Resolution 1022

There is a new Assault Weapon Ban bill in the House.

Despite the fact that rifles (which this bill targets) are used in less than 2% of gun related crimes, and that the previous ban did nothing to lower gun crime rates, this stupid political football is making the go-around again.

It revives the old ban (no high-cap magazines) and is even more restictive. Semi-auto rifles cannot have more than one of any of the following features (rather than the two under the original AWB):

Detachable Magazine
Pistol Grip
Forward Grip
Folding or Telescoping Stock
A Threaded Barrel
A Barrel Shroud (No one even knows what this is, right now it assumed the mean heat shields. However, in its current form it could be interpreted to include handguards and accessory rails)

This basically bans AR-15's, AK's, FAL's, G3's, and a number of other guns outright.

There is also a provision to ban some rifles by name. These are:

Ruger Mini-14
M1 Carbines
Saiga Rifles and Shotguns
SKS rifles with detachable magazines
Hi-Point Carbines

There is also ANOTHER provision that can ban semi-auto rifles originally designed for Law Enforcement or Military use (like the M1 Garand).

Any parts that make an "assault weapon" are treated like a fully assembled firearm.

Lastly, "assault weapons" cannot be sold privately, they must be transferred through a dealer. High capacity magazines cannot be sold WITH an "assault weapon," but can be transferred seperately.

If you don't agree with this you need to contact your representatives and tell them! Remind them of what happened after the '94 ban was passed, and that this resolution doesn't do anything to actually prevent crime, it merely punishes law abiding citizens.

If this makes it out of the house there is still a chance it could get killed in the Senate. If it makes it to Bush's desk you can bet it is getting passed though. He had said he would reinstate the '94 ban if it came to him for renewal in 2004, and you can bet he would sign this if it meant he could get some support for his little soiree in Iraq.

If you think this is going to pass, now is the time to get the stuff that you want. If it starts to look like this might have a chance dealers are going to spike their prices, 500% would be a low end bet. Buy the rifles (and Saiga shotguns) you want now, because if this goes through you will likely never have another opportunity. Get the high capacity magazines too, for both rifles and any auto-pistols you plan on buying.

Hopefully this thing gets killed, and another nail gets hammered in the coffin of sensationalist gun control.

The bill has no co-sponsors and is likely to never make it out of the House Judiciary Committee. Regardless, I have already contacted my representative about this, considering he is on that very committee.

All of your weapons will soon be replaced by... walkie-talkies!

Bloodshedder said:

The bill has no co-sponsors and is likely to never make it out of the House Judiciary Committee.

When it was brought up last year it sat without co-sponsors for a month and then gained 94. There is the strong possibility that this bill is being sat on for the moment while the new house is working on Iraq, and will be brought up when they aren't so preoccupied.

At least one representative contacted responded that he believed that the bill could make it out of the Judiciary committee this time around.

I'm not exactly sure how to contact my State representative :-/

I live in NY BTW.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

EDIT: New York has its own AWB, so you guys are SOL on high-cap mags anyway. This new AWB is a hell of alot more strict, however, as it tries to ban specific rifles rather than just some general features.

Unless there is some miracle, we here in Illinois are getting hit with a state AWB too. I just hope that I can get a CMP carbine before the law is on the books.

I'm not worried about hi-cap mags...it's not like I can't get them if I wanted to.

I hear it is more likely that a cop would be attacked by a tiger or struck by lightning before he would meet a bad guy on the street using one of these weapons in anytown USA.

It is amazing that these guys can't focus on the really important issues like feeding the poor, Medical coverage issues, and decent schools for everyone. These issues should not exist in America. Sheesh!

edit:typo

Searcher said:

It is amazing that these guys can't focus on the really important issues like feeding the poor, Medical coverage issues, and decent schools for everyone. These issues should not exist in America. Sheesh!

When has a politician ever cared about real issues?

There are hundreds of areas in the U.S. that are completely ill-prepared to deal with natural disasters due to shoddy infrastructure and poor planning. Some of these areas would make New Orleans after Katrina look like a cakewalk, yet nothing is being done to reinforce and upgrade them.

A great example is an area just south of Sacramento California, where dikes have been put up to drain an estuary (sound familiar?). In these lowlands there is a suburb of 80,000 people. Even worse, this location supplies 2/3's of California's fresh water supply.

The dikes that hold back the sea are made of sand and peat, and are in disrepair. Any substantial Earthquake has a strong chance of breaching these sea-walls, flooding the town and eliminating the water supply.

Americans and their weapons - a highly disturbing mixture. Do you really want to kill yourselves with this shit? It certainly looks that way judging from your responses.

What the hell are you talking about?

Rifles are involved in less than 2% of gun related crimes, so called "assault weapons" (obviously trying to play off the term assault rifle, which these are not; select-fire weapons are already NFA) a fraction of that.

These "assault weapons" were banned before too, which did absolutely nothing to reduce the crime rate.

