Should the "assault weapons ban" be renewed and why?...

[spin]

Many members of the Democratic Party favor reinstating the "assault weapons ban".

NOTE: an assault weapon is not a fully automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are covered under different laws.

Should the law be changed if renewed? If so, how?

[derby378]

1. No, and here's why...

1. Such a ban violates the Second Amendment, especially in light of last year's DC v. Heller ruling by the Supreme Court.

2. Even if there were no Second Amendment, support for a new ban on semi-automatics is at its lowest point in America in approximately 20 years.

3. It's only a gun. It's not a vial of sarin.

[Travis_0004]

2. No

The last assault weapons ban banned cosmetic differences in rifles.

If you compared a pre ban to a post ban rifle, they both functioned exactly the same, it just made politicians feel good.

Also, assault weapons are used in very few crimes, and the last ban had no noticeable decrease in crime, and when the ban expired there was no increase in crime.

I can think of no faster way to give the Republicans the house and the senate in 2010, then by trying to pass another assault weapons ban.

[SteveM]

3. Additional reasons to oppose renewal...

(1) Definitions of "assault weapons" are as fluid as the whims of gun-control advocates;

(2) Ban proposals are used with splendid success by the GOP to bash Democrats;

(3) Such a ban only encourages the continued reliance on prohibitionism as public policy;

(4) If a "ban" is enacted, it will be evaded as the last one was; and

(5) If a "ban" is enacted, gun-controllers will try to extend their "success" to yet more bans (see 3 above)

[spin]

4. Gee, all I hear is crickets. Let me help those who support the ban out...

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use and their only purpose it to kill many people in a short amount of time. We support legislation to ban all assault weapons.


Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?

A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.

Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

***snip***

Q. What should a new assault weapons ban look like?

A. Congress should enact a comprehensive federal assault weapons ban modeled after the California assault weapons ban. The California law banned assault weapons based on a “one-feature test” that requires a firearm to have only one military-style feature in order to be banned. The Brady Campaign was instrumental in helping to enact and implement the California law in 2000.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

[eqfan592]

5. My response to them would be....

....to provide comprehensive evidence that any of the above "scary" features and their presence on a firearm that was LEGALLY purchased have ever been so effectively utilized in the commission of a crime as to make that crime significantly less likely to occur had those features not be present. For example, how many times has the presence of a bayonet lug or a folding stock been the key element allowing a criminal to commit a crime?

The Brady campaign does NOT have a comprehensive understanding of what it means to live in a free society. You can't simply ban something because it "looks scary" to you, or even because these features are "scary" features in your opinion. Unless you can prove that those features are a serious menace to society, then you have no right to try and limit them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. They want to ban guns because they are guns.

People like the brady bunch are fixated on the concept that there must be a stratified society - leaders and subjects with nothing in between (yes, a democratic "free" society can be very stratified). It's an authoritarian projection onto society of the child complex (or parent complex, depending on where they want to operate in society). This is not dissimilar from some people's deviant sexual preferences as dominant or submissive which can be seen while engaging in risque relationships. Some people derive comfort and satisfaction from being subjects, and others from a position of authority. They cannot handle the notion that a society (or individual) can take it upon themselves for provision.

Guns represent one of the greatest power equalizers of all time on an individual unit level. It's no surprise that the concept of gun ownership, and thus guns themselves, strike deep into the stratification they need to feel comfortable with society. It's a mental complex, it really is. The Brady Bunch merely use the scary features as a rallying cry to hide behind while trying to accomplish what they really want. Logic and stats don't agree with them, so they must use red-herrings and emotional angles to try and win support for their cause. Realistically, they would use just about any tactic to accomplish this - like addicts trying to feed impulse. Don't be fooled... the only thing about gun-control advocates care about is the control. People, like those that belong to the Brady Campaign, have some serious projected dependency/authoritative complexes - it's some scary shit alright.

[diveguy]

7. I bet red cars

killed more people than so called assault weapons this year. Lets ban them.

[spin]

8. Japanese history....

Feudal Japan had a four-tiered social structure based on the principle of military preparedness. At the top were the daimyo and their samurai retainers. Three varieties of commoners stood below the samurai: farmers, craftsmen and merchants. Other people were excluded entirely from the hierarchy, and assigned to unpleasant or unclean duties such as leather tanning, butchering animals and executing condemned criminals.

