Debate the "merits" of the Assault Weapons Ban.

[OpSomBlood]

From the excellent www.awbansunset.com:

Rifles

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

- Folding or telescopic stock
- Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
- Grenade launcher

Among this list of "evil features", only one item initially stands out to the layperson as possibly making the firearm significantly more dangerous, and that is the grenade launcher. However, since grenades and the components to make them are already extremely tightly regulated as "destructive devices", grenade launchers are irrelevant. It would be a fair assumption to say that perhaps "grenade launcher" was added to the list simply to provide a certain degree of shock factor.

Other items on the list at least have some practical purpose.

The most amusing of these by far is the bayonet mount, which is the subject of an infinite number of wise-cracks (such as, "the ban has significantly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings"). All joking aside, while a bayonet could be useful in either millitary combat, or a home defense situation, if anyone has EVER heard of ANY harm being committed by a criminal armed with a bayonet on an "assault weapon", please tell us about it.

A folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision.

The pistol grip, being perhaps the most "military-like" feature in appearance, in most cases is a necessity of the firearm's design due to the stock being directly in-line with the bore, as opposed to being lower than the bore as is the case with "traditional" rifles. Because the positioning of the stock in the manner does not provide for a place that the shooter can hold on to with the trigger hand, a pistol grip is used.

None of these things have any significant impact on how deadly a particular firearm is, and each is a legitimately purposeful feature.

Pistols

For a pistol to be considered a “SAW,” among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:

- Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
- Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer*
- Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
- Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
- Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm

*Note: "the ability to accept" a silencer does not mean these firearms are so equipped. Silencers have been as heavily regulated as machine guns since the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Features such as the barrel shroud and "semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm" were obviously written to target copies of the TEC-9 and MAC-10 and similar type pistols. Again it seems obvious that the authors of the law were targeting the “aggressive appearance” of firearms, instead of functionality or lethality.

"High Capacity" Magazines

Another major effect of the law is the ban on manufacture of "high capacity ammunition feeding devices," otherwise known as normal or full capacity magazines. "High capacity" is arbitrarily defined as more than 10 rounds. Citizens must either pay exorbitant prices for "pre-ban" normal capacity magazines for their firearms, or use inferior artificially limited magazines. Neither choice is appealing.

[brokensymmetry]

1. The Assault Weapon ban is silliness.

It is based on the desire to "do something" even though that something has no particular chance of making any difference.

Thought experiment: Crack cocaine is illegal. But my newspaper tells me that crack cocaine can be obtained, relatively easily and relatively inexpensively.

So...if Assault Weapons are banned, and removed from the hands of law abiding citizens, will the criminal who aspires to murder and mayhem be prevented from obtaining one any more than the dealer in crack cocaine is prevented from pursuing his trade?

I think it will only lessen the freedoms of ordinary people, leaving the criminals untouched.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

3. Is that directed at me?

I own an M4 carbine, the short-barrelled version of the AR-15. I enjoy shooting it recreationally. I have no intention of ever using it to commit a crime (and it would be too unwieldy to use anyway).

Am I the donut-eating pussy you're referring to?

[kalian]

6. I guess that poster can only resort to name calling....

I too own an M4 and shoot it only at the range. I don't have the
intention of using it for a crime but for self-defense, maybe. I
would much rather prefer my Mossberg 550... ;)

[slackmaster]

4. None of my assault weapons were assault weapons when I bought them

They became "assault weapons" by legislative fiat. I bought them for target shooting and collector's interest (technical and financial).

Am I one of those "pimply faced Krispy Kreme eating pussies" because of legislative actions over which I had no control?

