftists and demmunists and what not here....

Suppose somebody were to offer you the following proposition, with the intention of taking at least two of these knee-jerk "issues" straight out of the American political system, once and for all:

An even trade: Total abortion rights, other than for things which are basically indistinguishable from infantacide (abortion five days before delivery etc.), in exchange for the elimination of all gun laws other than the second ammendment, provided only that citizens not be allowed to own shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, skysweep systems, or things which our government would not willingly allow AlQuaeda to own, as I mentioned above.

How would any of you folks react to that?

One other dumb question here: Has anybody here read Unintended Consequences?

Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End



Report: Makers Taking Orders

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A03



Gun manufacturers are gearing up for the scheduled expiration next week of a 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons and are taking orders for semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines that may soon become legal again, according to a report released yesterday.

The report by the Consumer Federation of America, which favors greater regulation of the gun industry, concludes that "assault weapons will be more lethal and less expensive" without the ban and argues that police "may be forced to adopt a more militaristic approach" as greater numbers of firearms flood the market.

The report, based on interviews with gun industry officials and on reviews of advertisements and other sales materials, comes in the waning days of a federal ban on semiautomatic assault rifles, which has been in place since 1994 but is set to expire Monday unless Congress intervenes.

The Senate approved a renewal of the ban earlier this year, but the provision was part of a broader bill that included other measures opposed by the White House. House GOP leaders have given little indication that they plan to back an extension of the ban, and President Bush -- who said during the 2000 campaign that he would support an extension -- has not pushed the issue.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said that Bush "supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban." She noted that "the president's views are well known" among GOP leaders in Congress.

The lack of action on Capitol Hill has prompted gun-control groups and others who favor the legislation to step up their appeals in recent days, including the purchase of full-page newspaper advertisements that criticize Bush for not acting. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and more than 70 other police officials will hold a rally today urging Bush to back an extension.

The National Rifle Association has responded by urging members to lobby against the extension of what the group refers to as "the Clinton gun ban." The measure was championed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

"We have come too far in the past 10 years not to pull out all the stops in the next week and a half to ensure this ban expires as Congress intended, and becomes nothing more than a sad footnote in America's history," the group said in a message posted on its Web site.

Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) left the campaign trail in May to vote in the Senate in favor of extending the ban, but he has also sought to highlight his familiarity with hunting and other shooting sports. "He is a gun owner and hunter himself, but he believes that a ban on these dangerous weapons must be extended," said Kerry spokeswoman Allison Dobson.

The NRA, a powerful lobbying group that strongly supported Bush in 2000, has not yet officially endorsed a presidential candidate, but it has been sharply critical of Kerry. Spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said that the NRA had been waiting until after both party conventions were over and that the group's board will discuss the issue at a meeting this weekend.

"I see an absence of political appetite for a gun-issue battle in an election year," Arulanandam said. "Politicians remember history, and they remember that a number of high-profile politicians lost their jobs as a result of this ban."

The 1994 law banned the sale to civilians of 19 types of semiautomatic weapons, including semiautomatic versions of the Intratec Tec-9 pistol and Uzi submachine gun, but many manufacturers have been able to skirt the prohibition by offering knock-off models.

The Consumer Federation's assessment cites examples of recent sales pitches by gun manufacturers, which have indicated that they plan to revive models and features outlawed by the ban. Beretta has been offering customers two free 15-round magazines after Sept. 14 with the purchase of two of its weapons, according to an advertisement. The current law restricts the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. The consumer group said manufacturers, including Israel Military Industries Ltd., which makes Uzi brand submachine guns, are likely to introduce semiautomatic models into the U.S. market if the ban is lifted.

In another example cited by the group, Illinois-based ArmaLite Inc. has announced a program that allows buyers to convert their guns to use flash suppressors, bayonets and other features that are now illegal. The company is also allowing customers to order banned assault weapons now and have them shipped once the ban is lifted, according to the study.

One company advertisement notes that "ArmaLite rifles are made to be easily retrofitted with your new flash suppressor and other pre-ban features, so you don't have to wait if you choose an ArmaLite."

Robert A. Ricker, a former executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council who now serves as a consultant for groups that favor stricter gun controls, said gun manufacturers hope to capitalize on fears that the ban could be reintroduced at any time.

"You're going to see an incredible buying frenzy," Ricker said during a conference call with reporters yesterday. "Fall is the prime buying season for guns. . . . I think the gun industry's mantra is going to be 'Buy your wife a high-capacity magazine while you can.' "

Arulanandam called such predictions exaggerated. He accused gun-control groups of seeking to confuse the distinction between semiautomatic weapons -- which are covered by the 1994 ban -- and automatic weapons, which are outlawed under other legislation and will continue to be illegal.

Once again the writer screws up and says semiautomatics are banned. Screw these people. All they want to do is indoctrinate people into thinking guns are bad, and "semi-auto" is a great hook line for them. OMG it's an illegal semi-automatic weapon!!

**** I probably have at least three guns that the existing ban covers, yet they are hardly "assault weapons". More like plinkers.

They've been trying to ban "high powered" guns too, like .50 caliber. One problem there - almost all modern muzzle loaders are .50 caliber. Now there's a nasty assault weapon, for sure dude! Not...

The problem as I see it is that the vote gets rocked by city dwellers who live in fear of gang bangers, who are armed to the teeth, and often cannot legally or will not arm themselves (take NYC for example). They think if they make more guns illegal the gang bangers won't get their hands on them. Right.

Laws like the AWB only infringe upon the 2nd ammendment rights of law abiding citizens. They do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining said weapons, and set a horrible precident for national gun control policy.

cjhsa
What is the reason that there are so many guns in the hands of the gang bangers in NY City and all those states that have strict gun laws. Simple because they are able to go to some of our southern states and buy guns as easily as a six pack. It has been reported that by and large the weapons used in crimes in NY City can be traced back to the states where gun laws are lax or practically non existent. Gun legislation if it is to be effective must be nationwide.

There aren't any states with lax or non-existent gun laws. Besides, there only needs to be one gun law - don't commit crime with a gun.

So swolf would trade in the abortion issue for assault ban issue. What kind of government do you want now, a poker game legislation one?

"I raise you one ... for one.. (don't know much about poker.)

just think of it as a bluff bet.

But that's more or less what they do, revel. "Give me my highway project, and I'll vote for you new naval base."

i noticed that there is not one reply to my compromise legislation. what about that "law and order" stuff conservatives love so much?

"these is ma guns, an' nobody's eva gonna take 'em, but to pry it from my dead, cold hand!"

well. o.k. i hope you get to share my experience of having some moron stick the muzzle of an assualt weapon, or any kind of gatt, in your chest and give you a big, toothy, wolf smile.

try not to crap your 2nd amendment lovin' pants.

two out of three want the ban to renew Inspite of the wishes of most Americans Frist is not going to allow the vote and is going to let the ban expire. Once again, Bush and like minded republicans are showing their true colors.