***snip***

• To maintain the distinction between samurai and commoners, the government conducted raids called "sword hunts" or katanagari. Commoners discovered with swords, daggers or firearms would be put to death. Of course, this also discouraged peasant uprisings.
http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/a/feudalfactsJapan.htm

Perhaps the ruling class of our country would like to see us return to a feudal society with disarmed serfs to do the dirty work for low wages.

[oneshooter]

18. YES!! We have to put a stop to all of the drive by bayoneting!!! N/T

[eqfan592]

19. LOL!

Man, that gave me a good laugh this morning. Thanks :)

[PavePusher]

43. Well, with a 91/30 or M98, it'd be at least theoretically possible... n/t

[Euromutt]

9. "Their only purpose is to kill many people in a short amount of time" - which is why cops use 'em

The AR is rapidly supplanting the Remington 870P as the standard long gun in police patrol cars across America. No matter matter how much police departments refer to them as "patrol rifles," these rifles conform to every definition employed by groups like the Brady Campaign and the VPC of "assault weapons."

So why do the police need a weapon the "only purpose" of which "is to kill many people in a short amount of time"? Note that I stress the word "only." Arguments that police are supposedly better trained than private citizens in the use of firearms, and in judging when to use lethal force, are irrelevant if the rifles' "only purpose is to kill many people in a short amount of time."

Or could it be that there's more to these weapons than that? Could it be that they provide a handy, customizable platform capable of delivering accurate fire at ranges encountered in urban and suburban terrain, while tending to overpenetrate less than many other weapons, thereby minimizing the risk of collateral damage? In other words, that not only is killing "many people in a short amount of time" not the only purpose of so-called "assault weapons," but that it isn't even their primary purpose, and may in fact not be a purpose at all? After all, when the armed forces want "to kill many people in a short amount of time," they call in artillery.

[cowcommander]

10. AWB supporters won't say anything

Because they know it's wrong, but they support it anyway based on emotional feelings, like the rabid anti-abortionists and birthers.

[era veteran]

12. I am personally against assault weapons

I have carried them for a living. I know the large capacity magazine crowd will now perk up.

[rl6214]

13. You carried them for a living?

You more than likely carried an 'Assault rifle", one that was select fire and could fire a three round burst. One that is already heavily regulated but was not included in the last AWB. One that is not at all like the current 'assault weapons' that were included in the last ban and which the politicians want to ban again.

[era veteran]

14. No fully auto M-16

I am not talking about automatic fire. Unless you are using a light or crew served machine gun it is usually a waste of ammunition. If I were to use a M-16 today it would be in semi-auto mode instead of rock & roll. The ability to shoot high powered rounds 20-40 times as fast as you can pull the trigger is NOT needed in the civilian world. People who don't agree may point out various mass murders carried out with handguns etc. and remind me how the assault type weapon is not. What happens when it does happen? Look at Mexico. I would wager someone was killed today by an assault type weapon. Regardless I have always been around weapons, some incredibly powerful. I, thats just me, do not see the need for large capacity assault type weapons. Pick up a Springfield '03 with open iron sights and really learn to shoot. I just don't like large capacity high powered rifles. Don't want much to fight about it just wanting to have respect for my views. Peace, Richard

[rl6214]

15. High powered? Really?

The Ar15/M16 is anything but high powered. That's why it CAN'T be used for deer hunting, too in-humaine. My AR15 fires .22 long rifle. We all know that's the preferred round for snipers around the world.

[era veteran]

16. That caliber is not the only one available

The post did not spec .22LR. FYI 5.56, 7.62 Nato & WP, etc., which are on the street now. As far as humane, thats the first thing a mass murderer would think about. I , again, don't see the need for civilian use. Peace, Richard

[benEzra]

17. And yet they dominate civilian target shooting in this country...

both competitive and recreational, and are the #1 selling centerfire rifle in America.

More broadly, more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt.

Yet all rifles combined (including "assault weapons") account for only ZERO POINT SIX PERCENT of violent crime, less than SIX POINT FIVE PERCENT of all gun crimes, and TWO POINT SIX PERCENT of murders.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Like the head of the U.S. gun-control lobby said, back when rifle crime was considerably higher than it is now:

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable."

--Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, head of what is now the Brady Campaign 1978-1989, Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48 (emphasis added).

[spin]

23. Plus they are becoming popular for hunting...

Sporting ARs
Stoner's brilliant battle design is following tradition by heading into the woods.
By Dick Metcalf

Virtually every type of centerfire sporting rifle in existence started off as a military weapon. The classic lever-action deer gun, long the most popular type of hunting rifle in America, began as the Henry Rifle of the Civil War era, designed to bring rapid fire against the enemy. The lever-action was succeeded in universal popularity by the bolt-action--the standard hunting rifle of today--which we owe to Paul Mauser's classic battle-rifle design.

Now another rifle of military origin is moving rapidly into prominence in the hunting and sport shooting world: the AR15 .223 and AR10 .308. And, like its predecessors, the AR platform is meeting resistance, even outright opposition, from many hunters who are personally wedded to earlier gun designs. No surprise there; when the lever action was first used for hunting, traditionalists, whose idea of a "real" hunting gun was a single-shot muzzleloader, distained the need for a repeat-fire tool.

It should. ARs are not all just .223 caliber. In fact, most people are probably not aware that the AR design originated as a .308 (7.62mm), not as a .223 (5.56mm).

Technically speaking, it makes all the sense in the world that proven military rifle designs should be inherently appropriate for hunting use. All successful military rifles are specifically designed for rugged, reliable function and durability under extreme conditions, which translates automatically into use under even the most extreme field-hunting use. They're also designed for reasonable weight, portability and ease of fast handling by people who may be carrying other heavy gear and wearing bulky clothing. They have an inherent capability for follow-up shots, and they must be deadly accurate against targets of the same basic dimensions and at the same distances typically encountered by hunters.

The AR in particular is a superb hunting design, due primarily to its lightweight synthetic and corrosion-resistant alloy construction. And, it's surprisingly accurate, due primarily to the fact it's an "assembled" gun rather than a "fitted" gun. Its major components essentially snap together. Unlike a traditional bolt-action rifle, which generally requires close-tolerance, hand-work receiver/barrel mating and precise bedding into the stock for maximum accuracy and consistency, a hunting-grade (or even competition-grade) AR can readily be assembled from modular components literally on a kitchen table, by anybody with a modicum of ability to use relatively simple hand tools. Likewise, a service-grade "standard" AR15 can readily be brought up to minute-of-angle performance by selective replacement of key modular elements with match-grade parts. And, once tuned, an AR stays that way, due to the fact that its entirely nonorganic components (nonwood) are not susceptible to environmental distortion (warpage or swelling). All an AR really needs is a quality barrel to shoot as well as the best hunting rifle you can buy.


http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/ar15zum_030207/

[oneshooter]

46. Yet with my M1 Garand I can

place 16rds of M2 Ball on a silhouette target at 200 yds in under 40 seconds. All will be COM hits. This is with a 60+ yr old rifle. It also carries a 10 bayonet and has a steel butplate.
Is it an assault rifle?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[The Green Manalishi]

27. Not sure that .223 is the prefered round of snipers around the world.

I would bet that .308 or .338 would be the most common sniper round.

Just to add my .02, the reason I wish I could have high capacity magazines (not allowed here in California) is because it wasts range time loading them up. if I can load magazines at home I more time to practice at the range.

[rl6214]

33. I should have used the sarcasm thingy

I was jokingly saying my .22 cal firing AR15 was the preferred sniper round. Guess it was mis-understood.

[eqfan592]

20. First of all....

In a free society, it is NOT necessary to establish a "need" for something in order to possess it. It's on the part of those who wish to ban something to demonstrate that a things regular possession in the everyday world is such a large menace to society that it warrants strict regulation or outright banning.

Given how rapidly a person may change out a magazine, as well as the simple fact that, due to the existence of the black market, any sort of "ban" will be totally ineffective at getting the magazines out of the hands of the actual criminals, not to mention the extremely low number of cases where so-called "assault weapons" are even used in crimes, or where a crime involves the shooting of an entire magazines worth of ammo, I think it would be very difficult for you to establish a strong enough argument to warrant taking the action you propose.

[aikoaiko]

53. whoops wrong spot.

