Quick quiz for people who SUPPORT the assault weapons ban

[slackmaster]

Just to check your knowledge of the subject. These all pretain to the FEDERAL assault weapons ban which took effect in September 1994.

These are all True or False questions. You get one point for every correct answer, no credit for wrong answers or abstentions.

1. After the federal AW ban expires in September 2004, anyone without a criminal record will be able legally to go to a gun show and walk out with a selective-fire M16 rifle the same day.

2. The AW ban stopped sale and production of all semiautomatic variants of the AK-47 military rifle.

3. Importation to the US of open-bolt, fully automatic Uzi submachineguns from Israel was stopped by the AW ban.

4. The AW ban immediately stopped domestic production and sale to civilians of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

5. The Bushmaster XM-15 rifle allegedly used by the "DC Snipers" in October 1992 is considered a "semiautomatic assault weapon" under the ban and is therefore illegal to manufacture or sell except for law enforcement purposes.

6. The type of ammunition allegedly used by the "DC Snipers" is used only in assault weapons and military rifles.

7. Under the AW ban it is illegal to use a high-capacity ammunition magazine made before September 1994 in any firearm made after September 1994.

8. In its annual tally of crime data called the Uniform Crime Reports, the FBI reports the number of law enforcement officers killed with assault weapons as distinct from other types of firearms.

9. The type of ammunition used in the AK-47 rifle and its semiautomatic variants is more powerful than the 30-'06 round which was used by US armed forces in World War II.

10. Semiautomatic versions of the 1919-A4 machine gun are assault weapons under federal law because they are fed ammunition in large-capacity belts.

Have at it folks, if you think you have what it takes.

[MrBenchley]

1. Quick answer.

I support the ban and feel it should be strengthened. As do most voters.

[slackmaster]

2. Zero points for MrBenchley

Thanks for trying.

[LastDemInIdaho]

29. I was listening to 'Blind Faith' when I read your reply

I love my country but I fear its government. The 2nd amendment is too important to leave it up to the voters to dismantle it.

[Procopius]

35. YES!!

[MrBenchley]

42. Of all the hooey ladeled out by the RKBA crowd

this "there areally ARE no assault weapons" crap is perhaps the lamest.

[Don_G]

3. Although I'm Pro Gun

I support the ban because I see absolutely no reason to have an assault weapon for any legitimate purpose. I like to hunt and I always try to make a clean kill with the first shot; I certainly don't want a bunch of idiot freepers roaming in my area with fully automatic weapons.

[wtmusic]

5. Here here

:toast:

Let's face it: the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear ANY arms. It's just where we draw the line.

I like most US citizens draw that line short of automatic weapons.

[slackmaster]

12. Zero points and thank you for proving my point

I like most US citizens draw that line short of automatic weapons.

The subject is assault weapons. If you think that includes automatic weapons you have been taken in by misinformation and disinformation.

[1a2b3c]

32. Im sure you already got jumped

but i will again add that machine guns are covered under the 1934 machine gun act.

[Procopius]

36. Autos were banned in 1986

We done good that year even with Ronnie Raygun

[slackmaster]

38. Your statement is half right, maybe 3/4

Production and importation of NEW machineguns and machinegun receivers for the civilian market was stopped in 1986.

It's still possible for a citizen who is not in law enforcement to import and build them, but there are some licensing requirements that cost money to maintain.

Pre-86 machineguns that were transferrable to civilians are still transferrable.

[slackmaster]

11. Zero points and a penalty for perpetuating a myth

I certainly don't want a bunch of idiot freepers roaming in my area with fully automatic weapons.

The topic is semiautomatic assault weapons as defined under federal law. If you really don't understand the difference I hope you study up on the subject.

[Don_G]

20. A Grammer Cop

[slackmaster]

25. I don't understand what you're trying to say

Are you saying the AW ban deals with automatic weapons, or did you mean to say something like "...idiot freepers roaming in my area with semiautomatic weapons?

No netcopping intended.

[Spoonman]

14. You claim to be a hunter,

so with that goes the prerequisite of understanding firearms and game laws.

With this in mind, I would not like to share the woods with anyone who "hunts" that thinks everyday people can obtain "fully automatic weapons".

Fully automatic weapons are not legal to own without an Federal firearms license. It is also illegal in every state of the union to hunt with "fully automatic weapons".

A Colt AR 15 is an extremely accurate rifle, and is no different other than appearance from the Remington Model 7400 or Browning BAR Mark II. Both of which are classic "deer rifles" that come chambered to shoot the same exact bullets.

