Assault Rifles

[FIFI]

Ok... I don't know if its just Oregon who is now trying to but a state ban on assault rifles, but I believe it is ridiculos. Please give me you opions. Good Luck!

[Evil Baby]

I'm not sure what side I'm on. I mean I'd rather no guns at all but that's just me, however if the U.S. already allows as many guns as it does into the U.S. then why stop high power assault rifles? So long as it is done properly to ensure that law abiding citizens get these weapons and keep these weapons.

[Dieval]

Criminals don't worry about laws, so banning law abiding citizens from obtaining them is ridiculous.

[kharmajunkie]

Two days in a row we're in agreement Dieval.
When I get shot, I'm not going to be inquiring about the make and model of my assailant's weapon.

[Scribbler1]

The Federal ban has expired, and some Democrat senators are doing their Chicken Little thing by saying there will be a serious upsurge of gun related violence.

Maybe I shouldn't have opposed the ban as I didn't realize all those killers were waiting for the ban to expire before they shot someone. Damn.

[Evil Baby]

Originally posted by Dieval, Criminals don't worry about laws, so banning law abiding citizens from obtaining them is ridiculous.

My only concern is that as I understand it these weapons weren't allowed into the country at all therefore making it just that much more difficult for criminals to obtain these weapons. The more assault weapons imported the greated chance a criminal has of obtaining one.

[Technosoul]

We can assume some people got them via mail ordering or whatever.

My opinion is that most criminals would prefer weapons that do not stand out so boldly, Those rifles are mostly of interest to people who are into para-military clubs or groups, and a few collectors who think it would be fun showing it off to his buddies.

One radio host claimed that the assult weapon in question has never been used in a crime here in America according to a search of all police records in major cities by some group like the NRA.

It could be this is just part of the "distraction in action" policy, while anti-gun people focus all their attention on re-banning the assult weapon types they will not pay attention to all the more popular guns that robbers really use or that end up being involved in a case of domestic violence. Later, if the anti gun people get too much political power the government and just ban the "evil weapon" again to calm down the protest (as a first step which never takes a 2nd step).

Technosoul.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Evil Baby,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Baby,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dieval, Criminals don't worry about laws, so banning law abiding citizens from obtaining them is ridiculous.

My only concern is that as I understand it these weapons weren't allowed into the country at all therefore making it just that much more difficult for criminals to obtain these weapons. The more assault weapons imported the greated chance a criminal has of obtaining one.[/b][/quote]
I believe the ban was only on certain parts of the assualt rifles - flash supressor, folding stock, etc....the main part of the rifles never really changed..

[Technosoul]

And someting about limiting it to only ten rounds per clip?

[The Dunedan]

The ban affected any rifle with a 10-round-plus detatchable magazine and more than one of the following:
1: Pistol grip
2: Flash-suppressor, or a muzzle threaded to accept one
3: Folding/telescoping stock
4: Grenade-launcher ( not a 40mm tube launcher like the M203; what's being referenced here is, basically, a highly-modified muzzle brake for the launching of obsolete rifle-grenades )
5: Bayonet mount or folding bayonet.

A rifle could have two of these features and still be legal; any more than that, and the weapon was banned. It was basically a ban on guns that looked scary.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by The Dunedan, The ban affected any rifle with a 10-round-plus detatchable magazine and more than one of the following: 1: Pistol grip 2: Flash-suppressor, or a muzzle threaded to accept one 3: Folding/telescoping stock 4: Grenade-launcher ( not a 40mm tube launcher like the M203; what's being referenced here is, basically, a highly-modified muzzle brake for the launching of obsolete rifle-grenades ) 5: Bayonet mount or folding bayonet. A rifle could have two of these features and still be legal; any more than that, and the weapon was banned. It was basically a ban on guns that looked scary.

A very useful ban...hahahah
Ooooooh, your gun looks scary! BAN!!!!

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I seem to remember that murder, robbery, and assault were around long before the invention of the firearm.

Well you all seem to be in agreement, but Europe would have to disagree with you. They've been kicking our ass in crime reduction for years.

The cops are here to protect "law abiding citizens". Also, AK47's aren't to defend yourself from a robber, so spare us all the BS. It's crazy. Do you want to stockpile the AK's just in case big brother decides to take you over?

