Assault weapons law dies

This, worst of the worst laws has finally ended. Thank goodness the extremist failed this time.
Now my hunting rife, shot gun and 9mm-hand guns are not assault weapons any more!
Jax

I'm actually upset that this law lapsed. I don't know what you use for hunting/protection, but none of my dad's fell under this ban. I'm not sure what's covered/not by the ban, but I know some people were saying 'aw, who cares? People who want the weapons will get them anyway." But my point is that I want to make it that much harder for them. Yes, there is a waiting period for gun purchases. But how many of those people like in Waco or those camps in Montana couldn't pass the waiting period? What about terrorists as they are told to blend in, don't commit any crimes and to be patient?

I don't see why, with the plethora of alternatives around, you can't find a 'legal' gun to use and need to use one that was on the ban.

What law are you talking about?

Don’t forget this affected only semiautomatic. Fully automatics have been ban for many years.
I know the Name Assault weapons sounds like something we should be against, and that was exactly the intent of the name. Just as you have said, “I'm not sure what's covered/not by the ban”, most of the supporters did not know either.
If you will actually read the law, you will see how utterly ridiculous it was.
Actually my hunting rifle is just a Marlin 22, lever action. But the magazine holds more than the allowed rounds. The same for my shotgun.
And the same for my Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun that hold 16 shots instead of the allowed 10.
Now,, my guns were not considered assault weapons by the federal ban, but only because they were manufactured before the ban. But it just goes to show you how stupid the law was.
It mainly dealt with cosmetics, not the actually working of the gun. Like pistol grip, flash suppressor, military style etc. The guns identical working copy never cease to be sold, with the cosmetic changes.
And as the 10 years has shown us, the law had no effect on the criminal, or criminal activities.
Fact is the law only affected law abiding citizens.
Jax

Again, what law is it that you're talking about? We're not all Americans here...

Leau: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6000129/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993456/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5992789/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5995044/

Those should help.

As for the law, got a little more information on it and to me it sounds like they just needed to fix the problems rather than expire the thing. For instance, instead of naming the banned weapons, ban things with a certain calibre and speed.

This site gives some insight to the mentality this issue deals with http://www.hk94.com/test.php
Now hunters can get Bambi with an Uzi. Minced venison in a minute, what a time saver.

As a non -american,I have never understood how the second amendment which gives the right of people to form a militia and bear guns, can be translated into giving a gun to every Tom ,Dick or Harry.I would be grateful for an explanation.

My knowledge of American history is not great, but haven't those two wars been over for quite some time? The 'right to bear arms' has gone the way of the right to wash your clothes on a rock!

What a ridiculous argument- surely the powers that be in the States can see that more privately-owned guns are use to kill Americans than 'invaders'. I think that the NRA has a ludicrous amount of influence, and as soon as that can be eradicated, the world may resume some sort of normality.

I do not profess to be an expert in munitions, either, but to me, a gun is a gun, regardless of the colour of its stock, or the number of bullets it can fire in any given time. The victim of an AK-47 is just as dead as the victim of a licenced (and legal!) handgun.

Why does ANY private household need a gun? To most of the world, it is sheer lunacy...

I realise that I am probably going to get attacked for my naive arguments, but I would also point out that the murder rate over there one of the highest in the world- something to be proud of? or just part of being the 'world's policeman'?

Let the stoush begin!

Yes, the wars have been over for some time. But it's written into the Constitution. Amsericans are very reluctant to change that document, especially the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments, of which this is one of them). In all of US history, only *1* amendment has been undone (prohibition). And that was probably because it shouldn't have been an amendment anyway...

Individuals own guns for a variety of reasons. My dad has some rifles for hunting and because he likes to do (handgun) target practice. He also says they're for protection, although the handguns and all bullets are in the safe so you'd have to tell the thief/whatever "Hold on a sec., gotta go get something..." And no, the guns are not loaded and I believe most of the handguns even have the child safety locks on them.

Law enforcement people take their guns home with them.

Personally, I think there should be strict laws *and* even stricter penalties for how guns and ammunition should be kept. I'm fine with Tom, Dick or Harry owning a gun - as long as they haven't committed a crime, don't carry it out *loaded* on their person (unless their occupation demands it), they've passed a strict background check (stricter than the current one and waiting period) and they keep the guns and ammo locked up and not loaded (as long as occupation doesn't demand it).

But if that gun ends up getting used improperly or is put in the hands of someone who does not have a permit, throw the book at them.

I think the reason the murder rate is so high is because of the illegal guns. One way of thinking is that if the criminals are getting them, the general public should be able to have them to protect themselves from the criminals. A criminal with an illegal gun would feel more invincible because he knows the average law-abiding citizen isn't allowed to have one.

