Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End

[Balschoiw 0]

Assault rifles are nothing for civillian owners...ever.

The should be kept in the military. Privat ownership of Assault weapons does not contribute to security.

In fact I would favour to have a rioting mob during a civil uprising without assault weapons. Restricted gun-ownership has not hurt anyone. People who need a gun or do it in the controlled area of a shooting range are ok for me.

But not some triggerhappy AK owners on a beer party ride to the outlands.

I just would not feel safer that way.

I had the possibility to take my AG36 home on some occasions. It was personal lagguage as I departed.

You know I didn´t feel safer somehow.

And keeping it at home only for the risk that a teen gangster who breaks into my house and steals it and starts some major trouble with, is just not ok for me.

I don´t need an assault rifle to defend my home.

I do not live in Beirut at 1975.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Having 300 guns for me is less sick than having 300 postal stamps. I would fear the stamp collector more.

If I were intent of getting collection items, the difference between guns & postal stamps would be when I'd have the goods (either purchased as the collector, or stolen from a collector). Having 300 assault rifles and saying: "Stick'em up!" is one thing... saying that with 300 postal stamps... well, you get the picture...  ("Stick'em where??? Not that many needed!!! No more space on cover!!!")          

Morale of the story: Assault Rifles are weapons built to kill , whereas postal stamps... well, you can stick'em wherever you want'em...

[sputnik monroe 102]

Go ahead ban them. Wont solve anything, murder, rape, and burglury are also illegal if I recall.

   Banning inanimate objects will never solve anything. It's people you have to change and/or remove.  You need to get to the source of the problem.  You remove the gun the murderer will still murder, remove the murderer now your talking.

Quote[/b] ]Most of these "banned" weapons are already available in a less threatening form (No large magazines or bayonets).

   The whole bayonette lug ban cracks me up more than any other stupid weapon law on the books. Has there been a single recorded bayonette charge murder in the entire history of the United States?

   Come on people think.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Quote[/b] ]The technical definition for assault weapons is any type of firearms that require the depressing of the trigger each time to fire a bullet. [81] Once the trigger has been depressed another bullet will be automatically reloaded into the chamber and will be ready to fire when the trigger is again depressed. [82] Therefore, the firing rate is determined by how fast the user can pull the trigger.

By that definition this is an assault rifle!?

Dont get me wrong, I could care less if assault rifles or machineguns are illegal or not. But a semi automatic .22 rifle is only usefull for shooting pests like gophers, coyotes, stray dogs, and turtles and all I have ever seen them used for. That is not an assault rifle no matter what Congress says.

[Commander-598 0]

By that definition, my favorite hunting rifle(M1 Garand) would be counted.

[ralphwiggum 6]

You remove the gun the murderer will still murder, remove the murderer now your talking.

but by removing guns, it make sit ahrder for murder to commit crime since it takes more guts and closer encounter.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]but by removing guns, it make sit ahrder for murder to commit crime since it takes more guts and closer encounter.

    The situation still exist in the no gun scenario, only the means to the end have changed. It's really no harder to kill some one with out a gun than it is with one. All I have to do to kill some one is to catch them off guard and smash their skull open with a rock or any other readily inanimate object of decent size and mass.  (A sick thought, please forgive me it's only an example  )

     Most crimes are commited without guns as it is. The majority of crimes involving weapons are commited with knives.

   If you remove guns from the equation in America the murder rate will stay the same. Only the way in which the murders are commited will change.

[Schoeler 0]

We have guns in America for one reason and one reason only. The 2nd Amendment. That amendment came second after the first for a reason. The people who wrote the Constitution had just fought an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. A rebellion they won by luck and the possession of personal firearms. They made sure to put a process in place for future generations of Americans should they ever find themselves oppressed by another corrupt and tyrannical government. First, they gave us the power to protest, assemble and publish articles of dissent. If that didn't work, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated citizen militia. Said militia was to exist for the express purpose of overthrowing the corrupt and tyrannical government if it failed to respond to all the actions given in Amendment One.

Now, given that we have firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and today's tryanny is enforced at the end of the barrel of an automatic weapon or assault rifle, would it not make sense under the current laws of our nation that the citizens be equally well equipped should that power fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes?

If you argue otherwise, I would like to hear a credible reason backed by historical fact and the letter of the law as read in the Constitution. Save your breath though, you won't find one.

Do I think everyone should own an assault rifle?

No.