[1a2b3c]

31. I see a gross lack of knowledge from the pro gun side

Fully automatic rifles are covered under the 1934 Machine Gun Act. Semi automatic rifles are covered under the 1994 AWB.

[Wcross]

45. You won't

"I certainly don't want a bunch of idiot freepers roaming in my area with fully automatic weapons."

The so called "assualt" weapons in question are not full auto- but you knew that and added it for the drama, didn't you?

God, I hate a drama queen!

[meegbear]

4. They're all false

[slackmaster]

17. I'll score yours in a few hours

Do you really favor the ban? If so please share your reasoning.

[slackmaster]

41. 10 out of 10. Excellent work.

n/t

[Langis]

6. I should have read that first,

[Gman]

7. Assault rifles are for killing people.

As such, there is no civilian need for owning one. No one seriously hunts with an assault rifle. No one. If someone says they they hunt with an assault rifle all the time, they're more in love with the thought of hunting with an assault rifle than they are in the act of hunting. -- and I'm a hunter so you can't bullshit me.

[slackmaster]

10. You are completely off the topic here

Zero points for abstaining on all 10 questions, and we are talking about assault weapons as defined by federal law, not assault rifles.

My point is that although it may be true as MrBenchley and others have claimed that a majority of voters favor the ban, a majority of that majority do so in ignorance. Very few people outside the circle of gun rights activists, gun collectors, dealers, gunsmiths, target shooters, etc. have much of an idea what the assault weapon ban covers and what it does not cover. (on edit: Some of the biggest misunderstandings I've heard came from the mouths of gun dealers and law enforcement officers.)

Simple ignorance is excusable. Willful ignorance is a sin.

[Spoonman]

15. We wouldn't dream of it

Bullshitting you that is, but don't bullshit us either!

A Colt AR 15 is an extremely accurate rifle, and is no different other than appearance from the Remington Model 7400 or Browning BAR Mark II. Both of which are classic "deer rifles" that come chambered to shoot the same exact bullets (.223 and .308).

[KS_44]

28. I call bullshit

I seriously hunt with an assault rifle. You deer hunters who think the second only applies to sporting purposes need to pull your heads out of the sand.

I have taken my first deer with an AR-15. The AR15 is the most accurate semi-automatic rifle in the world. No other semi-automatic rifle can be tweaked to the level of preformance that the AR15 can touch. 1MOA at 100 yards. Mine can score QUARTER sized groups at 100 yards with winchester value pack ammunition... My buck went DOWN with some 72 grain fragmenting sierra match king to the neck.

My assault rifle is the best all around rifle for ANYTHING.
Thats why it purchased it.

I can hunt with it. TX
I can defend my home.
I can take it camping as it is light.
I can buy new upper halves for it to suit my needs.
I can plink with it really cheaply.
I can target practice with it as it is very accurate.

Assault rifles are durable, ergonomic, reliable weapons that have been tested by fire. They are the pinnicle of the sport utility firearm. Why the hell wouldnt you want one?

[1a2b3c]

33. There might come a time when civilians need to kill people

[sinkingfeeling]

8. The answer to all of them is 'False', so why should......

anyone object to extending the ban? Assault weapons have only one purpose...to kill human beings. Well, maybe there's a second one...to make the manufacturer's big bucks!

[slackmaster]

9. Thanks for a thoughtful answer, but I disagree and here's why

anyone object to extending the ban?

Likewise why would anyone object to allowing the ban to expire? It hasn't really changed what kinds of weapons are available to citizens. It hasn't had any measurable impact on crime rates. It's all about features and not function, so what's the point of restricting peoples' choices without an offsetting benefit in public safety?

Assault weapons have only one purpose...to kill human beings.

The federal government does not agree and neither do I. AR-15 type rifles (under the broader popular definition rather than the legal one) are the most popular arms used in highpower rifle competition.

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Programs/AR15.htm

They are also useful (and quite popular) for hunting some smaller types of varmints or game like coyotes, pigs, etc.

...to make the manufacturer's big bucks!

Re-designing their firearms to comply with the ban has neither helped nor hurt the manufacturers. Expiration of the ban won't make jack shit difference to them. The interest in semiautomatic, magazine-fed civilian versions of military weapons and similar firearms stimulated by the assault weapons ban has probably helped their sales a lot.

[KS_44]

30. I I think they care

Expiration of the ban won't make jack shit difference to them.

I think it does. Can you imagine the sheer amount of people buying $100 dollar folding stocks and threaded uppers immdiatly following the ban? The demand will be HUGE...

The death of the ban means more $$ to them.

[slackmaster]

39. The prices on those items will become competitive and should drop

Right now I see people at gun shows and stores charging absurdly high prices for pre-ban uppers and folding stocks, counting on people being ignorant of the fact that you can buy brand-new ones by mail order right now and wait for the ban to expire before installing them.

[jody]

13. slackmaster, I hope you're using a barbless hook

so you can release your catch with minimum injury. :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

16. Arrrgh, ye scurvy dog, I only take what I can grab with me bare hands

So far the answers have done a pretty good job of supporting my thesis - That most people who support the ban don't understand it very well

[Terran]

18. I'm ignorant

So someone please tell me (and be able to prove it), were any of the weapons currently affected by the Ban used in any unusual murders in the US, such as any of the school massacres that happened in recent years? Were they often used to commit major crimes, or was the Ban a knee-jerk action based on semantics ("assault weapon" being a scary phrase, after all...)?

I guess what I'm asking is, did the Ban ban any of the right weapons, the ones with no other demonstrated habitual purpose (no sporting uses) other than killing?

For me, a lot hinges on the answer. I'm sure several of you have statistics to toss my way.

Dirk

[jody]

19. Excellent question, looks like your turn in the barrel made you aware

of the divisive RKBA issue. From memory, I don't believe any of the notable massacres involved a banned "assault weapon", but I look forward to reading replies.

[Terran]

21. Hi Jody

Yeah, I'm afraid I've been sucked in. Sort of like reverse Helsinki Syndrome (or something like that).

Dirk

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1a2b3c]

34. I think Columbine had a weapon

That was covered under Bush SR.'s gun ban.

And the beltway serial killer (some call him a sniper) used a gun that was legal after the ban.

[RoeBear]

22. Let's say that weapon X...

...was used in the infamous murder of the Smith family. If weapon X had been banned previous to the murder would the murder not have happened? I say the murder would have happened anyway, but with weapon Y or maybe weapon Z. Now maybe Benchley would like to get rid of every weapon capable of shooting a projectile but any Democrat who wants to win elections knows that is a losing recipe.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

26. Very good questions

...Were they often used to commit major crimes, or was the Ban a knee-jerk action...

Both are true. The stated legislative intent of one of California's AW acts cites a specific massacre committed with a semiautomatic rifle. We have had several but they don't account for much of the much larger number of people murdered in onesy-twosey crimes.

Manufacturers were able to pretty easily produce updated models that have exactly the same "firepower" however you want to define it. In that sense I'd say they didn't ban the weapons they really intended to ban. The laws were written by people who don't know much about firearms.

I guess what I'm asking is, did the Ban ban any of the right weapons, the ones with no other demonstrated habitual purpose (no sporting uses) other than killing?

When I think of weapons with no "sporting" uses the first thing that comes to my mind is explosive devices like the Claymore mine or a hand grenade. Any kind of firearm can be used for hunting, varmint control, casual target shooting, etc. Of course you could choose to define recreational "plinking" as not a sporting activity. I think it is.

I'm sure some people would say that "hand-grenade toss" or "Claymore-induced abstract-expressionist sculpture" would be legitimate sporting purposes. Personally that's past where I draw the line. OTOH as long as they aren't attacking me or disrupting the tranquility of my neighborhood I don't give a hoot if someone wants to blow things up for fun.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is that when people think about the "assault weapon ban" a lot of them don't have an accurate understanding of what the ban is about and what it is NOT about. Maybe more people would support the ban if they understood it, but I believe fewer would.

[jody]

27. The link below doesn't directly answer your question, but it does

provide data on "military style semiautomatic guns" as used by inmates.

Firearm Use by Offenders

[jody]

43. Thanks for posing the question and making me search for an answer below.

Where`d They Get Their Guns?

My quick scan suggests that the AWB might have included "Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado, April 20, 1999" with its “Intratec TEC-DC9 assault pistol”

[Procopius]

37. Slackmaster I'll bite!

1) YES! Too many National Guard M-16 parts are stolen and sold at gun shows. Stick them in an AR-15. WALA! M-16 baby!

2). Nope. They are still legal in a few countries like South Africa.

3). That was the 1968 Gun Control Act

4.) DETACHABLE YES. Tube fed rimfire (.22 or .17) NO.

5.) It's sadly legal. With BATFE approved tele stock too.

6.) Yep. They used military ball ammo.

7.) Nope. MAJOR LOOPHOLE!

8.) NOPE.

9.) It depends on if it's armor piercing or not.

10.) MAJOR LOOPHOLE!

[slackmaster]

40. Thanks! Let's discuss your answers...

1) YES! Too many National Guard M-16 parts are stolen and sold at gun shows. Stick them in an AR-15. WALA! M-16 baby!

Two issues: Making a working selective-fire rifle usually requires removal of metal from the lower receiver. Dropping in parts alone is not enough, and making the conversion without doing the BATF paperwork is illegal. (Special Occupational Taxpayer license and a Form 1 I believe.) But expiration of the ban won't make it any easier to do that than it is now. You can buy all of the conversion parts by mail order. The full set was included in an M16A2 parts kit I bought a couple of years ago. I got rid of them.

The correct answer is FALSE. No credit.

2). Nope. They are still legal in a few countries like South Africa.

I don't know about SA but there are still AK variants imported to the US and ones made here from a mix of domestic and imported parts. You get full credit for your answer.

3). That was the 1968 Gun Control Act

Actually I believe it was the 1986 Volkmer-McClure Act. Full credit for your answer.

4.) DETACHABLE YES. Tube fed rimfire (.22 or .17) NO.

Good answer, full credit.

I also would note that manufacturers who had completed parts in their manufacturing stream not yet assembled into magazines were allowed to do so.

5.) It's sadly legal. With BATFE approved tele stock too.

I disagree with your editorial "sadly" but you got the right answer. You are showing that you actually know something about the issue.

6.) Yep. They used military ball ammo.

Target shooters and hunters use military ball ammo in bolt-action rifles, so I can't give you credit for this answer.

7.) Nope. MAJOR LOOPHOLE!

Correct.

8.) NOPE.

Also correct. Very good.

9.) It depends on if it's armor piercing or not.

The simplest definition of "power" is muzzle energy which is determined mostly by the amount of powder and the weight of the bullet. No credit.

10.) MAJOR LOOPHOLE!

Correct answer, but since the intent of the AW ban was to limit availability of weapons that would be of interest for criminal use I wonder why you consider it a loophole.

I give you 7 out of 10. A very commendable showing, and your discussions even on incorrect answers demonstrates that you have a much better than average understanding of the issues.

:toast:

[Procopius]

44. Too many anti-gunners are ignorant on the issues

Not me. I won't let the NRA get away with crap nor loopholes in laws.

[slackmaster]

46. I'm glad you are as informed as you are

However I think your application of the word "loophole" is overly broad. I consider a loophole to be something that was INTENDED to be covered (i.e. legislative intent) by a new law but was not because of a clerical or technical error on the part of its authors.

I do not believe that Congress as a whole intended to stop the manufacture and sale of all centerfire rifles that are fed by detachable box magazines. In fact they explicitly exempted several (e.g. Ruger Mini-14) when the original AW law was written. That would have pissed off too many people who use centerfire rifles fed by external box magazines who actually do use them for hunting and target shooting.

I think the real intent of the AW ban in the minds of most of the Senators and Representatives who voted it in was to appease people who are afraid of guns; to avoid appearing "soft on crime" at a time when the issue had some pull. For those in Congress who favor ever "progressive" gun control with no end point in mind, outlawing some rifles but not others serves as part of a divide-and-conquer strategy. But it has backfired. The ban will die.

[1a2b3c]

48. Just wanna say i was quite surprised

that you knew as much as you did. You wont find too many gun controlers with real knowledge of what they do or dont support.

[KS_44]

47. Not quite a 100

"1) YES! Too many National Guard M-16 parts are stolen and sold at gun shows. Stick them in an AR-15. WALA! M-16 baby!"

Ignorance is bliss!

Truth of the matter is AR15 bolts can be sold in the exact same "army" config to civilians. You also dont just stick those parts in an AR15 and turn it into an m16. You have to have knowledge of the m16 system to make this conversion work, as any hick who does this might do so incorectly and lock up is bolt, destroy the receiver, or get frustrated with malfunctions.

Lets go through this step by step.

Lets say you had the M16 trigger group. To install this you would need to know the location of the autosear pin. You must then drill this out yourself, and if it was drilled incorectly your little project would not work.

The bolt carrier is interchangable between the AR15 and M16. Their is no legal difference in bolts of an AR15 and M16. Civilians can buy m16 bolts and use them in their ar15. Several manufacturers sell these m16 style bolts, and are quite legal to use. The bolt should exit out of the "parts you buy at a gunshow" equation.

Without the proper knowledge as to what style of bolt you have, you could cause your gun to self destruct after the fith or so round. Immediate malfunction would occur without a sleeved bolt carrier.

Well, bottom line is they dont just drop in.
I have never seen m16 parts for sale at gunshows. Ever.

"9.) It depends on if it's armor piercing or not."

Armor pericing... No. Regardless if its armor peircing or not, a 30-06 will have more foot pounds of energy. In fact, 2x more.