[Dieval]

Originally posted by dotComa, Also, AK47's aren't to defend yourself from a robber,

Says who? I think an AK would make for great home defense....you point that at someone robbing your house and he's likely to stop what he's doing.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-dotComa, Also, AK47's aren't to defend yourself from a robber,

Says who? I think an AK would make for great home defense....you point that at someone robbing your house and he's likely to stop what he's doing.[/b][/quote]

Yea because he'd keep on going if you just had a pistol :rolleyes:

[The Dunedan]

dotComa:
I suggest that you research the 1993 Los Angeles riots. There were several dozen documented instances of shopowners, mostly Korean, defending their homes and buisnesses with the weapons you so revile.
I also suggest that you examine the crime rates in England, Australia, and Russia: nations with extremely strict gun-controls in place, and compare those rates to the crime-rate of Switzerland, where the vast majority of homes contain at least one machinegun. The violent-crime rate in Russia is well past that of the US in every respect, the Brits surpass us in every catagory except rape and murder, and the Aussies are coming up fast.
Yes, the numbers per-capita of crimes in Britain have decreased; fewer people are being arrested. However, the numbers of -violent- crimes per-capita have surpassed those of the US in all but those two areas.
On the other hand, Switzerland has the second-lowest crime rate of any nation in the world, just behind Japan. And trust me, if the Yakuza in Japan were properly prosecuted, Switzerland would by No. 1 by a heft margin.

Lastly, in regard to your nonsense about the police:
1: The police have no legal responsibility to protect you. None. SCOTUS has ruled, twice now, that the only obligation a Police Officer or Department has is to solve the crim AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED.
2: The response-time of police around this country averages just over 20 full minutes. Maybe you live in a gated community with lots of rentacops: I don't. That being the case, who are you to tell me what I may or may not choose to defend my home with?
3: As for "Big Brother:" No, I'm not stockpiling AK's. My FN-FAL is much more to my liking; more accurate, more powerful, and just as reliable. But since "Big Brother" is precisely what the 2A was written to defend against, I have no problem with someone stockpiling AK's. It simply comes down to taste, in my own case. For someone who hates and ( apprently ) fears the Bush Admin. as much as you do to not grasp this concept is Cognitive Dissonance of the first order. If Bush is the tyrant you think he is ( and we are in agreement, btw ) do you really think that anything but Force or the implicit threat thereof will change his mind? Tyrants don't care about votes, marches, or "statements." Tyrants care about Force. End of story.
4: The Second Amendment has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with any "Sporting purpose," as the Nazis would put it. It was emplaces specifically to provide for armed defense against a Government gone wild. Read the writings of the men who wrote the thing, would you please? Then maybe you can bring something to this discussion other than insulting, patronizing, Clinton-babble.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Technosoul, It could be this is just part of the "distraction in action" policy, while anti-gun people focus all their attention on re-banning the assult weapon types they will not pay attention to all the more popular guns that robbers really use or that end up being involved in a case of domestic violence. Later, if the anti gun people get too much political power the government and just ban the "evil weapon" again to calm down the protest (as a first step which never takes a 2nd step). Technosoul.

I believe it is just the beginning to an eventual ALL gun ban. Classic smoke and mirrors, where they get the people to believe a large number of criminals use these weapons and then ban them. It seems to be a clear first step on the part of the government.
This is a safe ploy because very few people actually are inconvenienced by this particular ban. If you outlaw weapons millions of people HAVE, you are guaranteed to get a huge backlash, but if you outlaw something a very few have the sheep will rally behind it, mainly because it doesn't hassle THEM. But THEN you have your precedent, and it will be a bit easier to coerce the scared masses into giving up the NEXT least popular firearm on the list. And so on, and so on...
It's just a matter of marketing the idea, something we all see firsthand how well the government does THAT.

The anti gun campaign might go something like this, wrapped up in nice little public service ads:

Shotguns should be banned because they are not accurate and can't be used for good, safe, all-american target practice. (don't mention you can hunt with them)

.22cal. rifles should be banned because they are too small to hunt with and can only be used to kill people. (don't mention you can target shoot with them)

Pistols should be banned because you cant hunt with them and handguns are too innacurate to shoot targets, but the criminals have lots of them. (don't mention ANYTHING)

Madison Avenue types, and campaign strategists can sell ANYTHING, so why not sell my ridiculous little campaign, yes?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Just remember, every time you gang up and take one persons rights away, you have one more bitter person willing to take away the rights of the next person.

[Evil Baby]

Originally posted by Technosoul, We can assume some people got them via mail ordering or whatever. My opinion is that most criminals would prefer weapons that do not stand out so boldly, Those rifles are mostly of interest to people who are into para-military clubs or groups, and a few collectors who think it would be fun showing it off to his buddies. One radio host claimed that the assult weapon in question has never been used in a crime here in America according to a search of all police records in major cities by some group like the NRA. It could be this is just part of the "distraction in action" policy, while anti-gun people focus all their attention on re-banning the assult weapon types they will not pay attention to all the more popular guns that robbers really use or that end up being involved in a case of domestic violence. Later, if the anti gun people get too much political power the government and just ban the "evil weapon" again to calm down the protest (as a first step which never takes a 2nd step). Technosoul.

perhaps the reason these guns have not been used in a crime is because of the difficulty of obtaining such a weapon. However I have no idea what the circumstances were before the 10 year ban but just a thought.

[Evil Baby]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon, I seem to remember that murder, robbery, and assault were around long before the invention of the firearm.

just becuase they were around long before the invention of the firearm does not mean certain percautions should not be taken to try and curb this type of violence.