But then again, I don't think everyone should own an automobile either. Both are machines designed for express purposes, one to kill, the other for transportaion. But both can be equally as dangerous if used irresponsibly. There are plenty of repsonsible people capable of owning and operating both and plenty incapable of owning or operating neither. Cars kill ten times more people in the U.S. every year than guns do, yet you don't see protestors in the street calling for a ban on automobiles.

I grew up around firearms, enjoy shooting, and learned how to operate them and around them safely at an early age. By what miracle did this happen? My parents were thoughtful and conscientous enough to teach me to handle guns responsibly. If I want to buy an AR15, I'll be damned if I'll allow some asswipe whose liberal pinko hands have never even handled a weapon tell me I can't own one, or handle it safely and in a responsible manner.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

Quote[/b] ]And where do the stolen guns come from?

Central and South America.

All of them?

Quote[/b] ]Six states — Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico and Georgia — had firearm theft rates at least twice the national average, which is 16.8 stolen guns per 1,000 households, the report says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm

Edit: This is an interesting read too: http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

And this: http://w3.agsfoundation.com/media/AGS-fin.pdf

[Acro 0]

I being a little sceptic against weapon collectors. There used to live two weapon collectors near me and they often showed off their guns by shooting air and stuff.

Once the other one had taken some alcohol and you know what happened then. They started to shoot eachother. Soon there was cops all over the place with riot gear.

[blackdog~ 0]

Alaska, that's funny. Really funny. What are those stats supposed to show... guns stolen by furry animals?

[WhoCares 0]

...

Now, given that we have firearms to protect ourselves from tyranny and today's tryanny is enforced at the end of the barrel of an automatic weapon or assault rifle, would it not make sense under the current laws of our nation that the citizens be equally well equipped should that power fall into the wrong hands or be used for the wrong purposes?

If you argue otherwise, I would like to hear a credible reason backed by historical fact and the letter of the law as read in the Constitution.  Save your breath though, you won't find one.

...

You might kindly ask your government to lift the ban against Stingers, AT4s and explosive devices as well. You know, today you wouldn't face just infantry, cavalry and some cannons, but tanks and choppers...

That ammendment might have been appropriate for its time, but today it is just a silly excuse. You won't be able to overthrow an US tyranny backed by its military with some assault rifles.

One last thing - tyrannies are not enforced at the end of the barrel of an assault rifle. Far more, they are enforced by fear, distrust, collaboration and denunciation, controlled by elements ala Gestapo and Securitate...

[Ares1978 0]

That ammendment might have been appropriate for its time, but today it is just a silly excuse. You won't be able to overthrow an US tyranny backed by its military with some assault rifles.

No, but it's still better than nothing.

[Skewballzz 0]

I for one already have my rifle chosen and am waiting for the ban to end.  Being a gun lover, in a country filled with them, based off of them and founded by them, it is somewhat my civic duty.

I already own 3 guns right now.  They work great, they do their job (the bullet leaves the chamber at a high, accurate velocity) but there are limits.

If someone can explain how my gun having a telescopic stock, pistol grip and 30rd mag makes me a bad person...feel free.  I for one feel that it is my right, and others, to have a damn howitzer if we wanted.  LICENSES ARE KEY....

Has anyone thought what the 2nd amendment was FOR?  It isnt so you can defend yourself from criminals.  It was to CHECK your government.  Back then they feared that the government would become too powerfull and the only way to check that was with armed citizens.  Read the "founding fathers" journals, books and memos.  Its all there.

Yes, a revolution may not come about for some time they way things are, and probably never will in my life.  But as an american, it is my duty to the people who started this country to own a gun.  

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

EDIT: I say we ban rocks now. Anyone with a rock with jutting edges bigger the 2cm is a criminal. Oh yeah, baseball bats too. Especialy ones with the knob at the end so it doesnt slip out of ur hands. Cars? Yeah, they kill more people than guns...only seems fair. What about ur fists? Gotta pad them up now. New law reqiures you to tape foam around ur fists when u go in public. Blah Blah Blah.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

I don't have a particular stance on this issue (not living in the US), but this whole "it's our duty to own weapons in case of oppression by the government" seems to me to be shouted by a population LEAST likely to ever question their governing body.

But hey, if you want to provide faster and more efficient ways to kill each other, who am I to argue? Personally, I'm of the opinion that such weapons should be left to professionals.

[Badgerboy 0]

Actually, I thought that the US was not supposed to have a large standing army anyway. That way, when the people decided to 'call elections early', it would not be such a job to march on Washington.