Beth, I am usually in agreement with most of what you say, but in this instance I cannot agree at all.

The Bill of Rights was written in 1791- is it really relevant today? I have a manual for Excel that was written in 1985, which is positively prehistoric, and totally irrelevant; are you just quoting a historic precedence? Just imagine if the Bible was taken literally! "An eye for an eye" or "Thou shall not kill"...

I was born and bred on a farm, and was brought up with guns- they were only used to hunt vermin (rabbits and foxes), but with the recall of weapons by the Federal government, we were forced to give up a rifle and a shotgun. I do not feel any less safe because of this action, and my Dad was happy to comply with all the orders. ( My brother was not quite as happy, but he complied, hehe).

Quote:

---

I'm fine with Tom, Dick or Harry owning a gun - as long as they haven't committed a crime, don't carry it out *loaded* on their person (unless their occupation demands it), they've passed a strict background check (stricter than the current one and waiting period) and they keep the guns and ammo locked up and not loaded (as long as occupation doesn't demand it).

---

A quote that is rife with holes! "As long as they have not committed a crime". I would love to see some stats on accidental shootings. Not all gun deaths are criminal- I would guess that there are MANY accidental deaths, which, without a firearm in the equation, would not have happened.

"Strict background check"- How many gun crimes are performed by 'first-timers', and NOT 'career' crims? And what do they 'background check' for? I would hazard a guess that many gunshot victims are know to, or related to, their attackers. Perhaps we should incorporate "I promise not to shoot my spouse" into wedding vows?

I have no problems with the appropriate people being armed; military, police, etc, but I feel there is little need for Joe Citizen to be 'packing heat', constitutionally or otherwise.

I'm pretty weary of this whole debate, but, if you look up stats for the suicides, spousal killings, school violence, accidental deaths with guns etc...lots of those 'private guns for protection that's a God given, ooops, constitutional right to bear arms' are used instead on the loved ones of the households keeping them. These are all God-fearing upstanding citizens who equate gun ownership as freedom, an inalienable right to protect oneself and therefore, will cling like grim death to this right.

The accessibility to guns in the States is a joke too. We need more controls so that people who really want a gun for sport will pay for that privilege. Good thing I'm not running for office because I would not touch that with a ten foot pole right now. But if only people with licenses to possess a gun were allowed to have one, then it would be very easy to prosecute anyone who had an illegal weapon.


Most countries in Europe have stricter regulations on keeping guns and the reason for having one is professional or sport. You cannot transport one without precautions, nor keep it in your house without locks on the case etc. We have stricter container laws in the States than for guns in a car for example. I worry about road rage as well as neighbor quarrel rage. I do NOT feel safer knowing that every other house in my neighborhood is armed to the teeth.

But, you'll never change this mentality, it's ingrained here.

You aren't allowed to smoke anywhere in California now, except perhaps at a certain distance from a public building etc..but try and legislate gun ownership, and bingo, you're dead politically.

The other day one of my family members was riding a bike home as a favor in the evening and felt the zing of a bb in his foot...from a passing carful of punks. What a way to celebrate the assault bill event. Today a BB gun's considered acceptable boys will be boys, tomorrow what else? Those same punk kids will be the ones armed to the teeth tomorrow.

I'm with you Ozzz.
How many unarmed burglers chance upon "legal" weapons?
One child "accidently" killing another while checking out dad's registered gun, is one too many. Unfortunately, statistics show there have been way more than one.

I don't think BB guns should be in the hands of anyone under the age of 18. Give them one of the rubberband guns if they really feel the need to knock down cans. (I loved mine - only thing was the rubberbands made my hands smell.

I think a large part of the problem is that the US has been unable to stop illegal guns from being bought and used. When you stop that problem, then the average Joe next door will most likely not feel the need to be armed to the teeth.

Problem with that can of worms is that US state regulations vary widely and each State has autonomy. Nothing would prevent someone from going over the state border and buying a gun over the border where regulations were different, or else at a swap meet. Any regulations on a federal level would be tantamount to a second American revolution. Any politician foolhardy enough to touch that is going to be dead meat.

If from what Jax says this whole assault weapon thing is symbolic and the difference isn't one, then, it's basically a political thing which no candidate dares to touch...especially Bush who can't afford to offend the NRA just now.

It's a problem inherent to the country. I admire Australia, with a much bigger frontier and as Ozzz suggests, probably more people out in the outback who might possibly need to destroy vermin or have legitimate reasons for a gun out there, yet their regulations changed and they are the better for it.
With the pioneer spirit on the Aussie frontier, you'd have thought it wouldn't succeed yet it did.

The Canada example is also common, yet gun control opponents will try time and time again to shoot it down..sorry no pun intended.
The same types of violent gun crimes aren't happening there because it's controled.

I also heard an opponent of gun control cite the Swiss paradox so to speak, because Switzerland has a military service with all males of age in which they must bear arms and participate in exercises to be prepared in case of attach on their country. (have to protect all that Toblerone after all). So they were trying to say that all Swiss males had enormous semi automatic weapons in their homes and the country was none the worse for it, in fact better in their opinion.
Well, it just ain't necessarily so...the Swiss have extremely stringent requirements for handling and storage and learn how to keep the gun properly. You are not required to have the gun once your military obligation is over with. Equating the Swiss situation with the American one is really not fair. If an American guy spent a week in Switzerland, he'd soon find out how tough they are for every detail imaginable.
So it's not a valid comparison. If you want to compare, if you dare of course, compare Canada, it's close. I doubt you'll come up with anything.

As recently as the Viet Nam War we were permitted to bring back automatic weapons as war souveniers. I had a Chinese made rifle ready to ship, but forgot to have it packed when I came back. I didn't take it from any enemy soldier, but traded it for something else which I have long forgotten.

My wife has a handgun that hasn't been fired in at least 50 years; her father found it in a garage in their new home way back when. I don't think it would be safe to fire it now because the cylinder is so loose. And, we don't have any ammunition anyway.

In Wyoming, it's legal to carry shotguns and rifles in a gun rack in the back of pickup trucks. It's illegal to have them loaded while being transported, but they are a common sight.

I have an 82 year-old friend who packs 'heat'; legally, because he has a concealed-carry permit. All you have to be is an upstanding citizen with an expressed reason to carry a concealed handgun and, poof!, you have your license.

I live about a half-mile from an open-air shooting range where the local police and any citizen with a firearm can practice. During hunting season (now) the sound of gunfire can be heard late in the day (after work) and on weekends.

My personal philosophy about possession of firearms is that it is ok to arm the citizenry to the teeth PROVIDED that we enforce the laws already on the books: commit a crime with a firearm and go to jail for a very long time, no exceptions.

Cwm,, The constitution is an instrument that can be changed when necessary, and has been so changed many times when it was needed. But the plain facts are guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does not increase crime. Never has. It does, however make victims of those who would have protected themselves if they had been allowed.
Ladymac,, as you have said, a locked or unloaded gun has little value for protection.


Ozzz,, all of your country mates are not as happy about the gun ban as you are.
Facts have always shown that gun control has never reduced crime. And that is the case in the UK and Australia. In fact quite the opposite.
Steadies in the US have shown the same thing.

Bruyere,, you just could not resist, not could you?
I know there is a wide space between the for and the againsts, but the gun toters are not all bunch of nuts. We are actually kind of cute on a good day.


I was going to tell you all how hard I worked to see the that the Assault weapons law finally ended, but I am probably not going to get a pat on the back here. LOL

Anyway thanks for all your responses. I got to go clean my gun. I will be going to Tulsa tomorrow and I am sure you have all read about the crime there.
Jax

It might surprise some to know I'm pretty much on the fence about this one. I haven't yet seen a gun control law I can support. I think they have all been lame attempts to pacify the pacifists without pissing off the guys with guns. Eh, I don't really care about them.

Frankly, I don't like guns, and won't have one in my home. There's no place for a gun in a house with a child, and no one will convince me otherwise. Even the slightest risk is too high. But I also have zero desire to inflict my views on others. I haven't got any problems with hunting, and am fond of fresh venison, but I wouldn't be able to do the killing myself, and prefer shooting a bow and arrow over a gun.

I can't find fault with anyone who owns weapons for sport, though I have issues with owning weapons for protection except under certain circumstances. It boils down to the firm belief that A) my property isn't worth taking someone's life over and B) if my LIFE (or that of my family or friends, or even a stranger and I'm witness to it,) is in danger, there are ways to protect one's self without resorting to returning fire. Martial arts are a good example. I personally know two people who have been faced with guns and disarmed their would-be attackers before a shot was ever fired.

In any case, I do favor gun control of some kind. I like the idea of having households with firearms required to lock them up unloaded. But I suppose if they needed to shoot the guy stealing their TV, that'd be tough to do. So I'm willing to compromise with households with children under the age of majority being required to lock them up, with the ammo locked in a separate location.

And as for gun control not lowering crime rates: I agree, totally. I don't care about crime rates. I'm not interested in lowering crime rates, in general. I'm interested in limiting accidental injuries or death. I favor laws which only allow the use of firearms with deadly force to protection from bodily harm, and not of property. (Seriously, I don't care how much you like your stuff, it is NEVER acceptable to kill someone for it. Ever. Not going to convince me it is.) I'm interested in the possibility of avoiding children intentionally killing other children with guns made available to them by their adult family members. (I know that's part of the crime rate, and that some of these children would get guns other ways, but I think it is a safe guess that fewer of such crimes would be committed if the families took proper precautions in keeping the guns away from juveniles.)

