Assault Rifle ban is over...

dadx2mj · Post by **dadx2mj** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:31 am

It was a worthless ban anyway. It did little if anything to keep assault rifles out of the hands or criminals. Gun makers easily got around it with some very simple changes to their guns.

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:59 am

Here in California we still have the ban (state law), but I doubt it did anything to stop the sale of these weapons.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:59 am

All I can say is the majority of police chiefs in the country supported it, and expressed their unhappiness that it was lapsing.

But I suppose they don't know anything about guns....

MK888 · Post by **MK888** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:13 pm

It was feel good legislation.... The availability of "assault weapons" was really not affected. All it did was make them more expensive.

blade · Post by **blade** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:37 pm

I'm shocked that my one brother isn't in that line (or maybe that's him looking at the camera).

But he'll have 3-4 by the weekend.

TruckStuff · Post by **TruckStuff** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:14 pm

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
All I can say is the majority of police chiefs in the country supported it, and expressed their unhappiness that it was lapsing.

But I suppose they don't know anything about guns....

Its just like the anti-spam and anti-spyware legislation they are trying to pass: an ill-concieved program designed by people who know nothing about the subject matter to make themselves feel important and/or look good to there constituents. Pretty useless otherwise.

All that being said, I don't really see how this ban was a bad thing in the first place. Seriously: does anyone really think that "outlawing" the manufacturer of "assault" rifles impeded the second ammendment that much? Don't get me wrong, I'm a hunter and gun owner and am generally opposed to anti-gun legislation. But these aren't exactly pea-shooters we're talking about here.

Red Dawn · Post by **Red Dawn** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:37 pm

Originally posted by TruckStuff
Its just like the anti-spam and anti-spyware legislation they are trying to pass: an ill-concieved program designed by people who know nothing about the subject matter to make themselves feel important and/or look good to there constituents. Pretty useless otherwise.

All that being said, I don't really see how this ban was a bad thing in the first place. Seriously: does anyone really think that "outlawing" the manufacturer of "assault" rifles impeded the second ammendment that much? Don't get me wrong, I'm a hunter and gun owner and am generally opposed to anti-gun legislation. But these aren't exactly pea-shooters we're talking about here.

Isn't the purpose of the second ammendment to enable the public to own guns in case we needed to over throw a corrupt government? It would be much easier with assault and automatic weapons

MK888 · Post by **MK888** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:52 pm

Isn't the purpose of the second ammendment to enable the public to own guns in case we needed to over throw a corrupt government? It would be much easier with assault and automatic weapons

That was one of a couple of reasons. The second was for defense of the nation. Back in the time of the writing of the constitution, there really was no national army. It was the minuteman that won the revolution. The nation had no money to supply an army either, so it was up to the minuteman to provide his own arms.

Red Dawn · Post by **Red Dawn** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:44 pm

Originally posted by MK888
That was one of a couple of reasons. The second was for defense of the nation. Back in the time of the writing of the constitution, there really was no national army. It was the minuteman that won the revolution. The nation had no money to supply an army either, so it was up to the minuteman to provide his own arms.

So now the only valid reason is to overthrow a corrupt government? Good enough for me!

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:00 pm

Mines in the mail!

nitro237 · Post by **nitro237** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:42 am

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
All I can say is the majority of police chiefs in the country supported it, and expressed their unhappiness that it was lapsing.

But I suppose they don't know anything about guns....

The majority of police chiefs have to be politically correct , especially the ones in the larger cities that get quoted . And that would be the politically correct thing to say .

But I suppose I don't know anything about guns and police....

Lmandrake · Post by **Lmandrake** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:27 am

Political correctness? Don't make that assumption just because you think everything is a result of being P.C. Every cop in the US has seen the video from that L.A. bank heist where two guys with assault weapons held off about 30 cops with pistols. Thank god they only wounded some of the cops and didn't kill any. That footage helped to pass the law in the first place.

A police chief who supports an assault weapons ban is sending a message to his troops - a law that helps to keep these weapons away from the bad guys is good thing because it may put my people at less risk.

Hobbies are hobbies and to each his own, but I don't understand why anybody wants to own these things anyway. They cost a ton of money, they aren't for hunting, not good for self protection and the best thing you can do with them is take them out somewhere and pop off a few rounds....

Personally, I agree with those people who are big on original intent. That way the second amendment would guarantee me the right to have any weapon needed to overthrow the gov't or defend against foreign powers. That M1A1 tank probably doesnt' come with a rebate, but it would be great for making parking spaces at the mall between christmas and thanksgiving.

TheSovereign · Post by **TheSovereign** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:35 am

the weapons those robbers had were still available after the ban....maybe you didnt know that, now u do and knowing is half the battle

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:43 pm

I'll put this out in the field:

I have a lot of friends who are police officers, and they're split 50/50 on this.

Half of them say anything that helps make it any harder to obtain assualt weapons - even a half-ass law - is better than nothing.

The other half are generally gun collectors and ascribe to the NRA paranoia about not desiring to have any "foot in the door" weapon ban laws.