POLITICS - AWB absurdness

[donw]

when you read the features that constitute the characteristics of what an "assault weapon" is you begin to see how moronic legislators REALLY are...and some actually support placing lever and pump actions on the "banned" list...

1. bayonet lug... are they serious? is this the latest craze in robberies, assaults?... murder by bayonet?...march into you local convience store with bayonet fixed and demand money...or just purchase an sks from big five with a folding bayonet attached...

2. grenade launcher..."gimme yer money or i'm gonna blow you to bits!!!..."

3. detachable box magazine/"clip", belt/link fed (what the he!! is a "clip"... outside of the old m1 garand clip? and who besides military sells/uses link/belt fed weapons?) that will hold more than 5 rounds...is a death worse if the decedant was shot more than once? is he/she 6 times more dead if shot six times from a magazine/"clip" that held more than 5 rounds?

4. an obvious, protruding pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon: so? what does that have to do with the operation/function/accuracy?

5. a "forward mounted hand grip" when the weapon has a detachable magazine and/or the pistol grip beneath the action: so?

the list goes on and on.

it's proving out, simply by the popularity of the AR style and the amount of them sold nationwide, LEGALLY, that the only feature that i agree with banning, is "full auto" capability and to some degree, limited capacity for detachable magazines. i personnally believe the 10 rounders are fine but i seldom ever put more than five in any that i personally own/operate and most game and fish regs limit to five and sometimes three rounds for any semi-auto magazine fed rifle/shotgun.

i don't know about you, but i certainly would not vote for ANY legislator who votes yes to re-initiate an "AWB" based on what they are trying to base it on...

geeeeeeeeeeeeesh...maybe i've had too much caffiene today...

[Old Ironsights]

when you read the features that constitute the characteristics of what an "assault weapon" is you begin to see how moronic legislators REALLY are...and some actually support placing lever and pump actions on the "banned" list...

1. bayonet lug... are they serious? is this the latest craze in robberies, assaults?... murder by bayonet?...march into you local convience store with bayonet fixed and demand money...or just purchase an sks from big five with a folding bayonet attached...

2. grenade launcher..."gimme yer money or i'm gonna blow you to bits!!!..."

3. detachable box magazine/"clip", belt/link fed (what the he!! is a "clip"... outside of the old m1 garand clip? and who besides military sells/uses link/belt fed weapons?) that will hold more than 5 rounds...is a death worse if the decedant was shot more than once? is he/she 6 times more dead if shot six times from a magazine/"clip" that held more than 5 rounds?

4. an obvious, protruding pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon: so? what does that have to do with the operation/function/accuracy?

5. a "forward mounted hand grip" when the weapon has a detachable magazine and/or the pistol grip beneath the action: so?

the list goes on and on.

it's proving out, simply by the popularity of the AR style and the amount of them sold nationwide, LEGALLY, that the only feature that i agree with banning, is "full auto" capability and to some degree, limited capacity for detachable magazines. i personnally believe the 10 rounders are fine but i seldom ever put more than five in any that i personally own/operate and most game and fish regs limit to five and sometimes three rounds for any semi-auto magazine fed rifle/shotgun.

i don't know about you, but i certainly would not vote for ANY legislator who votes yes to re-initiate an "AWB" based on what they are trying to base it on...

geeeeeeeeeeeeesh...maybe i've had too much caffiene today...

The 2nd Amendment isn't about Rabbits, it's about Revolution.

Hi cap mags and bayonet lugs meet that need.

[awp101]

Hi cap mags and bayonet lugs meet that need.

Yep, they even had issues with Matchlocks back in the day...

[rjohns94]

i am not ready to concede any point or partly support any ban on any feature. What ever feature one may want to concede as not needed, another may desire. Give no ground!! concede no feature.

[Bridger158]

, LEGALLY, that the only feature that i agree with banning, is "full auto" capability and to some degree, limited capacity for detachable magazines. i personnally believe the 10 rounders are fine but i seldom ever put more than five in any that i personally own/operate and most game and fish regs limit to five and sometimes three rounds for any semi-auto magazine fed rifle/shotgun.

I fail to understand why some people have issues with full auto weapons? And how the heck could you agree with a 10 round limit on magazines. Those are just two more controls on us that the Govt does not need to have and serve no real purpose. And, by the way, full autos are not banned, you just have to pay a tax to get them. Legally, anyway. But even if they were "banned" exactly what good would it do? You think gangsta's and whatever can't get them, just because they are banned? Just like the military, we should be able to have full auto's because we need to be able to be armed like the military for revolution purposes.


Edit: After reading I may have sounded somewhat harsh, but I hear a lot of gunowners say the same thing and it just don't make sense to me.

[Old Ironsights]

A full auto is easier to make than a bolt action.

They CANNOT be "banned"... only restricted and or taxed. Anyone who wants one will get one. All it takes is some pipe and plate steel.

[awp101]

Edit: After reading I may have sounded somewhat harsh, but I hear a lot of gunowners say the same thing and it just don't make sense to me.

Nope, you hit it on the head.

Banning works WONDERS! Look how well it worked banning alkyhaul in the 20's. Look how well banning illict drugs has worked.

Federally, full auto is legal IF you jump through the hoops but there are several states with STATE laws against them.

Compromise on one "feature" opens the door to the rest of the features. Don't go there.

I actually had a variation of this conversation with my 17 y/o stepson last night. he was asking about FA, suppressors, etc and I told him the rules as laid out by Uncle Sam. His reply? "That's stupid. If someone wants one for the wrong reasons they'll get it one way or the other". There may be hope for the boy after all...

[Tycer]

We probably don't "need" 10 round mags or full auto or semi auto or even guns really. Not in today's society......

But our grand or great grandchildren might just need that three round burst or extra 20 rounds to survive.

We live in a fragile state of balance of freedom/consumer confidence/dependence on the nanny state. Could change tomorrow.

We don't know. We simply don't know.

It's not the "Bill of Needs", it's the "Bill of RIGHTS".

They were our rights BEFORE we had government and they are inalienable.

[Old Savage]

Don - here is the point. These are the people we have to realistically deal with. Logic is irrelevant. They are afraid for their own personal interests and will move to what can help them. We must deal with them in their reality or suffer their mistakes.

[awp101]

Here's something else to consider...it's all about the end user.

There's no such thing as an Evil Black Rifle. I can lay one of mine on the table with a full mag, round in the chamber, safety off and you know what? I ain't gonna do a durn thing unless I make it happen. If it were evil, it would jump up and start looking for things to kill yet it doesn't.

If the end user is evil that's not the fault of the weapon anymore than it's the fault of the vehicle if the driver gets drunk and kills someone driving under the influence.

I have no use for high end double guns. They're very pretty but I can't afford one and I'm clumsy enough that I "can't have nice things". Would I support a ban on them since they have no use in my world? Not a chance....

[morgan in nm]

For many, its not the need but rather the ability to satisfy the want and what is wrong with that. After all, how could an inanimate object be blamed for killing or hurting people when the weapon cannot fire itself.

BTW, there is now a significant difference between "belt-fed" and full auto. Many importers as well as surplus dealers had all kinds of parts kits that were ordered destroyed or to be turned into "non-weapons" as they call it. Years ago, many were converted to semi-auto making it easier and cheaper for the average person to own one. Now, there may not be a need for such a weapon, but what about the want. Is it not our right to own such a weapon if we choose. Once we make concessions, what will they ban next?

Just my 2 cents worth.

[505stevec]

Its funny, I cant find anywhere in the 2nd about mag capacity and action type. It says "shall not be infringed" who cannot understand this? Especially if they own guns.

[AJMD429]

If you can ban belt-fed guns, you can ban 100 round magazines.
If you can ban 100 round magazines, you can ban 20 round magazines.
If you can ban 10 round magazines, you can ban 5 round magazines.
If you can ban 5 round magazines you can ban 2 round magazines.

If you can ban ANYTHING without proving it a) necessary and b) effective, c) not counterproductive, and d) Constitutional, then you have NO limits on what can be banned.

It is that simple, and it doesn't matter what looks scary, or what a "reasonable" person thinks is necessary.

Individually owned, portable, militarily significant DEFENSIVE weapons is a perfectly appropriate functional definition for "arms" as intended in the Constitution, and includes pretty much all firearms. No, atomic weapons and anthrax are NOT included, IMHO, and including them merely undermines the pro-gun case. What about tanks, cannons, helicopters, etc.? In my opinion, those should also be "possessed" by the public, albeit it DOES seem reasonable to hold them in local town armories (like the pre-federalized National Guard) for use when there is a local CONSENSUS they're needed (thus some yahoo gets drunk and mad at the world, and yes, he may shoot the .30-06 off and unfortunately, the cost of our freedom may be that such a yahoo kills someone, but he doesn't get the keys to the community attack helicopter in such a state).

See, if they'd only make me King, I have all the problems solved...why does noone realize that?

[Dastook]

i am not ready to concede any point or partly support any ban on any feature. What ever feature one may want to concede as not needed, another may desire. Give no ground!! concede no feature.

+++++1. We must support all of our shooting friends. STAND UNITED!!!

[rjohns94]

Dastook - Well said. I should have had that in my post, Stand United.

[donw]

let me say, to begin, i have heartburn with the AWB and yet, in ways i can understand it...that does NOT MEAN i agree with it in the classic sense of "Ban".

i really don't have "an issue" with full auto...for the right and select time and place...having used full auto in the war in 'nam, i don't feel the need for it other than for that...war...

but, i suspect, 99.9% LEO and legislators have an inordinate fear they will be used against THEM...diane feinstein proved that in her "demonstration" once...THAT"S the reason it's very tightly controlled...she displayed the AK47 while telling the calif state legslature some one could walk in and "spray them down"...were i an LEO of some sort, i certainly would not want to face some one with full auto capability. i understand why they feel they way they do...been there, done that.

i shutter to think of some of the people that have full auto that should not...legally and ILLEGALLY...just think what the results would have been, could have been, if the nut cases in the VT shooting, columbine, brenda spencer or any one of the recent school/public/workplace/church shootings had full auto capability...look at the devistation they inflicted with semi-auto.

ten round mags? IMHO why does a person NEED more than 10 rounds unless it's a 'life-or-death'? how often is a person in a 'life-or-death' situation involving the use of a firearm? i personally do not care if a person wants or has a 100 round AR mag...but i do understand why legislators see the way they do...it does not mean i have to agree with it. the use of fully auto requires proper, disciplined training, too. other than former military and select LEO, who do you know that is capable of PROPERLY using full auto? few, if any, i'd daresay.

i may sound like i'm changing my story, but if you think about it, it may make sense. after all most laws are a result of COMPROMISE; would you rather they ban all semi-auto as some propose or accept a 5/10 round mag for the same? taking a firm stand is almost impossible with legislators.

AJMD...you make a very good point.

you do not sound harsh; you seem to have a sincere questioning.

, LEGALLY, that the only feature that i agree with banning, is "full auto" capability and to some degree, limited capacity for detachable magazines. i personnally believe the 10 rounders are fine but i seldom ever put more than five in any that i personally own/operate and most game and fish regs limit to five and sometimes three rounds for any semi-auto magazine fed rifle/shotgun.

I fail to understand why some people have issues with full auto weapons? And how the heck could you agree with a 10 round limit on magazines. Those are just two more controls on us that the Govt does not need to have and serve no real purpose. And, by the way, full autos are not banned, you just have to pay a tax to get them. Legally, anyway. But even if they were "banned" exactly what good would it do? You think gangsta's and whatever can't get them, just because they are banned? Just like the military, we should be able to have full auto's because we need to be able to be armed like the military for revolution purposes.


Edit: After reading I may have sounded somewhat harsh, but I hear a lot of gunowners say the same thing and it just don't make sense to me.

[Old Ironsights]

But see don, what authority do you have to define what "proper" is?

What difference in any practical sense is there between shooting at cans with a semi-auto Thompson or a full auto Thompson... except that one will empty your wallet much faster?

In neither case is anyone being injured. No one's "equal Rights" are being abused by my possession or non-violent use of a full auto firearm.

You really need to look at what the Founders intended when they discussed Rights and Laws.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is ALL from which the Law ought to restrain him. – Thomas Jefferson

A firearm, whether fully automatic or not, is nothing more than a tool.

Crimes are unethical actions against another individual or individuals.

At what point does carrying/holding/possessing a weapon/tool (or anything) become a violent action or an action against anything? Indeed, how can possession be an action at all?

"Full Auto" serves 3 purposes. To make the shooter poor, to give the shooter enjoyment, and to give the possessor equipment equivilent to that of the "standing army" who may be used to repress him.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. " -* Henry St George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768"Commentaries on the Laws of England."

Are you really so scared of a simple mechanical device that you are willing to force your opinions upon the lives of those who would do you no harm?

[Thunder50]

donw. Usually with the legislators, COMPROMISE, with regards to those who own firearms, means the firearem owner giving up something they have, for nothing in return. That is NOT a compromise, that is abdicating your rights, (and mine).

NEED for a mag capacity over 10 rounds? Haven't yet, but if I NEED one, I would like to have access to itm NOW. Why the 10 round figure? Why not 8 or 15? Is it because of the prior ban? Also think, do I NEED 600 horsepower in a Corvette? Not a chance, but do I WANT that in a Corvette, that is a totally different story. You confuse the two. Do we NEED alot of things we have, not really. We don't NEED air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, leather seats, air travel---ect., you get my drift, I hope. But just because YOU do not care for something, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your thoughts on NEED vs. WANT. I don't NEED my Harley, but what does need have to do with it. Do I need the Jack Daniels up in the cabinet (cooking purposes ONLY you understand )? What do you enjoy doing? Do you NEED to do it!! Think on it.

Unfortunately, government doesn't often think logically, they think emotionally and financially. What gets people to want to re-elect me and how can it help my pocketbook. The good of the "people" seldom comes into play, unless it is a select "people".

Personally, vote them all out and start fresh. It couldn't be any worse.

[O.S.O.K.]

The "mistake" that we all seem to make is...

We argue with the logic of the bans.

It's not about any logic or expected outcome on crime, etc.

What it is really about is control.

CONTROL

Who has it.

Those in our so-called representative government that want gun bans of any type are really after more control over the governed.

What we are really fighting for is to maintain control over our own destiny. Control of our own safety. Control over our own ability to keep property, etc.

That is what we need to FOCUS on.

If we rant and rave and expend all of our energy and resources on addressing the stupidity of the ban specifics, then they have won.

[donw]

well spoken...

now...present it to congress and the state legislatures and see the response. what do you believe it would be?

But see don, what authority do you have to define what "proper" is?

What difference in any practical sense is there between shooting at cans with a semi-auto Thompson or a full auto Thompson... except that one will empty your wallet much faster?

In neither case is anyone being injured. No one's "equal Rights" are being abused by my possession or non-violent use of a full auto firearm.

You really need to look at what the Founders intended when they discussed Rights and Laws.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is ALL from which the Law ought to restrain him. – Thomas Jefferson

A firearm, whether fully automatic or not, is nothing more than a tool.

Crimes are unethical actions against another individual or individuals.

At what point does carrying/holding/possessing a weapon/tool (or anything) become a violent action or an action against anything? Indeed, how can possession be an action at all?

"Full Auto" serves 3 purposes. To make the shooter poor, to give the shooter enjoyment, and to give the possessor equipment equivilent to that of the "standing army" who may be used to repress him.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. " -* Henry St George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768"Commentaries on the Laws of England."

Are you really so scared of a simple mechanical device that you are willing to force your opinions upon the lives of those who would do you no harm?

[donw]

i agree in "wants and needs"

here in the "real world" we are controlled, by governments, in our needs/wants...like it or not.

what we have to do is try to minimize that control.

donw. Usually with the legislators, COMPROMISE, with regards to those who own firearms, means the firearem owner giving up something they have, for nothing in return. That is NOT a compromise, that is abdicating your rights, (and mine).

NEED for a mag capacity over 10 rounds? Haven't yet, but if I NEED one, I would like to have access to itm NOW. Why the 10 round figure? Why not 8 or 15? Is it because of the prior ban? Also think, do I NEED 600 horsepower in a Corvette? Not a chance, but do I WANT that in a Corvette, that is a totally different story. You confuse the two. Do we NEED alot of things we have, not really. We don't NEED air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, leather seats, air travel---ect., you get my drift, I hope. But just because YOU do not care for something, doesn't mean that everyone else shares your thoughts on NEED vs. WANT. I don't NEED my Harley, but what does need have to do with it. Do I need the Jack Daniels up in the cabinet (cooking purposes ONLY you understand )? What do you enjoy doing? Do you NEED to do it!! Think on it.

Unfortunately, government doesn't often think logically, they think emotionally and financially. What gets people to want to re-elect me and how can it help my pocketbook. The good of the "people" seldom comes into play, unless it is a select "people".

Personally, vote them all out and start fresh. It couldn't be any worse.

[donw]

dang!!!

i like the response on this thread!!

lots of very well thought out responses.

good work guys. we need all the help we can get and this is one way to help.

[AmBraCol]

Why the 10 round figure? Why not 8 or 15?

That one's easy. It's a carry over from the effort to force the metric system on the US....

[Hobie]

I find it very interesting that those same people (some at least, many it seems) who favor banning guns also:
- point to the failure of drug/alcohol bans
- are pro-"choice"
- want to "empower" women
- are against evaluating people on the basis of appearance
- have killed more people than 99% of gun owners, either through their official duties or with their automobiles

[gon2shoot]

Everything I own is an "assualt" weapon if need be, from my 30-30 to my morning news paper

[Old Ironsights]

well spoken...

now...present it to congress and the state legislatures and see the response. what do you believe it would be?

It doesn't matter.

If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional.

If they want to change the constitution, there is a mechanisim for them to do so, and it is their JOB to attempt to make that change - according to the established guidelines for ammending it.

They are skirting the issue and subverting both the intent AND the methodology of the Constitution.

So, what they "say" is utterly immaterial. Whether they declare it "Law" or not.