[metalbot]

21. When did rights become about need?

Maybe we could ensure that in order to read certain books, you need to be able to demonstrate need?

People are killed every year in car accidents - maybe people should have to demonstrate need before embarking on state to state travel?

Maybe the government should be able to quarter troops in your house if you can't demonstrate that you really need your extra bedroom?



"Look at Mexico. I would wager someone was killed today by an assault type weapon."

I don't see how that's possible. Assault type weapons are illegal in Mexico. You'll go to jail in Mexico for the possession of a single bullet. Mexico should be one of the safest places in the world.

"Don't want much to fight about it just wanting to have respect for my views."

The problem is that your views, if they become law, affect millions of law abiding gun owners. However, your views becoming law don't affect you. You don't like large capacity magazines and don't own them. If you banned "assault weapons" and were somehow able to magically make all of them disappear, would you be any safer? How many lives do you think it would save? How many crimes would it prevent? If you want to pass legislation that is going to make people safer, I would argue that there are far, far better places to start that don't criminalize cosmetic features of rifles.

[X_Digger]

22. "I just don't like large capacity high powered rifles."

At least you're honest.

Now, when we start legislating based on 'like', you'll have a valid point.

re: 'High Powered'- what do you think about the 'huntin gunz' that have more power than most of the models listed in the '94 AWB and also accept detachable magazines?

I can take four ten-round magazines for my Remington 750 (chambered in .30-06 like your springfield 03) and a hose clamp and create a 40 round pseudo-magazine. It takes me <2s to move the mag to a fresh 10 round spot and hit the bolt release.

How exactly does decreased magazine size affect lethality?

(Here's a link to some accurized 750's / 7400's / 7600's - http://www.remington7400.com/index.php )

before:


after:

[spin]

24. How about a 20 round 8mm German Mauser...

add a magazine and you have a large capacity high powered bolt action rifle with great accuracy.



Mauser 98 20 Round 8mm Detachable Magazine
http://www.e-gunparts.com/DisplayAd.asp?chrProductSKU=50230&chrSuperSKU=

[eqfan592]

28. Mmmm, Mauser. *drool* (nt)

[spin]

32. My son in law was cleaning his 8mm after shooting it..

a couple of week ago. He suddenly realized it should be possible to put a detachable magazine on it if you removed the floor plate of the internal magazine. I checked on the internet and found one.

He's thinking about ordering one. I can't really think of a good reason unless we have a Zombie attack.

It might be a good addition to this:



I'll just use my Stoeger side by side 12 gauge coach gun.



I recently bought a 6.5 X .55 Swedish Mauser. Nice shooting rifle with less recoil than the 8mm.

[rl6214]

34. Yeah, Mausers are nice

I have two of them that were captured by the Russians during WW2.

[eqfan592]

38. Nice! How common are Russian captures?

And nice rifle, Spin :) How much did that cost you? I've been thinking about picking up a Yugo M24/47 Mauser. They are supposed to be REAL nice rifles, and for the price (150-180 depending on condition over at Samco Global) they are supposed to be some of the best bang for your buck. :)

Also, how do you like the coach gun?

[spin]

44. The 6.5 X 55 Mauser cost me $250...

with a 20 round box of Wolf ammo. It was manufactured in 1942, (One of the last runs.)

Gevär m/38

The Gevär m/96-38 proved so successful that when new rifles were ordered for the military in 1941, the contract issued to Husqvarna specified that the new rifle be built to the same pattern. In all, 60,000 new rifles with the 24.5 inch barrel were built at the Husqvarna factory between 1942 and 1945. They can be identified primarily by the marking and date on the receiver-HUSQVARNA VAPENFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG and a date between 1942 and 1944.

These rifles were stocked in beech wood. Only differences in factory and inspection markings, plus the turned-down bolt handle and a new rear sight design show that they are different. The new rear sight was also hinged at the front, but two vertical ears at the rear protected the sight leaf which was re-calibrated only to 600 meters. Two sight leaf variations are found-those calibrated for the original m/94 156 grain bullet and those for m/94/41 139 grain bullet. The latter sight leaf is marked with a "T" at the top. Figure 10 shows both the different markings and the redesigned rear sight use on the m/38 rifle.
http://www.northcapepubs.com/swmauser.htm

I fired a few rounds through it for a function test and I plan to take it out to a longer range and spend some time sighting it in and getting used to it. So far, I'm impressed. I could have it drilled and tapped for a scope, which considering my eyesight might be a help, but I probably will just leave it the way it is.

I would love to take it deer or hog hunting, but a bad hip that needs replaced limits my ability to track the animal if I wound it. I bought the rifle primarily for informal target shooting. The recoil level makes it pleasant to shoot.

Considering the cost of ammo, I may take up reloading again. Reloading is a hobby all by itself and I used to have a lot of fun experimenting with different powder, bullet and primer combination to bind the most accurate load for he firearm.

The Stoeger coach gun was the base line model and was reasonably priced. It was the display model at the gun shop, so I got a good examination before I bought it. Internet reviews had indicated that some Stoeger coach guns came with inferior wood, were had to open and had heavy trigger pulls. I experienced no problems with the shotgun I bought and the wood and its finish was in my opinion good to very good. This coach gun isn't as well finished as the far more expensive double barreled shotguns made by other manufacturers, but then what I was looking for was something simple, effective for its dedicated job and inexpensive. So far it fits the bill.

I had also read that the recoil was oppressive. Any short barreled fairly light shotgun is going to have recoil. I had bought a recoil pad, but pulled it off the shotgun after the first two shots. I fired 2 3/4" 00 buckshot during my test and while the recoil was stiff, I didn't feel it was anywhere near as bad as described. But to be fair, I wasn't firing the hottest loads available. All my test rounds were 2 3/4" shells. The first load was Remington Managed-Recoil 00BK with 8 pellets at 1200 fps, the second was Winchester 00BK with 9 pellets at 1200 fps. I also tried some Remington 4BK, 27 pellets at 1325 fps. These loads should be adequate for close range self defense.

I could add that I found the coach gun fun to shoot. I destroyed a couple of paper targets and blew up several plastic milk containers full of water.

Hopefully, if I ever have to point it at someone, the sight of the two big side by side barrels will convince him not to attack me. I would never want to shoot someone unless absolutely necessary. Of course, if there is no other choice, I will. I'll just have to live with the after effects, but at least I'll have a chance to live.

[eqfan592]

49. Great info. Thanks, Spin :) (nt)

[oneshooter]

48. The Russians captured

more than 1.5 MILLION rifles during WW2. They are only recently, in the last 5-6 years releasing them from storage. My 8mm is a 1943 Turkish. One of the last pure German made for the Turks.
My preference is the M1 Garand, I currently have 6.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[petronius]

25. What's that adjustable thing on the stock in the bottom picture - a cheek rest

or something?

[eqfan592]

26. Yep, I believe so. (nt)

[X_Digger]

29. Yup, called a "comb" n/t

[Pavulon]

31. Makes people duck. Suppressive fire

allows movement to engage (or disengage) enemy. Most automatic fire is used for that purpose. American weapons selector goes from safe, to semi, to full (m4 some varients use 3shot gp.) Russian weapons go from safe to full to semi.

More people are stabbed to death than shot with rifles of all types. Including scary ones.

I respect you right to the view, but would point out that a scoped bolt action rifle or shotgun is a very lethal thing.

[spin]

45. A quote I once heard about shotguns...

"If you shoot someone with a handgun, they will most likely live. If you shoot someone with a 12 gauge shotgun, they will most likely die."

There is some truth in this quote.

And there is no doubt that a scoped .308 or 30-06 bolt action rifle is extremely deadly at far longer range than any handgun.

[Euromutt]

35. Respect needs to be earned, mac

Don't want much to fight about it just wanting to have respect for my views.

Oh, puke! "You should respect my views," the last refuge of the person who clings to an untenable opinion. If you don't place enough value on your opinions to fight for them, why the fuck should I place any value on them?

And frankly, you talk enough bollocks that I don't believe you know entirely what you're talking about, your claims to that effect notwithstanding.

The ability to shoot high powered rounds 20-40 times as fast as you can pull the trigger is NOT needed in the civilian world.

For starters, the archetypal so-called "assault weapon"--generally a semi-auto-only version of a selective-fire military assault rifle--does not fire "high powered rounds" unless you consider all centerfire rifle rounds to be "high-powered." Compared to the standard infantry rifle rounds of both world wars, such as the .30-06, the .303 British, the 7.92x57mm Mauser and the 7.62x54mm Russian, the rounds used in assault rifles are quite low-powered. In fact, that was the whole damn point of developing those round: the Germans, the Russian and the Americans all found that the standard infantry rifle rounds were way more powerful than they needed to be.

As for shooting "high powered rounds 20-40 times as fast as you can pull the trigger," well, that's not needed in the military world either. I did my national service in the Dutch army, and my individual weapon as an infantryman was an FN FAL (fitted with a pin that prevented the selector switch from being set to "automatic" and which could only be removed in wartime); twenty rounds of 7.62x51mm NATO at my disposal. But for some reason, even during MILES exercises, I never found myself emptying the magazine "as fast as I could pull the trigger." Even in the most dire situations, I'd fire two or three rounds, reassess the situation, and fire another two or three rounds if necessary. The benefit of having a 20-round mag was that I didn't have to keep switching mags between strings of fire, possibly being caught flat-footed while changing mags.

Arguably more to the point, a consideration for private citizens is that, in the event of a nocturnal home invasion, you're not going be wearing daytime clothes, let alone load-bearing equipment, so very likely, all the ammo you're going to be able to carry is going to be in/on the gun. If all you have is one detachable magazine, it'd better hold at least as much ammo as you're going to need, and preferably a bit more for insurance.

Look at Mexico. I would wager someone was killed today by an assault type weapon.

Very likely. I'd also wager that the number of deaths inflicted with handguns, blades, and automatic weapons each outnumbered the deaths inflicted with so-called "assault weapons." Semi-auto-only rifles smuggled in from the US aren't the cause of Mexico's woes, and banning their sale won't end those woes.

You want to stop the cartels? Legalize the cultivation of marijuana in the US. Most marijuana consumed in the US is produced by Mexican cartels, and accounts for about 60% of their revenue. Legalize cocaine and import it directly from growers in Colombia, and you destroy much of the rest of the cartels' revenue, and most of FARC's.

[Katya Mullethov]

37. Oh great , Relegalize the dope

Then the California Condors will all starve to death .

[era veteran]

50. piss off

[Euromutt]

51. Oooh, devastating comeback!

Well, that certainly convinced me your opinion is worthy of respect. What do you do for an encore, hold your breath until you turn blue?

[viscrente]

56. Well put

Very good argument all around...

I have personally used a "assault rifle" (It is a .40 Cal. Beretta Storm) for self defence. About 4 years ago in New York I awoke in the middle of the night to someone picking the lock to my apartment. I stood on the other side of the door and waited for him to finish getting in. When he came in he saw me standing there and dropped to the floor and put in hands out... I didn't even have to ask. I held him for police who came and when he was searched a gun was found on him as well... I couldn't imagine what would have happened to us if I had been unarmed. Do I think that the average american should be able to have a grenade launcher.... Probably not a good idea. But just because a gun looks scary we can't ban it for that reason.

[oneshooter]

47. What do you concider to be "High Capacity" and "High Powered"? N/T

[Kaleva]

64. AWB supporters don't hang out here much.

[Tim01]

11. Yes, all democrat politicians should be pushed into California and Canada.

That's pretty much what the effect would be. A new era of republican domination all across the country.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. If pistol gripped rifles are "to be shot from the hip"... Why do they care about adjustable stocks?

I was thinking about this today. Stocks are made to fit in the shoulder. Different people need different sizes so an adjustable (collapsing) stock is ideal for everyone.However, pistol grips exist to fire and spray rounds "from the hip". (which is a bullshit statement itself). I'm seeing some contradiction, no? Ban things that allow comfortable firing from the hip... ban things that allow comfortable firing from the shoulder. :eyes:

[armueller2001]

36. Because a collapsible stock

makes it possible for anyone to conceal the large and heavy gun in their pants, unnoticed.

::End sarcasm:;

[eqfan592]

39. I can't remember if it was 60 minutes or 20/20...

...but they were doing a report on "America's Black Rifle" and going over it's features. When they got to the pistol grip, they parroted the idea that the pistol grip is there so it can be "shot from the hip." Who the fuck came up with this? Just about any rifle you can grip and fire with two hands can be shot from the hip. You don't need a pistol grip for that, and that is NOT what it's primary function is. I can shoot my M1 Garand from the hip if I wanted to, and that's not even "black" or "evil" looking, so I doubt any Brady Bunch member would think it odd that I own one.

[X_Digger]

40. It's actually _harder_ to shoot from the hip with a pistol grip..

I'd love to be able to sit down with someone who parrots this and do an experiment- take an empty soda can, and wrap your hand around it. With the can at shoulder level, which is more comfortable, holding it vertical or horizontal? Vertical. Now put your hand down by your hip. Which is more comfortable, holding it vertical or horizontal? Horizontal, of course.

So in actuality, straight stocked (horizontal) grips are better for 'shooting from the hip' and pistol grips (vertical) are better for shooting from the shoulder.

[eqfan592]

42. Wow, GREAT example!

What's funny is I know I've had similar thoughts before, but I've never honestly tried to shoot any of my guns from the hip. Like I said, I have the M1 Garand that has the straight stock, but I also own a Hi Point 995 9mm Carbine and I own a Ruger 10/22 with a Tapco collapsible stock on it (collapsible stocks are very nice for taller shooters because they can adjust the length of pull for them while still letting their much shorter friends shoot in comfort as well - though I'm sure members of the Brady Campaign still think of this as evil). The thought hasn't crossed my mind while at the range to try and shoot from the hip, but I do remember thinking when I was holding the Garand that it was much more comfortable to hold when I was holding down at the hip than either of the pistol gripped firearms.

[PavePusher]

41. In my experience, a "pistol grip"...

makes it more difficult to "shoot from the hip".

Puts your wrist in an incredibly awkward position, and make the recoil more painful.

Why do we let proven idiots abuse the First Amendment? Shouldn't there be a test, or licence, or back-ground check for that?

[viscrente]

57. agree

I believe that if an average American citizen can pass a background check then he should be able to purchase a gun without incident. This will not stop all idiots of course... But then again... What will?

[Euromutt]

52. I always thought that was a cheat in the 1994 AWB

Namely, that a pistol grip and a folding/collapsible stock were counted as two separate evil cosmetic features (and thus make a rifle an "assault weapon"), given that the latter almost always necessitates the former.

[aikoaiko]

54. The thing that goes up scares me.

:scared:

[Merchant Marine]

55. No, we won't get fooled again

[Ter]

58. No, because the Federal Government has no business banning anything

[Francis Marion]

59. No, rights infringements are unacceptable.

Thanks for clarifying the definition. Legislators hostile to private gun ownership, count on it, will continue to cynically mislead by calling semiautomatic firearms "assault weapons."

The Second Amendment is a particularly 'inconvenient truth' amidst our Bill of Rights. It says that the people are in charge, not the government. As long as the people are armed, the people remain in charge. Disarmed, we're slaves. But we do play with fire by tolerating infringements to our rights to own guns. If legislatures can ban any type of gun they want to at any time, despite your second amendment expectations, your guns are owned by privilege. Would you accept the legislature telling you that you lost your right to remain silent? Right to assemble? Right not to be searched unreasonably?

Bad precedent, the bane of US legislative history, needs to be corrected, not repeated. When post Civil War legislatures stripped newly recognized rights away from blacks, that was to our shame because doing so decreased the Liberty due the people.

We should reinstate the "assault weapons" ban just as soon as we reinstate Jim Crow, and for the same reasons: because both serve to deny the plainly codified Liberty of the people.

[PavePusher]

60. Wow. Nicely done! n/t

[spin]

61. Great post and welcome to DU. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

62. No

I think that banning a firearm because of cosmetic features is ridiculous.

[Kaleva]

63. The only way a ban would work was if it was based on function

rather then appearance. Meaning, all semi-automatics would be banned or tightly controlled as automatic weapons are.

[taurus145]

65. Why ban or tightly control semi-autos?

I can't wait to see this answer.

[Kaleva]

66. Where did I say they ought to be banned or tightly controlled?

I can't wait to see this answer.

[eqfan592]

67. Lol, I think we have a misunderstanding here, folks. :P

Now shake and make nice!

[Kaleva]

68. That's what it is. A misunderstanding.

[taurus145]

69. I'll buy that.

:grouphug: