View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3262. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,021 61.96%
  • No

    1,241 38.04%
  1. #7421
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,206
    If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.

  2. #7422
    Brewmaster Roxinius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.
    you gotta realize man most anit gun people cant tell the difference from a semi auto weapon and an assault rifle i agree this ban is pretty stupid i own the 416 and mp5 clones made by Umarex in 22lr

  3. #7423
    I guess Piers and his incompetent research staff cant find anything.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ding-an-ar-15/

    Person who defended his house with an AR. He needs to take his ass back across the water and stay there.

    You should look at this site. These are the people that the antigun posters in the forum want us to disarm and have protect us. If anything we need to protect ourselves from them also.
    http://www.policemisconduct.net/
    Last edited by ugotownd; 2013-01-27 at 05:52 AM.

  4. #7424
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxinius View Post
    you gotta realize man most anit gun people cant tell the difference from a semi auto weapon and an assault rifle i agree this ban is pretty stupid i own the 416 and mp5 clones made by Umarex in 22lr
    How, exactly, do you define an anti-gun person? I've been in this thread primarily arguing against the ban, but I sure wouldn't describe myself as "pro-gun".

  5. #7425
    I am Murloc! Lemonpartyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ironforge
    Posts
    5,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    How, exactly, do you define an anti-gun person? I've been in this thread primarily arguing against the ban, but I sure wouldn't describe myself as "pro-gun".
    I would assume it would mean someone who is against people owning specific guns, maybe just against a "less regulated" system.

    I would think you don't have to pick "pro-gun" or "anti-gun." It doesn't always have to be us versus them. Personally I would call you neutral in this discussion, or a person in favor of liberties afforded by the constitution maybe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Horizon View Post
    Stupid! New things are always much better then the old things...
    New Star wars > old Star wars (crappy special effects anyone lol!)
    Justine Beiber > the beatles (shitty copycats music lol!)
    Twilligt > dracula, do I even need to comment loooool
    yea its probably nostalgia

  6. #7426
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I think last time the arguments were somewhere along the lines of "they aren't used very often so let's ignore them even though it's a deadly weapon of war".
    So you want to ban pistols too? Those are just as deadly... They have the same firing rate...

    Why don't you just take all the guns from the law abiding citizens so we have no way to defend ourselves from home invasions/gangs.
    Last edited by Rajadog20; 2013-01-27 at 06:11 AM.
    The Art of War- FT 4/4 EE 4/5
    R80

  7. #7427
    this is so fucking sad. I cant even imagine losing one child.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/d...o-day-18326354
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." -Hunter S. Thompson

  8. #7428
    Bloodsail Admiral PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazara View Post
    Guns are not a "small" percentage in crimes.
    He wasn't referring to "guns". He was referring to "assault weapons", the potential ban of which this thread is all about. Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of all firearms homicides. And banning assault weapons would likely have an unnoticeable impact, considering that criminals intent on shooting someone would, in all likelihood, just get an assault weapon illegally or else use a handgun to the same effect.

    I mean, handguns are already used in 90% of all firearm homicides. Trying to argue that assault weapons are more dangerous than handguns seems ridiculous.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 09:58 AM ----------

    So the full text of Feinstein's proposed bill is up, including her list of 2224 exempted firearms. I guess she's being pretty lenient, huh, exempting that many firearms from the ban?

    No, not really.

    Of those 2224 firearms, only 305 are even semi-automatic. And since her bill only applies to semi-automatics, how are the multitudes of slide-action, pump-action, bolt-action, lever-action, single shot, over/under, and side-by-side firearms that she lists here "exempted" when they were never under threat of the ban in the first place?

    Of the remaining 305 semi-automatic firearms, 224 of them are shotguns, leaving only 81 semi-automatic rifles. And 48 of those are rimfire rifles, which not even California included in their 1989 ban.

    So yes, that list includes a whopping 33 semi-automatic centerfire rifles, none of which even meet the criteria for an assault weapon anyway. So again, how can these be "exemptions" if they are never included in the ban in the first place?

    What's the point of specifically listing 2224 firearms as an exemption to the law, when the law wouldn't even affect them? Clearly it's a smoke-screen designed to make people think that she's being lenient towards said firearms.
    Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2013-01-27 at 06:07 PM.

  9. #7429
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post

    What's the point of specifically listing 2224 firearms as an exemption to the law, when the law wouldn't even affect them? Clearly it's a smoke-screen designed to make people think that she's being lenient towards said firearms.
    That's the exact point. The idea is to make it sound like they aren't "taking away" everything.

    That being said, there are a few on that list which I think you missed. The Ruger 10/22 is called out specifically as exempt and could potentially fall under her bullshit law.

    I don't have the time or effort but I've yet to hear anyone cover the actual "legality" of things. You can take a great deal of these weapons an put them in a different stock. It hasn't been clarified whether or not the weapon is illegal or the stock is illegal.

  10. #7430
    Quote Originally Posted by hakujinbakasama View Post
    That being said, there are a few on that list which I think you missed. The Ruger 10/22 is called out specifically as exempt and could potentially fall under her bullshit law.
    The Mini14 was exempt from the original ban, but it was still not allowed to have the folding stock put on it. The way it works is, there's a specific model/ configuration exempted, so if you change any feature on that (putting a thumbhole stock on your 1022) you're no longer exempt.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 02:25 PM ----------

    "9 ‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,
    10 sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting
    11 interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault
    12 weapon."

    The Commerce Clause, because a gun made in your state and sitting in your safe must be regulated by the federal government because it "may affect interstate commerce" at some point, in theory.

  11. #7431
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    The Mini14 was exempt from the original ban, but it was still not allowed to have the folding stock put on it. The way it works is, there's a specific model/ configuration exempted, so if you change any feature on that (putting a thumbhole stock on your 1022) you're no longer exempt.
    Is that in the law though? And I'm actually being serious. Since I don't work in the industry I'm speculating but I'd assume that the serial number dictates the model and features as well. If they don't, then how does one prove or disprove a Grandfathered weapon?

    I think this is the other half of the argument which gets drowned out a bit. The only way to prove this is to have every serial number on file and for some one somewhere know every piece of kit you already own. That would be the only way to either truly enforce such a measure or to prevent things from being skirted around.

  12. #7432
    The Mini14 is listed as exempt in this one too, actually. (though specifically excluding a "folding stock") The Benelli's M1's are a very popular race-gun, usually they're bumped to 7 or 10 rounds for competition. They come as either 3 or 5.

    As listed, a Benelli M1 is exempt from being an assault weapon. When you add a new feature, I assume it would be "manufacturing an assault weapon" from something that isn't one. The relevant code would be;
    13 ‘‘(E) the importation, sale, manufacture, trans
    14fer, or possession of a firearm specified in Appendix
    15 A to this section, as such firearm was manufactured
    16 on the date of introduction of the Assault Weapons
    17 Ban of 2013.


    If you change it from the version as it was on the date of enactment (1022 compact has wooden regular stock) you lose the exemption.

    So, the same as before, the exemptions listed are guns that are in no way affected by the law to begin with and there is no reason to list them individually. By the same token, it is pointless to list guns that ARE banned, by name, given you're banning them all by feature anyway.

    Even assuming the law wasn't stupid to begin with, the fact they seperate "collapsing stock" as a feature vs "pistol grip" means any shotgun that has an adjustable stock (for length of pull) is an Assault Weapon, even though it is in no way a "military feature".

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 02:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by hakujinbakasama View Post
    Is that in the law though? And I'm actually being serious. Since I don't work in the industry I'm speculating but I'd assume that the serial number dictates the model and features as well. If they don't, then how does one prove or disprove a Grandfathered weapon?
    You can tell when a weapon was made by the date, which for many firearms would be enough (an AR15 is always an assault weapon by their definition, so date is it). The gray area comes in, as you say, when you have a non-AW, which you then change the stock on. Assuming the non-AW was made before the ban, it would be legal to put the other stock on it before the ban, but not after the ban. If you have a gun made before the ban, and install a different stock after the ban, you have "manufactured an assault weapon". So then it becomes about who has the burden of proof.

    Similarly, I bought a 10-22 receiver. (not factory ruger) It had never been assembled as a firearm before. I can therefor assemble it either as a pistol or a rifle. The law dictates that a pistol can be changed to a rifle and back again, without a problem. But, a rifle cannot be converted into a pistol. I built it as a pistol first, didn't care for that setup, so changed it to a rifle. Legally I can change it back to a pistol since that was "first", but how would I prove that it was a pistol first? How would they prove it wasn't?

    The obvious answer of course is, no one gives a shit, only law abiding citizens. No one will investigate claims of you having built an assault weapon illegally, doing the research to see when you purchased which parts, if they even COULD do it. ATF doesn't give a fuck about enforcing the laws on any individual manner, only when they have large cases. If they have some guy building illegal AR's by the dozens, they'll investigate.

    If you're arrested for shooting up some place and they find out you put a collapsing stock on your rifle, they'll tack that charge onto the end, maybe. Even then though, it's unlikely because they'd have to file federally for that. "He killed 12 people, so we're charging him with 12 counts of murder. He will face 12 life sentences. Then, once he's done with that, they'll remand him to federal custody to face 1 count of illegally manufacturing an assault weapon, which carried a penalty of (whatever it is now)."

  13. #7433
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    snip
    This is why I'm against such laws. They honestly make zero rational sense and are a complete jumble of bullshit which will only negatively effect those who are generally doing nothing "wrong."

    I don't know what the "legal" definition of "manufacture" happens to be defined as. If I can swap out a stock by hand, one would think, this would not fall under "manufacture" as it wasn't a process of raw goods nor did it take industrial machines to do. So it's a line of bullshit legal tape which would land in the hands of each individual judge or jury to define, unless there is precedence.

    What is more interesting than all of this is whether or not this could prevent personal fire-arm creation which is already legal in the country. You don't have to register nor serialize self made weapons unless deemed locally as far as I know. So I wonder if they are going to tackle that "issue" as well.

  14. #7434
    Bloodsail Admiral PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,152
    Quote Originally Posted by hakujinbakasama View Post
    Is that in the law though? And I'm actually being serious. Since I don't work in the industry I'm speculating but I'd assume that the serial number dictates the model and features as well. If they don't, then how does one prove or disprove a Grandfathered weapon?

    I think this is the other half of the argument which gets drowned out a bit. The only way to prove this is to have every serial number on file and for some one somewhere know every piece of kit you already own. That would be the only way to either truly enforce such a measure or to prevent things from being skirted around.
    As part of the provisions of this bill:
    (b) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.".
    Besides, firearms dealers are required, by law, to keep a list of all firearms with serial numbers and dispositions, for potential use in a gun trace.


    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    Even assuming the law wasn't stupid to begin with, the fact they seperate "collapsing stock" as a feature vs "pistol grip" means any shotgun that has an adjustable stock (for length of pull) is an Assault Weapon, even though it is in no way a "military feature".
    Any semi-automatic shotgun, at least. It doesn't apply to pump-action shotguns.

    Though speaking about the Ruger Mini-14, I find it ridiculous that the standard Mini-14...



    ...is specifically exempted by name, while another version...



    ...is specifically banned by name, even though they're the same firearm, have the action, the same caliber, the same magazine options. I guess the pistol grip and adjustable stock are really dangerous. Heck, even the thumbhole version...



    ...would be banned as an "assault weapon".
    Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2013-01-27 at 08:12 PM.

  15. #7435
    Stood in the Fire CoolHwip46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kil'Jaeden
    Posts
    377
    sarcasm on:
    people that buy scary guns are gonna use those scary looking guns to kill women and children, didnt you hear? these crimes couldnt be committed with any other type of firearm except tactical looking ones..

    sarcasm off:
    the people changing the laws right now have no clue what theyre talking about when it comes to which guns they want to ban. apparently, its anything they think looks like it would belong in the next war movie. hell, they cant even use proper terminology to describe what theyre trying to get across half the time. if youre like me, and you know quite a bit about guns, its laughable to watch the nightly news and hear the newest bullshit coming in from washington. so many double standards. it feels like theyre intentionally trying to disarm america for some other purpose - but youll never hear that side of the coin on cnn will you?

    hell the post above mine is a perfect example of the double standard and a perfect showcase of them not realizing the difference between two guns that have the same exact capabilities.

    anyone visiting this post that would like a bit of education regarding "assault weapons", i really encourage you to visit this educational website. its very well done and it will only take you 5-10 minutes to educate yourself properly on the subject. if you think you have a valid opinion on the topic but have never even fired a gun, take a look -

    http://www.assaultweapon.info
    Last edited by CoolHwip46; 2013-01-27 at 08:46 PM.
    Why are you putting so much emphasis on the H?
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...n/Ulchi/simple

  16. #7436
    What is the definition of an "assault rifle/weapon"? Someone please explain.

  17. #7437
    Stood in the Fire CoolHwip46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kil'Jaeden
    Posts
    377
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    What is the definition of an "assault rifle/weapon"? Someone please explain.
    http://www.assaultweapon.info

    go there, youll learn quite a bit.
    Why are you putting so much emphasis on the H?
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...n/Ulchi/simple

  18. #7438
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    What is the definition of an "assault rifle/weapon"? Someone please explain.
    Before 1994, an "Assault Rifle" was a descendant of the StG44 platform of design, featuring many common characteristics such as a pistol grip, iron sights, et cetera, but mostly having to do with a fully automatic style of fire. Machineguns were around long before then of course, but the modern military had been changing. Artillery was always a part of warfare, but most "real" landgrabs were still done by taking ground with men with rifles. With WWII, tanks, planes, mortars, those became the standard battle tools. Before then, it was common for a soldier to have a big ass rifle with a bayonet on it, and a pistol, and officers to just have pistols. Carbines (small rifles) could replace rifle and handgun for folks that really didn't need a gun anyway. The Assault Rifle was an evolution of that design, a lightweight, combat rifle that could be used in houses or when the Big Gear wasn't needed.

    In 1994 (well, in California before that, but ignore Cali, they's all whackjobs out that way), the Federal Government of the USA assigned a definition to "semi-automatic assault weapons", which are certain handguns, rifles, shotguns which they decided were more than the common folk needed. The folks drafting the bills knew little about guns, so they used cosmetic features to judge if a gun was "similar to a military gun", thus banning guns with flash suppressors (designed to moderate the amount of flash when rifle rounds are fired), collapsing stocks (note federal limits already assign a designation of "short barreled rifle" and special licensing if it is too small) and other "mean features".

    Since that law was a joke and did nothing except advertise the "lethality" of 'assault weapons", they've now decided that any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip is an assault weapon. Any handgun that has the magazine outside the pistol grip or has a threaded barrel is also an assault weapon. (So yeah, my two beretta's with threaded barrels, or any of the competition guns with threaded barrels to affix a compensator to reduce recoil, those are assault weapons.)

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 04:44 PM ----------

    And of course, because normal gun makers base the number of rounds in the magazine off of the amount that will fit into the size of the grip, 15 rounds was the long time standard for Beretta 92's, SIG 226's, Ruger P89's, S&W 59 series, and any number of other guns out there. Somehow, having as many bullets as your gun holds is now "high capacity" if it holds more than 10.

  19. #7439
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolHwip46 View Post
    http://www.assaultweapon.info

    go there, youll learn quite a bit.
    It was more of a rhetorical question although the site you linked is cool.

    I ask this question because most people have no idea what this term "assault weapon" even means.
    They think it refers to a fully automatic weapon when in reality the government is referring to a semi automatic hunting rifle.

  20. #7440
    Quote Originally Posted by FusedMass View Post
    Anti Gun. He's not against guns. He's again Militarily Style Assault weapons.

    The AR-15 is a lightweight, semi-automatic, military-style rifle that can hold magazines of up to 100 bullets. It can fire more than 120 rounds per minute, depending on how fast its user pulls the trigger. More than three million Americans own an AR-15, making it the most popular rifle in the country, according to CBS.
    And my question is "so what?"

    If you want to talk about barring violent criminals from owning guns, that's fair. If you want to talk about barring ownership of certain guns just because they're scary? That's retarded.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •