Assault Weapon Ban

[Bugfatty300]

I am curious of exactly why a lot of Americans support Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban and want it renewed

It didn’t really do anything. What positive thing came out of the ban?

“Assault Weapon” legal definition applied to semi-automatic rifle in 1994

Folding stock - Thanks to older NFA laws rifles have be a certain length regardless. What difference would a folding stock make?
Pistol grip - What makes a pistol grip on a rifle more “deadly?” than a traditional wood one?
Grenade launcher - Aren’t Grenades and explosives already illegal? What exactly is the precedent for this? How many grenade attacks have happened in the US before the ban? How many have happened since the ban expired?
Flash suppressor - Again more cosmetic than anything. Most flash suppressors do not work well to begin with. Ones that work well are actually illegal for other reasons.

There is also a certain movement to ban “military calibers” on the assumption that small arm calibers used by militaries are “more deadly” than “hunting” or “civilians calibers.” A lot of this directed toward .50 caliber rifles. California already banned this caliber even though to date there has never been a .50 caliber rifle used in any crime in US history.

Now there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" in the US except for a select few states.

 

[Red Door]

It banned weapons of more than 10 rounds. Since when do you need more than 10 rounds during hunting?

It banned bayoneted weapons, how many times do you use that.

I don't fully agree with it, I believe it needs to take more weapons off of the streets, it didn't have enough weapons banned on it. But, overall it did more good than bad. If you can name something bad from it, please tell me.

 

[emzie]

Fully-automatic rifles are bad for killing crowds. Too much wasted ammo.

I don't see why anyone needs an Ak-47 other than for 'ZOMG THIS ROCKS' reasons. Though actually, that is a pretty valid reason.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It banned weapons of more than 10 rounds. Since when do you need more than 10 rounds during hunting?

Actually it didn't. (I havn't went hunting in years.)

It banned bayoneted weapons, how many times do you use that.

I'll probably never use it.

But why should I be kept from owning a rifle that accepts bayonets? Is not "needing" something a valid reason for banning it?

How many people are killed a year with fixed bayonets?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Important facts.

1. The AWB did not ban more than 10 rounds.
2. Its did not ban AK-47s and M-16s and machine guns. It only applied to semi-automatics only.

 

[Red Door]

Actually it didn't.



I'll probably never use it.

But why should I be kept from owning a rifle that accepts bayonets? Is not "needing" something a valid reason for banning it?

I stand corrected, I was trying to read 2 Wiki articles at the same time. But, why does it do any harm? All I see is good from it. And AK-47s and M-16s are banned when in Semi-Automatic form.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I stand corrected, I was trying to read 2 Wiki articles at the same time. But, why does it do any harm? All I see is good from it.

Can you explain? What good have you seen from it?

And AK-47s and M-16s are banned when in Semi-Automatic form.

In a few states yes they are heavily controled but not banned outright. In most states they are legal with few constrictions.

 

[Trajan12]

Totally uneccesary. How many crimes a year are commited with assault rifles? Not many.

 

[bhsup]

It banned weapons of more than 10 rounds. Since when do you need more than 10 rounds during hunting?

It banned bayoneted weapons, how many times do you use that.

I don't fully agree with it, I believe it needs to take more weapons off of the streets, it didn't have enough weapons banned on it. But, overall it did more good than bad. If you can name something bad from it, please tell me.

Why do you presume that the only legitimate use of a weapon is hunting? Don't you find it frightening that the government tried to ban weaponry that they would probably view as most effective in resisting a move to impose a tyrannical dictatorship over the populace?

 

[amadeus]

Totally uneccesary. How many crimes a year are commited with assault rifles? Not many.

And how many of those rifles were acquired and registered legally?

 

[Godwynn]

And how many of those rifles were acquired and registered legally?

We have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

 

[CaptainF]

Keep 'em legal damnit!

 

[JohnRM]

It banned weapons of more than 10 rounds. Since when do you need more than 10 rounds during hunting?

When 11 Commie Pinkos threaten to take my home or other wealth, because some lazy-ass bum won't support his/herself.

When 11 thugs try to break into my home and try to kill my family, because I work toward the ridding of the streets of these violent gangs that have many neighborhoods held hostage.

Because the Second Amendment says so!

 

[drkodos]

When 11 Commie Pinkos threaten to take my home or other wealth, because some lazy-ass bum won't support his/herself.

When 11 thugs try to break into my home and try to kill my family, because I work toward the ridding of the streets of these violent gangs that have many neighborhoods held hostage.

Because the Second Amendment says so!

Yes, I know your post was satirical. I am responding to those people that really feel the way you described. Capisci?

Thanks for sharing your delusions in a public forum. It is most entertaining to see the inner workings of a lessor's brain.

You may want to re-read the 2nd admendment. I inlcude it here for you:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Taking away specific arms does not preclude the removal of all of them, thus is completely within the confines of the admendment. You are allowed to bear arms, and this right is in no way infringed by putting limits on what types of arms you may bear.

Now, maybe if you spent some time improving your understanding of the constitution, and perhaps even spent a few years in law school, you would be able to undertsand it a bit more lucidly.

I fully support the 2nd admendment. And, I also fully support restrictions on firearms. The two do not conflict, at least not in a sane person's mind.

Now, go pop Rambo back into your betamax and perhaps even shoot some rats in your cellar until you feel better about this.


Yes, I know your post was satirical. I am responding to those people that really feel the way you described. Capisci?

Moderator Action: Regardless of your disclaimer, this is trolling. Warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Kozmos]

Countries that dont have guns aint American. So give the people all the AKs and machine guns they want.

 

[Atlas14]

I shoot assault rifles at the shooting range from time to time, I would not support a renewal of the ban.

 

[IglooDame]

Taking away specific arms does not preclude the removal of all of them, thus is completely within the confines of the admendment. You are allowed to bear arms, and this right is in no way infringed by putting limits on what types of arms you may bear.

So in your mind, the government could pass a law saying "all pistols are hereby illegal" and you'd be okay with that, since they've merely banned a type of arm?

 

[Tycoon101]

Countries that dont have guns aint American. So give the people all the AKs and machine guns they want.

Absolutely true.

I don't support any weapons bans, although I won't go out of my way to reject a ban upon civilian biological warfare usage.

Rmsharpe has the truest post in this entire thread; criminals won't follow the laws when they want to kill. They will obtain weapons, whether legal or not.

I suppose that this issue is like the issue of drugs...

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

When 11 Commie Pinkos threaten to take my home or other wealth, because some lazy-ass bum won't support his/herself.

When 11 thugs try to break into my home and try to kill my family, because I work toward the ridding of the streets of these violent gangs that have many neighborhoods held hostage.

Because the Second Amendment says so!

Quoted for truth! I believe that since Criminals will get guns regardless (Mexico, which has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the world also has the highest per-captia rate of murder and gun crimes in the world. Coincidence? I think not!), it is the citizens' duty to arm themselves against such scum.... After thay've passed a firearms safety course.

Or as one of the biggest supporters of the Bill of Rights said:

Only Tyrants and Criminals have cause to fear the armed citizen.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I don't see why any one would need a gun that isn't built for hunting. To bad the Bill was easy to get around drom what I have heard.