Far from the army that was supposed to be disbanded after war, anyone who dared to try to over throw the Goverment would be crushed in short order.

[Gordy 0]

Here it goes an quoted extract from a tv program:

Quote[/b] ]Just watched the National News, they had a story on the ban soon to be lifted and why it will not be extended. and in usual fashion they showed B.S

Like the Footage of the North Hollywood Shoot out.

(you know the one with the illegally converted AK and AR's and HK's) Yea, they forgot that little fact. and they showed some dip shit reporter showing off an AR-180 Armalite. and he made sure to point out the "collasible stock which makes it easy to conceal" (cause an AR-180 Shoulder Holster or IWB holsters are so popular for that model)

And the "Flash Hider, that makes it difficult to see the weapon being fired at night"

And they always find a gun shop or Gun owner to interview (you know. to be fair and balanced) who is not the most articulate guy to represent gun owners. or take a gun store owners filmed interview and edit it so all you here him say and all you see him do is hold a pre ban and a post ban Glock mag and say ," this one lets you shoot more without reloading" cause that always sounds great to all the Anti's out there.

And finally, lets not forget the LE Community. they interviewed the LA Chief of police who said that if the ban were not extended there would be more assualt weapons in this country then in "Fallujah and the rest of Iraq" and how "every cop in America" is horrified that the ban is not being extended.

Here goes the response from:

Shawn Hughes

Special Projects Consultant and Subcontractor

110 Hughes Hale Lane, Harriman, TN 37748 USA

Lead Instructor

Explosives, WMD, and Technical Operations

Tactical Response, LLC

www.warriormindset.com

Quote[/b] ]Here's what I said:

To: john.cochran@abc.com

Subject: your recent piece on the Assault Weapons Ban

Mr. Cochran;

I watched the piece you ghost wrote for Peter Jennings on the assault weapons ban.

Allow me to say that it saddens me to see a person allow a newspiece to be so skewed. Added to that a conspicuous lack of investigation and creativity in visuals, and I for one, am very disappointed in this work.

Why is it that the least verbose, lowest IQ personalities are always sought out for interviews? You pick the former (you didn't mention that) Chief of the LAPD to talk about how terrible semiautomatic weapons are, then you picked Random Guy One and Two to defend the gun owners.

Why is it that none of the generators of the statistics were identified? Such as the 80-something percent of Americans want the gun ban extended. Every responsible adult knows that statistics can be skewed any way the collector wishes. After all, 3 out of 4 dentists can't be wrong, right?

Also, the voiceover repeatedly states that when the bill sunsets, it will allow all sorts of semiautomatic firearms to begin to be soldintheUS.

The fact is, that bill never even slowed sales down. You can purchase an AK, AR, or any variant of semiautomatic rifle right now, today, all day. The only verifiable effect of the AWB is to unreasonably raise prices. The ATFE will tell you that the AWB is so convoluted in its' application that few can articulate how it works. In fact, are you aware of the fact that it is quite legal, right now, today, to purchase a machine gun, or silencer in the US? You simply must pay a special tax to the Federal Government. People don't go to jail for machine gun possession; they go for possession of an untaxed (unregistered) firearm.

There are, I'm told, almost 20 THOUSAND laws on the books pertaining to firearms. They aren't all necessary. The AWB is one of them. The AWB only affects lawful transactions; criminals do not historically purchase their weapons from a legit source. The AWB hasn't slowed firearms transactions, it's simply made lawful purchases more expensive. For instance, it is illegal for a citizen to possess a high capacity ammunition magazine made AFTER the date of the ban. It is *NOT* illegal to possess a high capacity magazine made PRIOR to the ban. This made pre-ban hi-caps (as they are known), collectible, valuable, and ergo; expensive.

Why do you keep vilifying the NRA? Many have left the NRA, thinking they have become too complacent and soft.

Why do you keep saying that most Police Officers are worried about the ban sunsetting? I am a former Police Officer, and I am for the AWB sunsetting. So do the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file Officers I know. I fear a criminal with a gun. I do NOT fear citizens with firearms, in fact, I am decidedly for it.

Look at a simple chart of states and countries that prohibit firearms, and ones that don't. When you disarm the citizens, the crime rate inevitably goes up. I know criminals; they don't fear the police, they don't fear 'the system', they fear an angry homeowner blowing their head off. Period.

In close, I apologize for wasting your time, because I believe by your work you have your mind set about this topic. The facts are that knowledgeable people are FOR the AWB to sunset. Easily led, spoonfed soccermoms and the sheeple who love them are the only people who believe that individuals shouldn't own firearms.

[Placebo 29]

Bottom line you have no reason to fear the guy with 300 rifles and other guns.

Yeah nothing to fear unless he gets sacked from the post office, or finds out his wife cheated on him, etc. etc........

[tankieboy 0]

Bottom line you have no reason to fear the guy with 300 rifles and other guns.

Yeah nothing to fear unless he gets sacked from the post office, or finds out his wife cheated on him, etc. etc........

Very true.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at a simple chart of states and countries that prohibit firearms, and ones that don't. When you disarm the citizens, the crime rate inevitably goes up.

Huh ?

What countries is he talking about ?

Disneyland ?

[Blake 0]

Times change. Laws change. If they wouldn't we'd still be living under pre-historic 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system.

It's not 18th century anymore, the indians are dead, foxes have been hunted down and bears are rare. You don't need guns to survive anymore let alone that the founding fathers only knew muzzle-loading muskets and bayonets when this amendment was passed. If they knew people were living in peaceful suburbs with automatic assault weapons for 'home defence' under their bed they'd be turning in their graves.

Let's face it. Guns are fun. I've fired lots of guns in my life but still don't own any gun, except deactivated Suomi SMG (for a bit of historical reasons). I know people who own lots of guns for sports shooting. Yet I still think they should belong exclusively to police, army and some security firms. With hunting weapons (not AK-47s) the case is different of course but then you would have to pass gun safety and hunting tests.

But not everything that is fun should be legal. Now there's endless cycle of people getting more guns and criminals stealing guns (which is only wise thing to do so they can't be traced). Unfortunately laws are not going to change unless there are enough cases of normal, licenced gun owners going ballistic after getting fired from jobs or expelled from schools.

And then they blame Doom.

This assault weapon ban is step in the right direction, let's hope they pass it.

[Gordy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at a simple chart of states and countries that prohibit firearms, and ones that don't. When you disarm the citizens, the crime rate inevitably goes up.

Huh ?

What countries is he talking about ?

Disneyland ?

Well, I guess being a former Police officer and now Military and Police tactical consultant he knows more about this stuff than you do. It concernes every aspect of the matter - theory, real-life and law.

[Ares1978 0]

Bottom line you have no reason to fear the guy with 300 rifles and other guns.

Yeah nothing to fear unless he gets sacked from the post office, or finds out his wife cheated on him, etc. etc........

So don't sleep with his wife. It's not worth it, is it?

[Ares1978 0]

Times change. Laws change. If they wouldn't we'd still be living under pre-historic 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system.

It's not 18th century anymore, the indians are dead, foxes have been hunted down and bears are rare. You don't need guns to survive anymore let alone that the founding fathers only knew muzzle-loading muskets and bayonets when this amendment was passed. If they knew people were living in peaceful suburbs with automatic assault weapons for 'home defence' under their bed they'd be turning in their graves.

Let's face it. Guns are fun. I've fired lots of guns in my life but still don't own any gun, except deactivated Suomi SMG (for a bit of historical reasons). I know people who own lots of guns for sports shooting. Yet I still think they should belong exclusively to police, army and some security firms. With hunting weapons (not AK-47s) the case is different of course but then you would have to pass gun safety and hunting tests.

But not everything that is fun should be legal. Now there's endless cycle of people getting more guns and criminals stealing guns (which is only wise thing to do so they can't be traced). Unfortunately laws are not going to change unless there are enough cases of normal, licenced gun owners going ballistic after getting fired from jobs or expelled from schools.

And then they blame Doom.

This assault weapon ban is step in the right direction, let's hope they pass it.

Oh, please.

First of all, you know the 'eye-for-an-eye' legal system is the only fair system there is.

So what if they had muzzle-loading rifles? They were the most effective firearms (not including artillery pieces) at that time, and they still thought the people should have the right to have them. There's no reason to think that "assault weapons" should be different.

Shooting is fun, but not everything that is fun should be illegal. That includes Doom.

The ban was a truly dumb decision made from all the wrong reasons and using completely false logic. Take the mag capacity law for example, it takes less than two seconds to change a magazine. That's less than it takes to fire one well aimed shot.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]So don't sleep with his wife. It's not worth it, is it?

'Sir, the cause of death was infedility'

Quote[/b] ]a former Police officer and now Military and Police tactical consultant he knows more about this stuff

So we just have to trust his word have no right to ask for these statistics he's referring to? Japan has more crime? UK has more crime?