Please come right on out and tell me exactly what you think.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Lefty48197]

13. Sounds like the NRA lies

"There is virtually no difference in what you call an assault weapon, and grandpa's deer rifle"? Are you serious? And, do you actually expect us to believe that?
The most common firearms used for hunting deer, if not shotguns, are either 30-30's or .306's.
Last time I checked, you couldn't screw a silencer onto the end of grandpa's deer rifle. Nor could you lob grenades with it. Flash suppressors? Multi-round magazines? Not on my grandpa's deer rifle. Do you hunt deer with a .223 or a TEC 9? If so, then I think you are in a very small minority.
Suggesting that AR 15's or TEC 9's are no different than grandpa's deer rifle, are just plain wrong at best, and an outright lie at worst. I won't suggest which one is the case.

[FeebMaster]

15. What's stopping anyone from putting a silencer on

your average hunting rifle? Other than the prohibitive cost? There might be laws against hunting while using a silencer, but you could still use the rifle with a silencer, you just couldn't hunt with it.

[OpSomBlood]

16. Nothing.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of metalworking could very easily thread a barrel and construct a supressor themselves.

[slackmaster]

23. A threaded barrel is not necessary for a sound suppressor installation

Although most do screw on, there are many other ways to attach them.

[flaminlib]

17. No, its just the facts

"Are you serious? And, do you actually expect us to believe that?"

You should. Caliber, velocity, and knockdown power are actually greater in most hunting rifles than in what you term an assault weapon.


"The most common firearms used for hunting deer, if not shotguns, are either 30-30's or .306's."

Aside from that info being out of date, are you aware that the 30-06 is more powerful than most "assault weapons"? Flater shooting, higher velocity, and most accurate out to 400+ if you are good. Rate of fire distinctions are negligible considering you can buy both calibers in a number of different "configurations" legally post AWB.

Additionally, the 30-06 was the standard caliber for all military weapons in the first half of the 20 century. Now, I believe .308 is the preferred caliber of sniper rifles. But, both are also a very popular deer caliber and way more lethal. 30-30 has way more punch than any AR 15, out to 100+ yards. Accuracy is of little importance as long as you get anywhere near the vitals. Rate of fire? With my lever action (94 Winchester for those who are interested), probably 5 rounds in 10 seconds if Im hustling.

The less powerful military calibers available in what you refer to as "assault rifles" are mostly .223 like in the M16 or the civilian AR 15. Not as powerful by any stretch of the imagination. They are effective to be sure, but they are designed for very fast, flat, accurate shots out to....500?? I could be off there.


"Last time I checked, you couldn't screw a silencer onto the end of grandpa's deer rifle. Nor could you lob grenades with it."

The AWB didnt prevent that. That is legislation that passed in the 30's. You cant screw a silencer onto anything legally. Grenades? Good luck finding that pre AWB or post AWB.


"Flash suppressors? Multi-round magazines? Not on my grandpa's deer rifle. Do you hunt deer with a .223 or a TEC 9?"

Flash suppressors are meaningless. Unless you are sniper that is. No criminal would bother to use a flash suppressor even if they were available pre AWB. Nor do they make the weapon any more lethal.

Multi round mags.. oh yes. Dads 50's era 308 has a 4 round mag. Most deer rifles do. Perhaps your grandpa is shooting a single shot, but I doubt it.

I hunt with a 308, muzzleloader during season, and a 300 weatherby when I need to reach out and touch something. A 223 would be a bit underpowered for deer; its possible but I wouldnt recommend going that light.

"Suggesting that AR 15's or TEC 9's are no different than grandpa's deer rifle, are just plain wrong at best, and an outright lie at worst. I won't suggest which one is the case."

Im not suggesting they are absolutely similar. Im suggesting you have been duped by the propaganda and probably are not aware of the real distinctions as to what makes a weapon more or less lethal. Yes, an AR 15 looks very different to my 308. But my 308 is no less lethal out to 350 yds. In fact is nearly guarantees a kill if it gets anywhere near the vitals. Not the case with an AR 15.

You really should look into what the AWB really does more closely. You will find that their are no easy answers, only easy scare tactics. Please dont get caught up in the propaganda, it makes no one safer.

[slackmaster]

21. Threaded muzzles and grenade launchers don't matter at all

Because sound suppressors and grenades are not easily available. They're as tightly controlled as machine guns.

