Sign in to follow this  
Che'_Moderator

Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

Assault Weapons Ban  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I know I will regret this, but hey it's the freakin weekend baby I'm about to have me some fun.

Before you vote consider this:

For this poll assume the assault weapon ban (AWB) would be in its prior form. This mean;

1. All weapons manufactured before the date the bill is enacted are exempt. So a hair under 300 million weapons in the US alone are grandfathered.

2. The ban had no effect on automatic weapons only semi-auto.

3. The "ban" limited how many of the 5 AWB items you could have. It did not ban them, you just could not have more than 3. Example.

sml_gallery_1_5_166273.jpg

Collapsable stock. Top stock = no go. Bottom is ok.

sml_gallery_1_5_69716.jpg

No Bayonet lug, or flash supressor.

sml_gallery_1_5_165501.jpg

Pistol grip or detachable magazine, also no go.

All that said any 3 are ok, just not 4. So to sum it up:

med_gallery_1_5_31387.jpg

Under the AWB the top weapon is legal, the bottom if not. Not really sure if either is more deadly, but thats for you to decide. Does re-enacting the AWB in its 1994 edition make any sense? Explain your school of thought and keep it civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well laid out discussion. Thanks

The law in its 94 form appears to be useless, if what you display here is fact. I have no reason to believe it isn't fact.

My .2c from here; A much stronger set of Federal control laws needs to be created, along with some big time education for those who think their "freedom" to own whatever weapon they want over rides a kids right to go to school without being shot at. Add a healthy dose of more readily available comprehensive mental health care, and you are on your way to a considerably more civilized society.

You folks have a created a huge mess for yourselves. Best of luck, truly.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure there has ever been a mass school shooting with an assault weapon in recent history. Nothing sticks in my mind at least. That said I think CA has the better idea with the bullet button. Its required on anything with a mag that detaches, and makes a tool needed to change magazines. Reloads go from ~3 second to over 10. Not a deal, but if you are actually trying to limit killing potential it does something. Bigger issue I think is, anyone who wants to will. I rather have someone flip their shit and take up a firearm, than flip out and build a bomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban I know some people will not even believe it, but yes, the ban was that poorly written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add a healthy dose of more readily available comprehensive mental health care, and you are on your way to a considerably more civilized society.

You folks have a created a huge mess for yourselves. Best of luck, truly.

As long as mental health is an issue that is divided by party lines, it isn't going to happen. Our mental health system is as broken as the political system, as long as mental health is viewed as an entitlement it's going to stay the same as it is now. Granted, it is a social issue..but we're not talking about lazy people collecting checks, we're talking about people that are truly screwed up and there is no readily available help for them.

Realistically, one that needs real mental health care isn't going to get it until they commit a serious crime. It's a completely reactive approach that makes zero sense.

I could write a book on the issue, but the simple fact is that the system is broken and is going to stay that way.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm going to say is in reassigning the 1994 AWB, there will be as many issues that come of it as there are benefits. For example, as you said, nearly 300 million weapons will be grandfathered in. This will only increase illegal firearm trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean illegal trading?

i believe he is under the impression that once the awb comes into effect the grandfathered weapons can not be transferred between different people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's what I meant. Maybe I'm a bit misinformed but it would seem as if to truly make the law valid, there will be a restriction on transferring those weapons from person to person. That just makes sense to me though, and if that were the case I'm sure people will do it illegally anyways which is what I was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe any of the weapon bans that will come under consideration will accomplish anything more than the TSA does in an airport. It's all security theater.

I grew up with guns, was an NRA member as a boy. I do question the need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons in any home. They're unnecessary and it's not clear to me that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own them. I've heard all and argued for many of the existing rationales that people use to justify it.

My roommate in college was a gun dealer and I remember when he helped my other roommate buy an AK-47 semiautomatic. They both laughed when they agreed it was for "sport shooting." We all knew that was a load of BS. He bought because he thought it was cool and he could go shoot it off in the canyons of the mountains in UT. We also knew how easy it was - largely pre-Internet - to turn the AK into a fully automatic weapon.

You want to clean up the problem you'll need to collect all existing SA and Automatic weapons from non military and LEO citizens. But the minute that passes is the minute Civil War 2 breaks out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah that's what I meant. Maybe I'm a bit misinformed but it would seem as if to truly make the law valid, there will be a restriction on transferring those weapons from person to person. That just makes sense to me though, and if that were the case I'm sure people will do it illegally anyways which is what I was getting at.

Another part that does not make sense. This is not the case. Its the same for full autos. Even though they cannot make more, you can still buy and trade the ones out there. Currently in states that have their own AWB a pre-ban lower can be over 1300 dollars easy. You can still buy and trade those and have all 5 of the no-go items. A post ban lower is 50-150 depending on brand but can only have 3 off the list of 5.... I know it sounds like I am making this up, but thats what the US Gov spent millions of dollars to enact and enforce. Thats why IMHO the 1994 AWB was pointless. Thats not saying all gun control is, but it was not worth the paper it was written on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are faced with a social issue here, any gun legislation or any other knee-jerk laws will be feel-good BS that aims to get politicians re-elected in our messed up lifer legislature.

There is no simple remedy for the dangers in our society. There are really messed up individuals out there, with more means to live reclusively and dodge social interaction and responsibility than ever (along with appropriate diagnosis and help).

The assault weapon ban would be a back-slapping hippie fest that doesn't even remotely address the issues we face as a society, getting back to the point. Maybe less effective than taking my shoes off at the airport.

Charles, look at the millions spent pushing forward catch shares policies in the fisheries. I think the government will spend millions on whatever someone tells them will win the next election.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, out of all the debates on facebook about banning guns/semiautos/assultweapons. I am currently blocked from every person/group I responded to. Considering i only made logical points and just gave the facts, dont really see how they can call it a debate when they only allow one side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, out of all the debates on facebook about banning guns/semiautos/assultweapons. I am currently blocked from every person/group I responded to. Considering i only made logical points and just gave the facts, dont really see how they can call it a debate when they only allow one side.

Thats the problem with both side. Neither really believes half the crap they say I doubt, its just you have to balance out the other side which is also way out there. If you could wave a wand and firearms would go away, I doubt anyone would argue. That is not an option though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that anything done, right now, in a knee jerk reaction, will in essence do nothing but make people feel better. That is, of course, until it happens again which it will. Bad people do bad things, and they will do it in anyway they have to whether it be a knife, a gun, a bomb, a car, ANYTHING.

It's unfortunate to think our society and it's laws can be swayed in such a way that it needs not make sense, just make us feel better.

If they do enact some form of AWB, I won't feel any safer.



Thats the problem with both side. Neither really believes half the crap they say I doubt, its just you have to balance out the other side which is also way out there. If you could wave a wand and firearms would go away, I doubt anyone would argue. That is not an option though.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to vote No: Other, based on my opinion that I don't see how restricting you from owning the "best" guns really matters, but you can have one that's 70% as good. And you could still buy pre-ban weapons. Pretty sure the recent CT shooting was strictly pistols, the VT tech was pistols. Wackos with guns still kill people, and they seem to have been able to do it with saddening efficiency no matter the weapon. So there's my unscientific opinion :lol:

Your poll asks "based on it did/didn't save lives". Do you expect people will have hard evidence of this? Or just defend their opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this