There is no legislation currently against the cheap pistols (aka "Saturday Night Specials") which make up the majority of guns used in crime, which is pretty telling.

What would you do with assault weapons anyway?

That's my point. If you can't get rid of all weapons it's at least start to get rid of the ones you can!

Er, whats wrong with banning them. People say "it doesn't decrease the crime, so whats wrong with having them" but explain to me what the fuck one would go about doing with them besides killing or wounding shit.

I don't know, maybe pointing the more accurate rifle at a killer with pistol? Sounds all right. But if big guns are to be banned from civilians/non-cops, so should the pistols...

I've long been torn on the idea of gun control. Sure, if you restrict the sales of firearms, you may save a few hundred lives over the course of a few years. On the other hand, a well-armed population is one that can defend itself against government-instigated genocide and door-to-door ethnic cleansing (the type of which we've seen in Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even today in Sudan). Not only that, but a well-armed population would likely stop a genocide attempt before it even starts, as the death armies would otherwise be facing certain doom.

What to think, what to think...

Graf Zahl said:

Americans and their weapons - a highly disturbing mixture. Do you really want to kill yourselves with this shit? It certainly looks that way judging from your responses.

Not all americans want weapons or want others with these kinds of weapons. In fact, I wouldn't even say it's the majority.

Graf Zahl and his overbroad generalizations - a highly disturbing mixture.

AndrewB said:

I've long been torn on the idea of gun control. Sure, if you restrict the sales of firearms, you may save a few hundred lives over the course of a few years. On the other hand, a well-armed population is one that can defend itself against government-instigated genocide and door-to-door ethnic cleansing (the type of which we've seen in Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even today in Sudan). Not only that, but a well-armed population would likely stop a genocide attempt before it even starts, as the death armies would otherwise be facing certain doom.

What you explained above is exactly why that the Government wants to restrict guns so they could easily control/slaughter their subjects with overwhelming power....

*Insert standard post about "why would you want an assault rifle in your home in a relatively secure first world country anyway?" here*

Och, i gave up caring about gun control in the US ages ago, don't see why i should care as i don't live there (well unless the handful of scummy "commentators" who want Britian to become part of the USA as "we're basically the same these days anyway, and it would be better than being in the EU!" has thier way)

So I may not be able to buy an AR15 in the future once (if) I move out to the country. That sucks but I don't really feel strongly one way or another. I would only use it for target practice and self defense anyways.

Why do we need semi-automatic rifles?

Why do we need motorcycles?

A motorcycle is just an engine with two wheels and a seat attached. It has no legitimate transportation purpose. The only use for a motorcylce is racing, which is illegal on public roads. 4000 people die each year in the United States in motorcycle accidents. There are motorcycle gangs that engage in illegal activities like drug running and commit habitual violence.

Motorcyles need to be banned!



Let us start by looking at what an "assault weapon" is. It is a politically fabricated term, there is no technical description of an assault weapon. At this point in time semi-automatic rifles are reffered to as "assault weapons", although the term has also been used to describe pump-action firearms and even centerfire bolt action rifles. As stated before, it is a play on the term assault rifle, which is a select fire (i.e. fully automatic or burst capable) carbine chambered in an intermediate rifle cartridge.

Despite uninitiated opinion, many of these rifles do have legitimate purposes. The AR-15 and M1a dominate service rifle competitions. The M1 Carbine also has its own competitive class.

Many of these rifles are popular in Practical-Style shooting competitions, like Multi-Gun. Not every type of target shooting involves being proned out, taking a minute and a half per shot.

These guns are used for hunting also. SKS carbines are popular with hunters constrained by budgets, as they are one affordable rifles. The AR-15 is one of the premier varmint and predator hunting rigs. The .308 rifles are perfectly serviceable for hunting game up to the size of elk.

Also, why can't someone just own a rifle for fun at the range? Do you bitch at someone who owns a sports-car because it can only be used to its fullest potential by breaking the law?

I think it is rather ironic that these sentiments are coming from people who are fans of what has been called a "murder simulator." Why would we want to play a game that involves killing people? There are plenty of non-violent games out there.

This AWB doesn't just target military style rifles. It is worded such that any semi-automatic rifle can be classed an assault weapon and banned. And that is only the beginning. Anti-Second Amendment groups have already started campaigns against all centerfire rifles, saying that they are armor piercing sniper rifles. If this legislation is passed you can bet that there are more that will enter the pipeline behind it, trying to eliminated all forms of private firearms ownership.

Dr. Zin said:

Why do we need semi-automatic rifles?

Why do we need motorcycles?

A motorcycle is just an engine with two wheels and a seat attached. It has no legitimate transportation purpose. The only use for a motorcylce is racing, which is illegal on public roads. 4000 people die each year in the United States in motorcycle accidents. There are motorcycle gangs that engage in illegal activities like drug running and commit habitual violence.

Motorcyles need to be banned!

As analogies go, that was really quite poor. I'm fairly certain motorcycles have far more practical applications in everyday life than firearms do.

AndrewB said:

I've long been torn on the idea of gun control. Sure, if you restrict the sales of firearms, you may save a few hundred lives over the course of a few years. On the other hand, a well-armed population is one that can defend itself against government-instigated genocide and door-to-door ethnic cleansing (the type of which we've seen in Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even today in Sudan). Not only that, but a well-armed population would likely stop a genocide attempt before it even starts, as the death armies would otherwise be facing certain doom.

What to think, what to think...

What to think?

Apparently America is more retarded than I considered possible.

(Not all of America of course but apparently far too much...)

DooMAD said:

As analogies go, that was really quite poor. I'm fairly certain motorcycles have far more practical applications in everyday life than firearms do.

I think it's a fair analogy. Besides, motorcycles contribute to global warming and the War for Oil.

Nightmare Doom said:

What you explained above is exactly why that the Government wants to restrict guns so they could easily control/slaughter their subjects with overwhelming power....

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that defends us from carpet-bombing or napalm.

DooMAD said:

As analogies go, that was really quite poor. I'm fairly certain motorcycles have far more practical applications in everyday life than firearms do.

At least here in America they are for the most part very expensive toys. Riders use them for either joyriding or as transport to various cycle-conventions. My aunt and uncle are both active in the motorcycle subculture, and they only use their bikes for pleasure rides. Hell, when they go to conventions they put the cycles in a trailor because they are too uncomfortable over long distances.

In Europe a motorcycle is more useful, due to better city planning and advantages in parking, storage, gasoline usage, and I beleive in most European countries they are taxed less than automobiles.

In America most of these advantages are non-existant. Basically, 99% of motorcycle owners in the U.S. also own a car, and the motorcycle is just for entertainment.

Firearms do have many uses in the rural areas of the United States, particularly among farmers doing pest control. Many livestock farmers need to shoot coyotes that are preying on juvenile animals, and varmint guns are used to eliminate burrowing animals like ground-hogs and gophers that leave tunnel networks in pastures, which can result in livestock breaking legs.

Also, firearms are needed to control the white-tailed deer population. When the European derived inhabitants of the U.S. killed off all of the large predators the white-tailed deer population exploded. When left unchecked deer a large deer population will destroy crops, and also starvation and other effects of overpopulation. Although farmers for the most part do not directly hunt the deer (although in some extremely severe situations they are issued permits to cull them), hunters keep the population in check and thus protect the crops and manage the environmental impact of these animals.

Graf Zahl said:

What to think?

Apparently America is more retarded than I considered possible.

(Not all of America of course but apparently far too much...)

You know, you could present yourt arguments in a civilized manner and say "I strongly disagree with you," but instead you act like an elitist prick.

Dr. Zin said:

Firearms do have many uses in the rural areas of the United States, particularly among farmers doing pest control. Many livestock farmers need to shoot coyotes that are preying on juvenile animals, and varmint guns are used to eliminate burrowing animals like ground-hogs and gophers that leave tunnel networks in pastures, which can result in livestock breaking legs.

Also, firearms are needed to control the white-tailed deer population.

Of course, I doubt an assault rifle is needed to weed out pests and deer. Sure, you could argue it's convenient to have a rifle you don't have to reload after every shot. And no, I'm not supporting the bill.

GGG said:

Of course, I doubt an assault rifle is needed to weed out pests and deer. Sure, you could argue it's convenient to have a rifle you don't have to reload after every shot. And no, I'm not supporting the bill.

The problem is banning "assault weapons" sets a precedent, and as I stated before Anti-2A groups are already starting to paint all centerfire rifles as "armor piercing sniper rifles."

GGG said:

Of course, I doubt an assault rifle is needed to weed out pests and deer. Sure, you could argue it's convenient to have a rifle you don't have to reload after every shot. And no, I'm not supporting the bill.

Well, when I think assault rifle, I think fully automatic weapon. We're talking about semi-automatics here.

GGG said:

Of course, I doubt an assault rifle is needed to weed out pests and deer. Sure, you could argue it's convenient to have a rifle you don't have to reload after every shot. And no, I'm not supporting the bill.

Assault rifles (as already defined as a carbine with select-fire capability firing an intermediate cartridge) are already highly regulated, much like machine guns. You need a Class III firearms license to get them, which means very extensive background checks, very expensive transfer payments, and very permissive abilities of the BATF to search your house at any time for any purpose.

Assault weapon is a politically made-up term referring to a semiautomatic firearm that essentially looks "mean". AR-15-type rifles, not to mention the Mini 14 and other similar rifles, are quite popular in hunting. These are both semiautomatic carbines/rifles, and, if you want to use the term, "assault weapons".

Bolt-action rifles only need to have the bolt cycled after every shot, as they have an internal magazine usually holding five rounds or more. Only Single-shot rifles need to be "reloaded" after every shot.