[TexasMexican]

25. "Grandpa's Deer Rifle" can probably be more deadly than Assault Rifles

"The most common firearms used for hunting deer, if not shotguns, are either 30-30's or .306's."

.30-06 or .308s IMO are more deadly than .223 than an AR-15 uses.

"Last time I checked, you couldn't screw a silencer onto the end of grandpa's deer rifle. Nor could you lob grenades with it. Flash suppressors? Multi-round magazines?"

Hmm lets take a look at two "deer rifles," one chambered for .30-06 and .308.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1-garand.shtml

The M1 Garand. Has a bayonet Lug, you can launch rifle grenades with it. It has a multiple round magazine. Fires the .30-06 round.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml

The M1A chambered for .308. I think it has a flash supressor or can be fitted with one. and has a multiple round magazine.

"Suggesting that AR 15's or TEC 9's are no different than grandpa's deer rifle, are just plain wrong at best, and an outright lie at worst."

You are both right and wrong, I would rather have either of the two "deer rifles" that I have shown above, as I consider both the AR-15 and the Tec-9 as trash when compared to those fine rifles.

However all of these firearms are capable of doing the same thing, they can all kill.

[OpSomBlood]

26. Amen.

"Assault rifles" and "legitimate hunting rifles" operate the exact same way...a pin strikes a primer, igniting the powder which propels a bullet through a spiral-grooved barrel. They are the same approximate size. They are capable of the same rate of fire.

The AWB can be summed up in five words: Ban the scary-looking ones.

[MrSandman]

8. The same as the merits of...

Allowing RW hate groups to peacefully march even when you disagree.

[Baclava]

9. The Ain'ts suck

[OpSomBlood]

10. Yep.

We sure are enjoying the running back they gave us. Go Fins.

[OpSomBlood]

7. AWB quote

"Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control." - Washington Post, 9/15/94

[Lefty48197]

11. If you support the AWB, then you're just like Adolph Hitler

and you're anti-American. You hate freedom, mom, and apple pie. You're also a communist, and you trample the Constitution.
How's that for debate?

[slackmaster]

12. Not bad

Right up there with "If you oppose the AWB you want to see as many innocent kids killed as possible."

[OpSomBlood]

14. LOL, I think.

Are you kidding?

[MrBenchley]

18. Hey, here's proof....

These are the sort of shitheels who know the "truth" about why the AWB is no good....we even had an "enthusiast" dredge them up out of the cesspool...

http://www.stentorian.com/

[OpSomBlood]

20. Pretty infantile.

I posted a link to their site because they were hosting an image of Dianne Feinstein handling an "assault rifle" in a dangerous manner. If you can quote where I endorsed that site as representative of my views, you get a lollipop.

I find you utterly incapable of level-headed debate, Benchley. You'd rather stereotype everyone pro-gun as insane degenerates and ignore the posts that refute you.

Whatever toots your horn, man.

[MrBenchley]

24. Geeze, I'm not the one running away from his source

"If you can quote where I endorsed that site as representative of my views"
Jeeze, one of us linked to it and announced that "responsible gun owners here" should check it out--and that sure as shit wasn't me.

"You'd rather stereotype everyone pro-gun as insane degenerates"
Geeze, it sure as shit isn't me dredging turds out of every right wing cesspool on the web and trying to pretend they're bonbons...that would be the RKBA crowd. All I do is point out your playmates.

[MrSandman]

27. Gee, bench, at least look at their pics...

[MrBenchley]

28. Why?

Because somebody who posts crap like "How the left wing of the Democratic Party tried to steal the 2000 elections" or "Keeping Blacks dependent and subservient: the Democrat Left's kinder, gentler slave plantation" suddenly turns honest when it comes to his gun fetish?

[MrSandman]

19. Godwin's Law now in effect

[slackmaster]

22. Let's go for McFeeb's too

I want my tactical nuke RIGHT NOW!

:freak: