T Nation

Assault Weapons Un-Ban

So… Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban expires today. Anyone care to share my joy?

Whoo hoo!

That bill is silly. There is a separate bill that bans automatic weapons, which is still in effect. The “Assault Weapons” ban based its classifications on what the guns looked like, not on how they worked – typical crap.

Yup, the AW ban expiring made my monday. The articles in the newspapers about this ban were quite troublesome however, because they were almost all pro-ban. This not only shows the liberal media bias, but the stupidity of journalists when they try to conjure up reasons to keep the worthless ban.

Oh no - you guys have it all wrong. This particular assault weapons ban is the only thing that is keeping our streets safe.

I fully expect to see full scale warfare between the cops and the criminals.

Why just yesterday - I was at the mall and I saw no less than half a dozen criminals go into the sporting goods store and inquire about purchasing AK 47’s with the banana clip.

Im going to the range to celebrate.

Sadly, I’ll still be shooting a post-ban AR-15 due to this bullshit piece of legislation.

If anyone is interested, troll around on the web and look at some of these editorials about why the ban should have been extended and how much good it did.

No facts at all, but a lot of mistruths by some of the most ignorant people I have ever come across. You would think these clowns who spew misguided opinions would at least educate themselves extensively on this comlpex subject…

Since I know nothing about guns, please fill me in on why this ban was worthless, and why these weapons should not be banned.

This post may help clarify – the “Assault Weapons Ban” bans semi-automatic guns based on what they look like – it doesn’t ban automatic weapons:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_07.shtml#1094743729

Newspaper editorials that don’t know what they’re talking about:
The Spoons Experience points to the opening paragraph of this this Chicago Sun-Times editorial:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/commentary/cst-edt-edits07.html

[Begin excerpt] How ridiculous is the notion that private citizens should be able to tote machine guns? It takes someone with extreme positions like Alan Keyes to righteously argue that cause. Most Americans ? Democrats and Republicans ? are against claiming Second Amendment protections for these guns and support the federal assault weapons ban. . . . [End excerpt]

Except that the assault weapons ban does not ban machine guns. Machine guns have been largely banned for civilian possession (except for about 100,000 that were grandfathered in, and that are almost never used in crimes) since the mid-1980s. By its own terms the assault weapon ban applies to some semiautomatic guns ? guns that shoot one round per trigger pull, and that are not materially more lethal than most other guns out there. In fact, here’s a link to the statute,
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3355_en.htm
and a quote from the start of the key provision:

[Begin Excerpt] SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS. (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: '(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.' [End Excerpt]

If you’d like, go to the site and count the number of times the Act uses the word semiautomatic. There are of course other problems with the editorial ? but once there’s such a doozy in the first sentence, it’s kind of pointless to discuss them. What does it say when an editorial in a major newspaper has such a glaring factual error (and one that’s highly material to the editorial’s thesis)? Small wonder that many people, especially many people who care about gun rights, have lost confidence in the media’s competence and fairness (for more on the latter, see also here). I’ve sent a letter to the editor (S. Huntley, at shuntley at suntimes.com) pointing out the error, and asking whether they would publish the correction; I will report back if I hear anything on this.

[quote]FMF wrote:
Since I know nothing about guns, please fill me in on why this ban was worthless, and why these weapons should not be banned.[/quote]

The problem with it is that it really put a crimp in my plan for world domination. But all that changes at midnight tonight. Heh-heh-heh…

No, really, it simply banned certain types of weapons based SOLELY on their appearance (i.e. black and scary looking). Sen. Barbara Boxer, Commie, Calif., literally went through a gun catalog (this is a documented fact!) and picked out the scary ones that they knew people would believe were a threat! However, “legal” versions of the same toys reamined available for manufacture and purchase, but without certain features, mostly cosmetic, that had no bearing whatsoever on their firepower. Additionally, “pre-ban” (i.e. made before the ban went into effect) weapons were grandfathered and were therefore still available, albeit at exhorbitant prices. For example… pre-ban Colt AR-15: $2,000-2,500; post-ban Bushmaster XM (basically the same gun): $750-900. In short, it was a steaming load of politically-motivated, propaganda-driven horse dung.

A good article to help clear your confusion:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/wheeler200409130630.asp

FMF,

Go to:

http://www.clintongunban.com

Dont know if they’ll keep this site up much longer, but it explains why the whole thing is nonsense.

Yes, it is an NRA site, but the info is sound and I have never heard a liberal offer a sound argument against of any of their points(largely because there isnt a sound argument once you understand what the ban did and did not do).

If you really care about the topic, I would also suggest educating yourself about firearms, but it is going to be a lot of work. Someone who doesnt have a solid knowledge of firearms(types, usage and function), can’t really discuss this subject logically…only emotionally, and that gets us no where. Thats how the whole thing started in the first place…

I read that editorial from the sun. I wonder how such hysterical untruths get put into print, but then I remember that this what the news does with a whole variety of subjects.

Machine guns have not been available to the public for a very long time. A lot longer than the assualt ban.

The assault ban was about the types of guns that hollywood uses in the movies,it had nothing to do with actual crime. That is why the assault ban had a provision against bayonet lugs.

What this shows is just how much public perceptions of the world are shaped by hollywood. The real danger is people are not seperating hollywood fantasy from actual reality and we end up getting bad laws enacted as a result. A good example of this is the movie Scarface compared to the movie Blow.

Thanks for the input guys. I’ll check these sites later when I have more time.

FMF, I just want to say that I appreciate your willingness to examine this issue objectively. There is a lot of emotion (read: lack of rational thought) behind it, particularly on the “prohibition,” “gun control” side. For additional information and well-articulated issue positions, you should also check out the following sites:

www.jpfo.org

www.gunowners.org

Security derives from freedom, not the other way around!

Yeah the ban was a total joke… one put in place to silence soccer moms and to make them feel safer.
What they didnt know that everybody else did was that you could always buy these so-called “assult weapons”… at EVERY gun show.
Truly pointless legislation!

[quote]bandgeek wrote:
There is a lot of emotion (read: lack of rational thought) behind it, particularly on the “prohibition,” “gun control” side. [/quote]
You sound objective.

[quote]For additional information and well-articulated issue positions, you should also check out the following sites:

www.jpfo.org

www.gunowners.org[/quote]
And these look like objective sites!

RSU,

Instead of 2 cheap shots and then running away, why dont you try and engage in some kind of argument against the assault weapon ban expiring?

Im guessing you are woefully uninformed and would get torn apart in any logical discussion about this, but your loyalty to liberalism forces you to spout “Assault Weapons Ban good.”

The ball is in your court…

Well thanks for putting the ball in my court. Actually, you’re fairly right – I don’t know much about the particular bill in question, but I do have opinions on the fundamentals of the matter…opinions that are sure to differ from most others on this thread (surprised?).

Here is a link – and FMF, you might find this of interest – from a thread that I started on a related topic. You’ll see some lines of thought from many of us on this productive (ZEB-less) thread:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=00043E08C8D6BBF328B323A138D053EB.ba13?id=464430

This gets me…

You say you have opinions on the fundamentals of this subject, but have little to no knowledge to base them on?

I’m not attacking you…in fact, Im pretty convinced that most people who believe in the Constitution can be brought around on this subject once they have been educated about it.

I wish there was some place I could give you to start looking into this, but you actually need a fairly thorough education on firearms first. If your serious about the discussion, thats what you’ll do.

A False Ad About Assault Weapons

A new Moveon PAC ad implies machine-guns are becoming legal, which isn’t true. And it blames Bush, even though Bush said he would have extended the ban on assault weapons.

09.14.2004

Summary

This latest ad from Moveon PAC is about as misleading as it can be. Through words, graphics and sound effects, it invites viewers to think that the expiration of the ban on 19 semiautomatic assault weapons will allow people legally to buy fully automatic machine guns that can fire “up to 300 rounds per minute.” That’s false.

It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so.

The ad also claims that Bush “will let the assault weapon ban expire,” which is misleading. In fact, Bush spoke in support of the ban during his campaign four years ago and his spokesman said as recently as May of last year that he still supported it. It was Congress that failed to consider extending the ban and didn’t present Bush with a bill to sign.

Read more at http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258

[quote]JD430 wrote:
This gets me…

You say you have opinions on the fundamentals of this subject, but have little to no knowledge to base them on?

I’m not attacking you…in fact, Im pretty convinced that most people who believe in the Constitution can be brought around on this subject once they have been educated about it.

I wish there was some place I could give you to start looking into this, but you actually need a fairly thorough education on firearms first. If your serious about the discussion, thats what you’ll do.[/quote]

Thanks for wishing, but I believe that one cannot be an expert – or even familiar – with every topic around. It’s impossible, though plenty will pretend to be experts.

Why do I have opinions on the fundamentals but not the particulars? Why can’t I? It’s as simple as me not knowing the particulars of this law we are discussing, but having a decent understanding of the social/political philosophical topic of arm-bearing.

What qualifies you, if you don’t mind me asking, to opine on the said topics?