And in the end, I've known to many people who it scares the bejesus out of me to know they COULD have a gun if the wanted. In fact, I think they should just let ME choose who gets guns and who doesn't. Certain adorable men in Oklahoma would, of course, be allowed, as long as they provided me with deer jerky on a regular basis.

All this talk of hunting reminds me of something I once watched on TV. I was flipping channels and stopped as the screen showed a man and boy (about 10 or 11) in camouflage gear and holding rifles/shotguns(?). They were stalking a wild turkey. The father was whispering tips to the boy about taking aim, etc. The boy shot, the bird flopped around and around. The excited man kept saying "Get 'em again!" Another shot and the bird was still. They went to the turkey and the Father held it up, praising the boy. The poor kid looked like he was about to vomit, or, cry. After a few minutes of continued praise, the boy started to look a little happier.

My humble opinion... they should have gone fishing, at least that would have been a battle of wits.

I think that most women, being the nurturers and most men, being the hunters, have naturally different views of the purpose and value of firearms. Men are more comfortable around them. Men understand them because they take a gun apart, clean and oil it, handle the ammunition, etc.; but, they are also very well aware of the danger that a firearm presents if it's misused.
I was a juror on a federal drug case about 3 years ago and one of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecutor was a large chrome plated hand gun. The prosecutor handed the first juror, a woman, the gun for examination. She simply handed it to the next juror without looking at it. The next juror was a man who looked at it carefully, peeking down the barrel and checking the cylinder, being attentive and interested in the gun evidence. And so it went through all 12 jurors.
One woman refused to touch it, but several men spent time testing the heft and feel and I had the impression that a few men would consider buying one.
My point is that men, being the natural protector of the family, would not consider a firearm to be a repulsive, evil concoction of the devil but a tool.
Most women are repulsed by guns because they see them as a threat, simply by being, to their children.
When my daughter was born I got rid of the small bore rifle that I had spent a lot of time on oiling the barrel and polishing the wooden stock. My wife was rightfully worried about having a gun in the house, no matter if it was unloaded with the gun in one location and the bolt in another.
I've never regretted the loss and never owned another gun although I would like to have one for plinking at tin cans or target shooting.
It's ironic that I spent 20 years in military service, qualifying as expert with an M-16 rifle and never handled another firearm in civilian life.

I think, fjohn, you may be right, to some extent, about the differences between males and females with regards to guns. As a general rule, of course.

I myself really do prefer bow and arrow. I'm quite skilled with a regular ol' reflex bow, and really enjoy target practice with one. (Unfortunately, I don't own a bow of my own...) My husband owns a knife and sword collection, and he's not into decorative pieces. All the knives he has, from his $150 chef knife to his Gill Hibben daggers, are ones which were crafted as tools, as weapons, not as shelf-sitters. (At the moment, his collection is kept on high shelves, well out of reach of my daughter. We'll have to see what happens when she's old enough, tall enough and aware enough to do damage with them. They may leave the house.) I'm not repulsed by either his knives, a bow and arrows, OR any kind of gun, a number of which I've handled and fired. I'm also not afraid of guns, they don't make me nervous, particularly. I simply do not like them.

I do not like them because they ARE very dangerous, and an instant gratification type of weapon. A shot can be fired and be fatal without hardly a second thought. While other weapons are AS potentially fatal as firearms, they aren't as fast-acting; they require some determination to be fatal. It's too bad people out there want to kill each other. It's worse if they didn't really mean it. And I really would rather go back to the days when street thugs fought with switch blades, a la Michael Jackson's "Beat it" rather then stay here, in the time of drive-by shootings, where random passers by, children in the same house, etc., get gunned down for revenge.

My point is, it may seem easy to pass it off as a point of difference between hunters and protectors, but that isn't, obviously, always the case. (I don't really think you implied that it was, I'm just pointing it out.) I think my dislike of firearms is a little more rational than just a dislike of something which kills, something which poses a threat to my children.

I agree with you, Lothruin. Especially about the 'instant gratification' aspect of firearms. We have a lifetime to regret a moments irrational act. It takes a rational decision to pull a trigger responsibly, but so many gunshot injuries and deaths result from decisions made upon wakening from a deep sleep, seeing a 'burglar' in the doorway and shooting one's own child. It's tragic beyond belief.

If everyone owning a handgun were required to have a psychological evaluation and six weeks of intensive training I would sleep better at night. Dummies should not own guns. Police officers are trained, why not citizens?

With that, I'll get off my soap box.

Quote:

---

Problem with that can of worms is that US state regulations vary widely and each State has autonomy.

---

I disagree. That is the beauty of our republic!!